art wrote:
Cecil if a static charge has a time varying field applied by gravity
would it have radiatiatonal
properties and if so would it not be vertically polarised?
Can't be true as it is not printed in a book !

Whoa there, Art. There seems to be confusion between
two topics. As far as I know, there is no obvious
difference between the precipitation static levels
on a horizontal Vs vertical antenna. That this
particular antenna is vertical is mostly irrelevant
to the alleged precipitation static problem. It could
just as easily be happening with a horizontal antenna.

The fact that the noise might be attributed to something
other than precipitation static might involve vertical
polarization but I don't think precipitation static has
much to do with polarization. A wind-driven charged
particle is just as likely to encounter a vertical wire
as a horizontal wire.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
Cecil if a static charge has a time varying field applied by gravity
would it have radiatiatonal
properties and if so would it not be vertically polarised?
Can't be true as it is not printed in a book !

Whoa there, Art. There seems to be confusion between
two topics. As far as I know, there is no obvious
difference between the precipitation static levels
on a horizontal Vs vertical antenna.

Cecil
I am just putting up something for thought

Apparently stacked antennas of the horizontal style can avoid a lot of
static noise
if they disconect the upper array. Could this possibly mean that the
horizontal array will not pick up a vertically phased noise in the near
region. I know nothing in this area but just offering something that
could be discussed.



That this
particular antenna is vertical is mostly irrelevant
to the alleged precipitation static problem. It could
just as easily be happening with a horizontal antenna.

The fact that the noise might be attributed to something
other than precipitation static might involve vertical
polarization but I don't think precipitation static has
much to do with polarization. A wind-driven charged
particle is just as likely to encounter a vertical wire
as a horizontal wire.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

he OP mentioned that the static comes and goes with approaching and
receeding rain fronts... Likely he has a significant component of
coronal discharge... He may PERHAPS reduce the induced noise a bit
with ball on the top of the vertical, a copper float from the toilet
works well, or even a nice capacity hat... NOw this is a topic that
has been roundly beaten within an inch of it's life on other forums,
but perhasps we are bored enough here to go all through it again
groan

denny / k8do

Correct... Everything is known about antennas in America !

Denny wrote:
he OP mentioned that the static comes and goes with approaching and
receeding rain fronts... Likely he has a significant component of
coronal discharge... He may PERHAPS reduce the induced noise a bit
with ball on the top of the vertical, a copper float from the toilet
works well, or even a nice capacity hat... NOw this is a topic that
has been roundly beaten within an inch of it's life on other forums,
but perhasps we are bored enough here to go all through it again
groan

denny / k8do

This topic tends to be provocative. You have heard/read everyone's
opinions/measurements in the past.

What is interesting in F5VJC's account is that the vertical is surrounded by
what may be a good insulator. Additional information that will be of
interest includes:
1. What is in the vicinity of the antenna? How far from exposed
conductors, house, barn, trees, and such. Are objects within ten
wavelengths higher than the antenna?
2. Are guy wires used to support the antenna?

Some contend that P-noise exists and some contend that it does not exist
associated with fixed antennas. F5VJC might be able to add a data point.

73 Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:
"Denny" wrote in message
ups.com...
he OP mentioned that the static comes and goes with approaching and
receeding rain fronts... Likely he has a significant component of
coronal discharge... He may PERHAPS reduce the induced noise a bit
with ball on the top of the vertical, a copper float from the toilet
works well, or even a nice capacity hat... NOw this is a topic that
has been roundly beaten within an inch of it's life on other forums,
but perhasps we are bored enough here to go all through it again
groan

denny / k8do

J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Some contend that P-noise exists and some contend that it does not exist
associated with fixed antennas. F5VJC might be able to add a data point.

Don't know about his static problems but it seems
to me that it doesn't make much difference whether
the antenna is moving or the charged particle stream
is moving. It's all relative. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Denny wrote:
he OP mentioned that the static comes and goes with approaching and
receeding rain fronts... Likely he has a significant component of
coronal discharge... He may PERHAPS reduce the induced noise a bit
with ball on the top of the vertical, a copper float from the toilet
works well, or even a nice capacity hat... NOw this is a topic that
has been roundly beaten within an inch of it's life on other forums,
but perhasps we are bored enough here to go all through it again
groan

The heated part of the discussion was because of
the assertion that precipitation static does not
exist. One only need do a web search for "precipitation
static" to see that it is an accepted, well known, well
defined physical phenomenon.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com