wrote:
Anyone understanding the basic system at all would understand if the
little charges made noise from transferring charge, that noise would be
at a radio frequency. Anyone looking at what you drew and understaning
what you drew would also understand in order to short the noise energy
at the radio frequency the path would also be required to short the
good signal.

Absolutely false! Good grief, Tom, don't you even understand
impedance transformation? The impedance changes along a
transmission line with reflections. The impedance at the receiver
is NOT the same impedance as exists at the antenna feedpoint.
Since my noise problems were with a G5RV used to receive on 40m,
let's take that as an example.

G5RV dipole---30 ft. 300 ohm matching section--x--coax to RCVR

Let's assume a 50 ohm impedance at point 'x' looking toward
the receiver. What is the impedance at the dipole feedpoint?
Are you capable of that calculation? The 300 ohm matching
section is known to be 1/2WL on 20m so it is 1/4WL on 40m. The
impedance seen at the dipole feedpoint looking back toward the
receiver is therefore ~1800 ohms. A 500 ohm RF choke across the
feedpoint will considerably decrease the RF noise at the receiver.

So, Tom, which way would the RF noise rather flow? Through a
500 ohm RF choke at the feedpoint or down the transmission
line that is exhibiting an impedance of 1800 ohms. I thought
you were kidding but you really are trying to refute Ohm's law.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

wrote:
I was very surprised you didn't think through what you drew and what
you proposed before posting it.

And I am astounded that you would assert that an RF noise
pulse would rather flow into the 1800 ohms looking into
the feedline than to flow through the 500 ohm choke
located at the feedpoint. Or through the straight copper
wire of a folded dipole.

But, as I have said earlier, I'm willing to learn. Please
tell us all exactly how your proposed violation of Ohm's
law occurs in reality. Please see my other posting involving
a G5RV on 40m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

And I am astounded that you would assert that an RF noise
pulse would rather flow into the 1800 ohms looking into
the feedline than to flow through the 500 ohm choke
located at the feedpoint. Or through the straight copper
wire of a folded dipole.

....and I'm astonished such a basic very simple thing like impedance and
frequency resonse has tripped you up so badly. Before you post any
more, you should sit back and relax and think about what you are
saying.

But, as I have said earlier, I'm willing to learn. Please
tell us all exactly how your proposed violation of Ohm's
law occurs in reality. Please see my other posting involving
a G5RV on 40m.

I don't want to spend time looking at your other ideas when your basic
concept of noise and selective sorting of noise though misapplication
of Ohm's law is so far off base.

Why don't you take a few days an think about what the noise our
receiver's hear is, and how that noise could possibly interact
differently than a desired signal!

Don't rush. Think about it a while. It'll come to you and you'll
understand your mistake.

73 Tom

wrote:
By the way Cecil, I'm absolutely serious.

So am I, Tom. For the readers who haven't been keeping up
with this thread, let me relate exactly what you are serious
about.

I had a severe clear-sky charged-particle problem in
the Arizona desert. My G5RV was arcing at my transceiver's
coax connector about once per minute. I wouldn't have been
able to hear any signals through the arcing noise.

40m is my favorite band. I installed a 100 uH choke across
the feedpoint. It eliminated the arcing and resulted in
readable signals on 40m. I don't know what the signal to
noise ratio was but I could hear and work other hams during
the charged particle wind storms so the S/N ratio obviously
improved.

You asserted that such is impossible but it actually happened
to me about 15 years ago in the Arizona desert. Anything that
eliminates the charged particle arcing more than obviously
improves the S/N ratio.

Here's a challenge for you, Tom. Set up an arc generator
across your receiver terminals in parallel with your antenna.
Measure the S/N ratio. Turn off the arc generator. If the
S/N ratio doesn't improve, I will adopt your Corona God
religion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

wrote:
Why don't you take a few days an think about what the noise our
receiver's hear is, and how that noise could possibly interact
differently than a desired signal!

