Tom,
May I ask you to consider this?
When a water droplet is formed it is a liquid inside a closed surface.
As the droplet falls it gatheres excess energy/ electrical charges via
friction .
Since the the droplet is a closed circuit it is in equilibrium and any
additional charges or excess charges therefore by law must be attached
to the surface of the closed surface.
When the droplet impacts on anything the closed surface opens and
equilibtium is broken
thus releasing the excess charges in the same way a plate capacitor
arcs when equilibrium is broken. I have not read up on static but the
electrical laws that support the above could adequatly describe static
noise from rain. Now getting to snow static I suppose you would have to
go a different way..
Art


f.
Tom Donaly wrote:
J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
... and so we come full circle. One either believes in p-noise or one does
not. It would be unreasonable for someone who has antennas in an urban
environment and some other environments to believe p-noise exists because
they will not experience p-noise.

If one were to live where it never rains (or it never snows), one would
be disinclined to believe rain (or snow) exists. Many years ago (no, I am
sure I have not told this story before) I was asked by a colleague who lived
in a country south of Miami to tell him about snow. Well, I said, it is a
bit like granisado (flavored, shaved ice) without the flavoring (do not eat
the yellow snow) and heaped up everywhere. He was too polite to indicate
his disbelief.

So, what is your religion?

Warm and fond regards, Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message news:Zvzgh.28685


Denny wrote:


It simply was
low static until the moment the first gust of wind swept across our
fields bringing the rain, and huge precip charges on the 130 foot high
antennas...


Sounds like you might believe that precipitation
static exists. :-)

Faith is a powerful force for self-delusion.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH




It never snows around here, but no one disbelieves in snow, Mac.
Cecil's idea of the nature of precipitation static is pretty much
based on what he's made up in his head, and not on measurement and
experimentation. Moreover, he puts words in the mouths of people
who disagree with him, such as the above: if you disagree with him
he'll say you don't _believe_ in p-static, as if it were part of some
ham religion. Actually, it's Cecil's ratiocinations that aren't worth
"believing in." Anyone, even you, can investigate the phenomenon of
p-static with some simple homemade equipment, as I referenced in an
earlier post. Then you can decide for yourself how likely it is that
Cecil's ideas have merit or not.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

art wrote:
...

Yanno, I even have a hard time believing a wilmshurst machine works, but
it does!

Regards,
JS

art wrote:
Tom,
May I ask you to consider this?
When a water droplet is formed it is a liquid inside a closed surface.
As the droplet falls it gatheres excess energy/ electrical charges via
friction .
Since the the droplet is a closed circuit it is in equilibrium and any
additional charges or excess charges therefore by law must be attached
to the surface of the closed surface.
When the droplet impacts on anything the closed surface opens and
equilibtium is broken
thus releasing the excess charges in the same way a plate capacitor
arcs when equilibrium is broken. I have not read up on static but the
electrical laws that support the above could adequatly describe static
noise from rain. Now getting to snow static I suppose you would have to
go a different way..
Art


f.
Tom Donaly wrote:

J. Mc Laughlin wrote:

... and so we come full circle. One either believes in p-noise or one does
not. It would be unreasonable for someone who has antennas in an urban
environment and some other environments to believe p-noise exists because
they will not experience p-noise.

If one were to live where it never rains (or it never snows), one would
be disinclined to believe rain (or snow) exists. Many years ago (no, I am
sure I have not told this story before) I was asked by a colleague who lived
in a country south of Miami to tell him about snow. Well, I said, it is a
bit like granisado (flavored, shaved ice) without the flavoring (do not eat
the yellow snow) and heaped up everywhere. He was too polite to indicate
his disbelief.

So, what is your religion?

Warm and fond regards, Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message news:Zvzgh.28685



Denny wrote:



It simply was
low static until the moment the first gust of wind swept across our
fields bringing the rain, and huge precip charges on the 130 foot high
antennas...


Sounds like you might believe that precipitation
static exists. :-)

Faith is a powerful force for self-delusion.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH



It never snows around here, but no one disbelieves in snow, Mac.
Cecil's idea of the nature of precipitation static is pretty much
based on what he's made up in his head, and not on measurement and
experimentation. Moreover, he puts words in the mouths of people
who disagree with him, such as the above: if you disagree with him
he'll say you don't _believe_ in p-static, as if it were part of some
ham religion. Actually, it's Cecil's ratiocinations that aren't worth
"believing in." Anyone, even you, can investigate the phenomenon of
p-static with some simple homemade equipment, as I referenced in an
earlier post. Then you can decide for yourself how likely it is that
Cecil's ideas have merit or not.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH



It's a theory, Art. Now you have to support it experimentally.
Make, or buy, the equipment to do the
measurements, design some experiments, do them, and see where it all
leads.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Exactly, now look at the new thread where I have enlarged on the
subject so that academics
who sneered at the concept earlier can now re educate them selves by
going back to 101
and start off anew in moving from a subset ,Gausian Law, to the major
subject of radiation and electromagnetics both of which are
interconnected. In my previous thread I went one step further and added
a detuned element to the cluster purely to make the radiation from the
gaussian field into a directive array by choosing the point where the
border would be breached. When academic people refused to accept the
time varying field concept obviously the addition of another element
could not be comprehanded. The new thread reaches only into the
amalgamation of the two subjects where the radiation field is not made
directive which I consider to be a valuable part of antenna engineering
tho by not being in the books
is considerwed to be invalid by all that only rely on books. Anybody
now can prove it for themselves by making a cluster of resonant
elements the normal way and then applying NEC formulated programs to
prove it for themselves. For those who are not equiped to do this from
an academic standpoint I will supply a link that produces a resonant
cluster via convential means which is indeed laborius and they can
substitutute those figures in their program of choice. But doing that
alone is not good enough for the academic minded and I would suggest
that you move forward and apply the above to a dish form of an array
where there is no leakage to the rear from vectors that are redirected
from same to the forward direction. Hopefully that will satisfy your
request
Regards
Art KB9MZ.......XG




Tom Donaly wrote:
art wrote:
Tom,
May I ask you to consider this?
When a water droplet is formed it is a liquid inside a closed surface.
As the droplet falls it gatheres excess energy/ electrical charges via
friction .
Since the the droplet is a closed circuit it is in equilibrium and any
additional charges or excess charges therefore by law must be attached
to the surface of the closed surface.
When the droplet impacts on anything the closed surface opens and
equilibtium is broken
thus releasing the excess charges in the same way a plate capacitor
arcs when equilibrium is broken. I have not read up on static but the
electrical laws that support the above could adequatly describe static
noise from rain. Now getting to snow static I suppose you would have to
go a different way..
Art


f.
Tom Donaly wrote:

J. Mc Laughlin wrote:

... and so we come full circle. One either believes in p-noise or one does
not. It would be unreasonable for someone who has antennas in an urban
environment and some other environments to believe p-noise exists because
they will not experience p-noise.

If one were to live where it never rains (or it never snows), one would
be disinclined to believe rain (or snow) exists. Many years ago (no, I am
sure I have not told this story before) I was asked by a colleague who lived
in a country south of Miami to tell him about snow. Well, I said, it is a
bit like granisado (flavored, shaved ice) without the flavoring (do not eat
the yellow snow) and heaped up everywhere. He was too polite to indicate
his disbelief.

So, what is your religion?

Warm and fond regards, Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message news:Zvzgh.28685



Denny wrote:



It simply was
low static until the moment the first gust of wind swept across our
fields bringing the rain, and huge precip charges on the 130 foot high
antennas...


Sounds like you might believe that precipitation
static exists. :-)

Faith is a powerful force for self-delusion.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH



It never snows around here, but no one disbelieves in snow, Mac.
Cecil's idea of the nature of precipitation static is pretty much
based on what he's made up in his head, and not on measurement and
experimentation. Moreover, he puts words in the mouths of people
who disagree with him, such as the above: if you disagree with him
he'll say you don't _believe_ in p-static, as if it were part of some
ham religion. Actually, it's Cecil's ratiocinations that aren't worth
"believing in." Anyone, even you, can investigate the phenomenon of
p-static with some simple homemade equipment, as I referenced in an
earlier post. Then you can decide for yourself how likely it is that
Cecil's ideas have merit or not.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH



It's a theory, Art. Now you have to support it experimentally.
Make, or buy, the equipment to do the
measurements, design some experiments, do them, and see where it all
leads.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH