Jim Kelley wrote:
The antenna is still just as
likely to produce precipitation static noise however.

It is unlikely that dissimilar antennas will
produce identical responses to anything including
static.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

The antenna is still just as likely to produce precipitation static
noise however.


It is unlikely that dissimilar antennas will
produce identical responses to anything including
static.

Sorry if I gave that impression. I simply meant that a folded dipole
is just as likely to produce precipitation static noise as a dipole
antenna.

Merry Christmas de AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
I simply meant that a folded dipole
is just as likely to produce precipitation static noise as a dipole
antenna.

Probably not true for a bare-wire dipole Vs a ladder-line folded
dipole. Insulation is one well accepted method of reducing
precipitation static on airplane antennas. In any case, the two
wires in the folded dipole make it different from the single wire
in the dipole.

I'm away from my computer for the moment but consider your capacitor
suggestion. Let's say we have a perfect ground plane and are testing
a dipole Vs a folded dipole. They are in inverted-V configurations so
we can discharge a capacitor between the end of the antenna and
ground. For the dipole, there is only one path to ground through the
receiver. For the folded dipole, there are two paths to ground, one
through the receiver and one to ground. Why won't the charge
applied to the folded dipole divide and take both paths?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

I simply meant that a folded dipole
is just as likely to produce precipitation static noise as a dipole
antenna.


Probably not true for a bare-wire dipole Vs a ladder-line folded
dipole. Insulation is one well accepted method of reducing
precipitation static on airplane antennas. In any case, the two
wires in the folded dipole make it different from the single wire
in the dipole.

Any antenna/receiver combination is likely to be sensitive to
p-static. Some more than others obviously. An indoor, heavily
insulated folded dipole connected to an differential input receiver
would probably not receive much - so I'll give you that one even
though I never claimed it would. Happier now?

I'm away from my computer for the moment but consider your capacitor
suggestion. Let's say we have a perfect ground plane and are testing
a dipole Vs a folded dipole. They are in inverted-V configurations so
we can discharge a capacitor between the end of the antenna and
ground. For the dipole, there is only one path to ground through the
receiver. For the folded dipole, there are two paths to ground, one
through the receiver and one to ground. Why won't the charge
applied to the folded dipole divide and take both paths?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

You seem like a guy who'd pick a fight with his own shadow sometimes,
Cecil.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
I simply meant that a folded dipole
is just as likely to produce precipitation static noise as a dipole
antenna.

... so I'll give you that one even though I never claimed it would. Happier now?

Sorry, I thought you were claiming equal magnitudes of noise for two
dissimilar antennas.

You seem like a guy who'd pick a fight with his own shadow sometimes,

Sorry, I seem to have inferred something you didn't mean to imply.
I believe I can prove the difference in the two antennas using EZNEC
but not until I get back to my home computer.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com