|
Rain Static ?
art wrote:
Cecil, can you state that if an antenna is in the house one would not hear static? I can state that if an antenna is in a closed house one would not hear *precipitation static* which by definition, involves charged particles. Here's the definition. http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_precipitation_static.html But there are lots of other kinds of static. I just heard on The Discovery Channel that a certain percentage of the static we hear is left over from the Big Bang that happened some 12.5 billion years ago. There's lots of static here in East Texas, mostly from lightning and old power line equipment. I have never noticed precipitation static in TX or in CA. But it was overwhelming in the Arizona desert. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Rain Static ?
Cept the Big Bang wasn't...
Looking back in time by looking out into the universe is only partially correct (yes those photons may have traveled 12 billion light years to get here, that does not make them the beginning of the universe, it only makes them as far as we can see at this point in our technology .... There is a force pushing mega amounts of matter (clusters of galaxies) apart in spite of the local gravitational well that by BBT has to be pulling them back together - a force that was absolutely NOT predicted by the BBT nor can be accomodated by it without adding some constants here, removing some there, changing the value of this and tweaking that - and those frantic tweaks again and again are not as a result of calm, cool, theoretical considerations, but because the *^&$#)@! universe is not cooperating!... As a scientific explanation the BBT resembles The House that Topsy Built, only more rickety... And then there is the little complication that there is NOW energy contained in every cubic inch of empty space, and E = MC^2, and -oops- the total weight of the universe has changed 'again', the Hubble constant rolls off into the weeds 'again' ... "Bring me the big erasor, we've got some constants to modify 'again', Earl." denny / k8do |
Rain Static ?
Richard Clark wrote: This is turning into a rice bowl that feeds the multitudes. A tautological vomitorium as it were. :-) ac6xg |
Rain Static ?
On 13 Dec 2006 09:31:00 -0800, "Denny" wrote:
As a scientific explanation the BBT resembles The House that Topsy Built, only more rickety... Hi Denny, Your objection (emblematic of the unquoted ones) has all the hallmarks of Creationist Science. No one can live in that "House" because it is rickety. So live in the street instead? Fine if your neighborhood is the Garden of Eden, but it rains here, and this old house, as rickety as it is - still has a tight roof. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Rain Static ?
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message t... art wrote: Cecil, can you state that if an antenna is in the house one would not hear static? I can state that if an antenna is in a closed house one would not hear *precipitation static* which by definition, involves charged particles. Here's the definition. http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_precipitation_static.html But there are lots of other kinds of static. I just heard on The Discovery Channel that a certain percentage of the static we hear is left over from the Big Bang that happened some 12.5 billion years ago. There's lots of static here in East Texas, mostly from lightning and old power line equipment. I have never noticed precipitation static in TX or in CA. But it was overwhelming in the Arizona desert. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com IMO there seems to be a corellation between how dry the air is before the rain starts and how much static is generated. |
Rain Static ?
Jimmie D wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message t... art wrote: Cecil, can you state that if an antenna is in the house one would not hear static? I can state that if an antenna is in a closed house one would not hear *precipitation static* which by definition, involves charged particles. Here's the definition. http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_precipitation_static.html But there are lots of other kinds of static. I just heard on The Discovery Channel that a certain percentage of the static we hear is left over from the Big Bang that happened some 12.5 billion years ago. There's lots of static here in East Texas, mostly from lightning and old power line equipment. I have never noticed precipitation static in TX or in CA. But it was overwhelming in the Arizona desert. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com IMO there seems to be a corellation between how dry the air is before the rain starts and how much static is generated. For those interested in more than just what springs fully formed from Cecil's mouth: "Detecting the Earth's Electricity" by Shawn Carlson, Scientific American, July 1999. "Getting a Charge Out of Rain" by Shawn Carlson Scientific American, August 1997 Read the articles, build the equipment, use it, and decide for yourself what's going on. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Rain Static ?
Richard Clark wrote in
: On 13 Dec 2006 09:31:00 -0800, "Denny" wrote: As a scientific explanation the BBT resembles The House that Topsy Built, only more rickety... Hi Denny, Your objection (emblematic of the unquoted ones) has all the hallmarks of Creationist Science. No one can live in that "House" because it is rickety. So live in the street instead? Fine if your neighborhood is the Garden of Eden, but it rains here, and this old house, as rickety as it is - still has a tight roof. Ah, another foray into cosmology - and here in a rain static thread! The BBT is indeed venturing further and further into the land of "just so", and reasonable thinking people and not just RWC fundies (who do not think) can legitimately find some problems with it. I still await proton decay. But I have a gut feeling we may not find it........ - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Rain Static ?
