Cecil Moore wrote:
chuck wrote:
... understanding of the possibility of
non-coronal precipitation static remains elusive.

Please note that human understanding is not
necessary for something to exist and denying
its existence because of a lack of understanding
doesn't make it go away. It is what it is.

Nicely said, Cecil.

Hope you didn't get the impression I was denying the existence of
non-coronal p-static, or attempting to make it go away. But I hope
you'll agree that to be detected in a receiver, the static has to have a
certain amplitude. We know what that amplitude is and we know the kinds
of charges scientists have measured on precipitation as well as typical
current densities. What is elusive is how the charges get changed into a
detectable signal. Hardly metaphysics, and no more intended to attain
Human Understanding than the application of Ohm's law! ;-)

Actually, I was trying to provide a basis or framework within which
non-coronal static could be analyzed. Except for the unfortunate
paragraph with hypothetical numbers (the sad result of an embarrassing
senior moment) the rest seems a reasonable start.

Will you tell me again how we know that non-coronal p-static exists?
Without that information we need to say "It is what it is iff it
exists", no? ;-)

73,

Chuck









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----