Deni F5VJC wrote:
So, I guess my verical wire is
quite well insulated and certainly not in contact with charged rain.
We've had particularly heavy rainstorms lately in France and this is
definitely rain or rain induced static., starting and stopping in
sympathy with the rain storms very easy to identify.

Is anything about your antenna in contact with charged
rain? Your noise problem might have the same cause
as lightning, i.e. the global atmospheric electrical
circuit. You might be experiencing simple corona
discharge.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, can you state that if an antenna is in the house one would not
hear static?
I seem to remember that when I was at the top of a mountain in a rain
forest I put the antenna inside the car but the noise was S9 plus....
no communication could get thru
Bearing this in mind static noise was radiated to the antenna was it
not? So why cannot a droplet falling at 32 ft per sec sq not produce
radiation or if it impacts a dielectric transfer a electric charge with
curl? Isnt this lightning on a small scale? What I am getting at I
suppose
is if the antenna is protected from the environment and gets static
noise surely it is a radiaated phenomina. IR antennas have never stated
that their antenna was immune to static!


Cecil Moore wrote:
Deni F5VJC wrote:
So, I guess my verical wire is
quite well insulated and certainly not in contact with charged rain.
We've had particularly heavy rainstorms lately in France and this is
definitely rain or rain induced static., starting and stopping in
sympathy with the rain storms very easy to identify.

Is anything about your antenna in contact with charged
rain? Your noise problem might have the same cause
as lightning, i.e. the global atmospheric electrical
circuit. You might be experiencing simple corona
discharge.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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

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

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

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 -

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

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

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

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