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:56:54 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote: "Detecting the Earth's Electricity" by Shawn Carlson, Scientific American, July 1999. "Getting a Charge Out of Rain" by Shawn Carlson Scientific American, August 1997 Excellant sources, Tom. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Rain Static ?
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:56:54 GMT, "Tom Donaly" wrote: "Detecting the Earth's Electricity" by Shawn Carlson, Scientific American, July 1999. "Getting a Charge Out of Rain" by Shawn Carlson Scientific American, August 1997 Excellant sources, Tom. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC The question to me is not whether or not that the phenomenon exist but that it does seem to behave differently at different places at least per the different reports I have heard here and my own personal experience. In some places it is quite common and in other places people are totally unfamilar with it. The latter would have been my case if I had never moved from South Ga. From my perpective it does seem to track humidity or rather the lack of humidity. IS this not correct? |
Rain Static ?
Creationist? Me? Surely you jest, Shirley... I am not superstitious...
Well, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, they say... And in a lifetime of accumulating a little knowledge I have noticed a few things along the way... FIrst mathematics is simply a language, just another way of describing things... And when I was a majors candidate in science I noticed when taking math that equations can describe things that cannot exist in the physical world... I remember one physics course where the instructor, droll fellow by the way, 'proved' that the universe is multidimensional (Fime, Superstring, etc.)... His equations balanced on both sides and therefore it had to be true, so he said... At the same time I was also a majors candidate in the Arts and I had noticed this priceless contribution to another world of language: `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.. . . ', etc... Now I gotta tell ya, as a farm boy from the thumb of Michigan I have pitched my share of manure and know it when I smell it... Lastly, we have to be careful of falling into the trap similar to a former Director of the Patent Office who declared everything important had already been invented... It is easy to simply fall in line with the big names and big reputations declaring that the BBT explains everything and that settles that... There is science and technology yet to come that will find distance, forces and energy in the universe that is likely to turn the BBT onto its ear... So, for the moment I remain a thoughtful agnostic RE the BBT... denny |
Rain Static ?
Jimmie D wrote:
From my perpective it does seem to track humidity or rather the lack of humidity. IS this not correct? Of course that's correct. Take a look at table 2 in the following ESDA web page where there is up to a 60 to one difference in static levels between 25% max RH and 65% min RH: They also say, "Virtually all materials, including water and dirt particles in the air, can be triboelectrically charged." http://www.esda.org/basics/part1.cfm -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Rain Static ?
Denny wrote:
There is science and technology yet to come that will find distance, forces and energy in the universe that is likely to turn the BBT onto its ear... So, for the moment I remain a thoughtful agnostic RE the BBT... Scientists once said space is not empty. Then some other scientists "proved" that space is empty. Now some latter day scientists have pretty much proved that "empty" space is not empty. It is possible that ordinary black holes eventually explode forming mini-universes (like ours?) So maybe it was just a Relatively Medium Bang instead? Would you believe an RMBT? :-) These multiple bubble universes may sometimes collide and indeed there seems to be a section of our universe where the light is blue shifted. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Rain Static ?
Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:56:54 GMT, "Tom Donaly" wrote: "Detecting the Earth's Electricity" by Shawn Carlson, Scientific American, July 1999. "Getting a Charge Out of Rain" by Shawn Carlson Scientific American, August 1997 Excellant sources, Tom. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Thanks, Richard. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Rain Static ?
On 14 Dec 2006 04:51:37 -0800, "Denny" wrote:
Creationist? Me? Hi Denny, The substance of your posting (consistent on this side topic throughout) paints one from event-horizon-to-event-horizon. Examine it and note there isn't any discussion of theory, merely the hint of an alternative's outcome - a Creationist hallmark. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Rain Static ?
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:29:15 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote: The question to me is not whether or not that the phenomenon exist but that it does seem to behave differently at different places at least per the different reports I have heard here and my own personal experience. Hi Jimmie, The difference is, if you have the instruments suggested in these articles offered by Tom, then you have a basis for making determinations. Anything else is the subjectivity of stamp collecting. In some places it is quite common and in other places people are totally unfamilar with it. The latter would have been my case if I had never moved from South Ga. From my perpective it does seem to track humidity or rather the lack of humidity. IS this not correct? Humidity is a correlative, certainly. Temperature and water content are strongly linked, but most of us are only aware of RELATIVE not absolute humidity. Hint: using the right instrument can make a huge difference in this issue of Rain Static. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Rain Static ?
For those interested in more than just what springs fully formed from Cecil's mouth: "Detecting the Earth's Electricity" by Shawn Carlson, Scientific American, July 1999. "Getting a Charge Out of Rain" by Shawn Carlson Scientific American, August 1997 Read the articles, build the equipment, use it, and decide for yourself what's going on. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH I want to thank Tom Donaly for mentioning these articles. I worked very hard of them back when I used to write for Scientific American and I still think these are great resources. "Getting a Charge Out of Rain" is actually my favorite of the projects, and it's one I invite everyone to try. The apparatus described in the article allows one to measure the electric charge on individual drops of rain as they fall in a summer storm. The instrument set a new standard for measuring charges on droplets because the device is intrinsically calibrated. The calibration is achieved by using a precision capacitor. Since the value of the capacitance is precisely known, the charge on the falling drop can be determined by simple geometry and the size of the voltage pulse generated as it falls through the detector. As I understand it, some folks who do these kinds of measurements professionally redesigned their detectors to take advantage of the technique that this article introduced. If you can't find a copy of these articles in your local library, they are available on The Amateur Scientist 3.0 CD-ROM, which is my personal archive of all the articles that ever appeared in The Amateur Scientist department of Scientific American going back to the beginning in 1927. (Over 1000 projects.) You can find it either on Amazon or on my own web site at http://www.brightscience.com |
Rain Static ?
Richard Clark wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 09:31:00 -0800, "Denny" wrote: As a scientific explanation the BBT resembles The House that Topsy Built, only more rickety... Hi Denny, Your objection (emblematic of the unquoted ones) has all the hallmarks of Creationist Science. No one can live in that "House" because it is rickety. So live in the street instead? Fine if your neighborhood is the Garden of Eden, but it rains here, and this old house, as rickety as it is - still has a tight roof. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC On this Richard, we agree completely. tom K0TAR |
Rain Static ?
On 14 Dec 2006 14:48:36 -0800, wrote:
For those interested in more than just what springs fully formed from Cecil's mouth: "Detecting the Earth's Electricity" by Shawn Carlson, Scientific American, July 1999. "Getting a Charge Out of Rain" by Shawn Carlson Scientific American, August 1997 Read the articles, build the equipment, use it, and decide for yourself what's going on. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH I want to thank Tom Donaly for mentioning these articles. I worked very hard of them back when I used to write for Scientific American and I still think these are great resources. "Getting a Charge Out of Rain" is actually my favorite of the projects, and it's one I invite everyone to try. The apparatus described in the article allows one to measure the electric charge on individual drops of rain as they fall in a summer storm. The instrument set a new standard for measuring charges on droplets because the device is intrinsically calibrated. The calibration is achieved by using a precision capacitor. Since the value of the capacitance is precisely known, the charge on the falling drop can be determined by simple geometry and the size of the voltage pulse generated as it falls through the detector. As I understand it, some folks who do these kinds of measurements professionally redesigned their detectors to take advantage of the technique that this article introduced. If you can't find a copy of these articles in your local library, they are available on The Amateur Scientist 3.0 CD-ROM, which is my personal archive of all the articles that ever appeared in The Amateur Scientist department of Scientific American going back to the beginning in 1927. (Over 1000 projects.) You can find it either on Amazon or on my own web site at http://www.brightscience.com Hi Dr. Shawn, I'm glad you've posted here. The link provided offers just exactly what I've been looking for. Thanx. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Rain Static ?
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message t... snip I just heard on The Discovery Channel that a certain percentage of the static we hear is left over from the Big Bang that happened some 12.5 billion years ago. Yes and no. There certainly is something termed galactic noise and most of it has apparently been ricocheting around the cosmos all this time. It was first discovered by Bell Labs scientists using a supercooled microwave amplifier whose noise was higher than expected. They covered the feedhorn and lo! ... The noise dropped! http://www.amsat.org/amsat/archive/a.../msg00336.html retells part of the story. There's no way any of us will be affected by galactic background, however, We'd need a system noise temperature better than 3K (That's 3 Kelvin, not 3,000) to detect it. The best consumer LNA's are way noisier. BTW, some parts of the sky are "hotter" than this background level; if we use a low noise TVRO dish system, we could detect a few star clusters. Of course the sun and the moon can be detected. |
Rain Static ?
After the demise of the old Amateur Scientist column I let my
subscription to The Scientific American lapse and have seen no reason to renew it, since... Now, back OT... After getting home last night I was working on a recalcitrant SG-500 amplifier that wanted to hang up in transmit when keyed by the PTT, but would not hang up when auto sensing of RF drive was used for keying... My son opened it up and we removed some logic chips and using the erasor on a #2 yellow pencil, polished the pins... Whilst he was finishing that I reconfigured the antenna switch box, checked the SWR on the 160 meter array and then proceeded to help him with the amp repair by pointing out that he now did not have a "power on" light on the amp... While he was opening the amp up again patience I'll get to the point in a moment I spun across the bottom of 160 and listened to a weak CW qso going on.. There was very low static and it promised to be a good evening if we could get some QRO back on line... By now he had found the loose connector inside the amp and reseated it... We put the amp back on its shelf and connected up... When he pushed the final coax connector on, the meter on the transceiver went nuts banging from pin to pin and the receiver was making deafening popping noises... "Hey dad, you broke the Orion.", he challenged - he was a bit miffed over having missed replacing the connector on the amp... "Mai non, my slow son.", I corrected... I immediately shut off the power to the Orion and asked him if he had reversed the power leads to the amp... He indignantly insisted he had not... He fetched a VOM (which is what I wanted but was too lazy to get for myself) and proved the polarity was correct... I took the VOM, unscrewed the antenna coax and put the leads across the PL259... There was 340,000 microvolts on the connector... His eyebrows went way up... "What the hey?", he said... "It's blowing rain out there.", I said... "No it's not... It's dead calm out there." "Go look." When he pulled open the side door to the shop he was greeted with a face full of wind and ice cold rain... OK, now to the point: There was roughly 3 minutes from the time I was listening to the weak cw qso to when we unscrewed the coax, and rehooked up to the amp... In that ~3 minutes it went from essentially no static (well OK, S1-2 static on the meter, which on 160 meters is NO static at all) to just this side of blowing out the front end of the receiver... There was no rising static level to herald the approach of a front... 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... denny / k8do |
Rain Static ?
Sal M. Onella wrote:
There certainly is something termed galactic noise and most of it has apparently been ricocheting around the cosmos all this time. It was first discovered by Bell Labs scientists using a supercooled microwave amplifier whose noise was higher than expected. They covered the feedhorn and lo! ... The noise dropped! http://www.amsat.org/amsat/archive/a.../msg00336.html retells part of the story. Yes, that's what the TV documentary was all about. There's no way any of us will be affected by galactic background, however, The same TV documentary said that 1/2 of one percent of the noise on a blank TV screen is caused by background radiation from the Big Bang. I was reporting what they said, not what I had measured. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Rain Static ?
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. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Rain Static ?
Cecil Moore wrote:
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 |
Rain Static ?
Cecil Moore wrote:
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. :-) Cecil: You might enjoy this article: http://www.fiz.uni-lj.si/~gorazd/art...dropcharge.pdf Regards, JS |
Rain Static ?
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net... The same TV documentary said that 1/2 of one percent of the noise on a blank TV screen is caused by background radiation from the Big Bang. I buy that. 3K out of approximately 300K on a linear scale is 1%. If it's 50/50 between Big Bang noise and "other," then 1/2 of one percent is spot on. Thanks. |
Rain Static ?
.... 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 |
Rain Static ?
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 |
Rain Static ?
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. I saw P-static today on the spectrum scope of my IC-756PRO. I bought a new backup battery and am allowing it to power my transceiver to see how long it will last. I tuned it to 1620, WTAW, in College Station, TX. The typical AM pattern showed up on the scope. The display has a memory mode where past signals are remembered in blue while present signals are displayed in green. It started raining and after awhile, I went to check on my transceiver. The display was back to normal as far as the green display but the blue memory display was constant at 5 divisions completely across the 50 kHz covered by the display. The carrier was only one division higher than that blanket of noise caused by the rain. This was 10 dB per division. I heard no thunder today. This evidence should be repeatable for anyone with a spectrum scope on their transceiver. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Rain Static ?
Tom Donaly wrote:
Then you can decide for yourself how likely it is that Cecil's ideas have merit or not. They are not my ideas, Tom. Simply do a web search for precipitation static. There are hundreds of references including the following definition by ATIS, accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Check it out for yourself. http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_precipitation_static.html -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Rain Static ?
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 |
Rain Static ?
art wrote:
... Yanno, I even have a hard time believing a wilmshurst machine works, but it does! Regards, JS |
Rain Static ?
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 |
Rain Static ?
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com