Here's a repeat from my other posting. Set up an arc generator
across your receiver's terminals in parallel with your antenna.
What is the S/N ratio while the arc generator is running? What
is the S/N ratio when you turn off the arc generator? For you
to assert that there is no change whether the antenna terminals
are arcing or not is downright pathological.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:


I had a severe clear-sky charged-particle problem in
the Arizona desert. My G5RV was arcing at my transceiver's
coax connector about once per minute. I wouldn't have been
able to hear any signals through the arcing noise.


Cecil,

I am a bit confused by your description. The arcing was once per minute.
Presumably the arc occurred over a very short time, much less than one
second. What was happening during the other 59 seconds of each minute?

I have no doubt that an arc would interfere with reception. What about
the remainder of the time?

73,
Gene

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I had a severe clear-sky charged-particle problem in
the Arizona desert. My G5RV was arcing at my transceiver's
coax connector about once per minute. I wouldn't have been
able to hear any signals through the arcing noise.

I am a bit confused by your description. The arcing was once per minute.
Presumably the arc occurred over a very short time, much less than one
second. What was happening during the other 59 seconds of each minute?

I'm sorry, Gene, my bad. The arcing was once per second
not once per minute. I actually have never heard of such
a thing as arcing once per minute. Have you?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

You avoided replying to this last time. One wonders why.
Please explain why you think the charge on the folded dipole
would not take the DC path of least resistance.


Because your basic idea is so seriously flawed I never took you
seriously.

Anyone understanding the basic system at all would understand if the
little charges made noise from transferring charge, that noise would be
at a radio frequency. Anyone looking at what you drew and understaning
what you drew would also understand in order to short the noise energy
at the radio frequency the path would also be required to short the
good signal.

Hi Tom,

I've been reading with interest this thread. Personally I think that
you and Cecil are arguing past each other on this, but whatever people
do for entertainment is cool with me.

On to what you have posted...

I'm a little confused here; are you saying that the discharge (whatever
it may be) is restricted to only one frequency? I'll admit stupidity on
this, but I always though that static discharges are inherently pretty
wide band. Why would they be restricted to a single frequency? length of
the discharge, and all it's influences?


If the noise is at a different frequency than the good signal, then the
receiver itself will sort it all out.

Of course.

There really wasn't any good way to answer an idea so fatally flawed. I
ignored it thinking you would figure it out on your own later, or that
Yuri would help you get a different perspective on things.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

By the way Cecil, I'm absolutely serious.


So am I, Tom. For the readers who haven't been keeping up
with this thread, let me relate exactly what you are serious
about.

I had a severe clear-sky charged-particle problem in
the Arizona desert. My G5RV was arcing at my transceiver's
coax connector about once per minute. I wouldn't have been
able to hear any signals through the arcing noise.

40m is my favorite band. I installed a 100 uH choke across
the feedpoint. It eliminated the arcing and resulted in
readable signals on 40m. I don't know what the signal to
noise ratio was but I could hear and work other hams during
the charged particle wind storms so the S/N ratio obviously
improved.

You asserted that such is impossible but it actually happened
to me about 15 years ago in the Arizona desert. Anything that
eliminates the charged particle arcing more than obviously
improves the S/N ratio.

Here's a challenge for you, Tom. Set up an arc generator
across your receiver terminals in parallel with your antenna.
Measure the S/N ratio. Turn off the arc generator. If the
S/N ratio doesn't improve, I will adopt your Corona God
religion.

There's no such thing as a clear-sky charged-particle problem, either
in the Arizona desert or anywhere else. Naming isn't proving. You're
going to have people blaming their arcing problems on pure fantasy.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
There's no such thing as a clear-sky charged-particle problem, either
in the Arizona desert or anywhere else.

You are just showing your extreme ignorance, Tom. Many of
us have experienced exactly that problem. Jim Kelley reported
it just a couple of days ago caused by Santa Anna winds in CA.

Just because you have never experienced it is irrelevant.
To be consistent, you must also assert that Jesus never
existed because you never met him.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp