Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
OK, lets try to model the fundamental phenomena we're talking about and
try to understand them in terms of simple electrostatic principles. We start with these assumptions: 1. Vertical antenna of length l 2. Antenna grounded at base 3. Ideal RF current sensor at base (i.e., receiver) 4. Complete absence of electrostatic fields except from #5 below 5. A single negative charge Q that can be moved from infinity to actual contact with the antenna. 6. Electromagnetic effects of a moving charge are not considered; they do exist, of course, so reader beware. We start by placing the charge Q at infinity so that there is no net charge on the antenna. As Q is brought near the antenna, its field will cause a redistribution of charges on the antenna. Because the antenna is connected to the earth at its base, a negative charge will flow into the earth from the antenna. This will result in the antenna having a net positive charge Q' such that |Q'||Q| (i.e., the closer the charge is to the antenna, the smaller the difference between Q' and Q, and in the limit, they are equal). The negative charge flowing to earth causes a current to be detected by the RF current sensor at the base of the antenna. As the charge moves closer and ultimately touches the antenna, a movement of exactly -Q into the earth is completed, with the result that the antenna once again has a net charge of zero and from the moment of impact, no further charge redistributions or currents take place. Note that in this model, the signal we hear is actually generated by the approach of the charge, rather than by its actual physical presence on the antenna. (Consider the effect of insulated wire with this model.) This is the specific mechanism in the model by which a charge colliding with the antenna causes a quantifiable current in the receiver. Our objective is to get a handle on the waveshape (risetime, peak, etc.) of this current; i.e., can it be detected by a receiver as a noise impulse? The waveshape of the current pulse will be determined mainly by 1) the magnitude of the charge; 2) the time required for the charge redistribution to propagate through the antenna; and 3) the velocity with which the charge approaches the antenna. We know the magnitude of the charge by construction and assume propagation of the charge redistribution (i.e., we are not talking about charge carrier drift) at the speed of light. The critical element, of course, is the velocity of the charge as it approaches the antenna. The lower its velocity, the longer the risetime of the induced current pulse. If Q is attached to a snowflake with a velocity of one mile per hour, the current peak will be quite low because the charge redistribution will occur over a relatively long time period. But if we assume the charge velocity is so high that the other factors establish risetime, we can estimate some of the interesting pulse parameters. For example, if the antenna is conveniently 1/100 mile long and Q = 1 pC, we get a peak current on the order of 20 uA. If our receiver front end is 50 ohms, that peak current would generate a 1 mV peak voltage pulse with a negligible risetime. (Please check my arithmetic) I think the model shows this to be the highest peak current attainable (under quite unrealistic assumptions). If the rise-time of the current pulse depends on the particle's velocity, then it is not clear how that pulse's peak amplitude can be increased. I'm not persuaded that resonance is relevant, particularly since so much of the noise we are discussing is very broadband. We can explore the number of charges that must arrive in some time window to achieve a given combined pulse magnitude at the receiver. First, however, someone who has not forgotten his math and physics should algebraically relate pulse risetime and peak value to charge velocity. Then we would have an indication of the detectability of a single charge striking an antenna. We could predict the magnitude of the charge and/or the velocity needed to achieve some specified signal level at the input of the receiver. This relationship has not yet been presented and without it, understanding of the possibility of non-coronal precipitation static remains elusive. Are there other approaches to quantitative demonstrations out there? Does someone have an alternative model of how a charge striking an antenna is translated into a detectable signal? Have fun! 73, Chuck ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why Tilt ? - The Terminated Tilted Folded Dipole (TTFD / T2FD) Antenna | Shortwave | |||
T2FD antenna opinions solicited | Shortwave | |||
ABOUT - The "T" & Windom Antenna plus Twin Lead Folded Dipole Antenna | Shortwave | |||
Top-loaded folded monopole? | Antenna | |||
String up folded dipoles for FM? | Antenna |