Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote :

....and as Dr. Phil would say, "How's that shielded loop thread doing
Yuri? Is it working for you?"


Another jab from Tom da scientwist.

I listened to someone's advice: "do not engage in the ****ing contest with
skunk"
I said what I know, you said what you know, anyone can verify by building
and testing the shielded loops and judging who is full of it.

Shielded loops work as shielded loops, attenuating local noise or
interference with source located within fractions of wavelength from the
antennas, if you know or admit it, or not. It is a FACT that any half baked
ham can observe and verify. You can mumbo - jumbo your theories and display
your falacies on your web pages all you want.

You can call the shield to be an "antenna" or whatever you like.

I thank you for another subject for entertainment and for the "Mythbusters"
articles, when time will permit me. Right now I am busy rejuvenating 175
acres of antennas and building mother of all contest stations. Barely time
to have a pi$$.

Keep it up!

73 Yuri da BUm BUm

Noise level between two ant types
 

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
I listened to someone's advice: "do not engage in a ****ing contest with
a skunk"

How about mud wrestling with pigs?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Tom Donaly" wrote

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


Ahm,
like there are no molecules of air being moved by the wind and rubbing on
conductive parts?
When part is not grounded, it will not accumulate the charge?
If the charge exceeds dielectric strength of the insulator (connector), the
discharge in form of spark would not happen?
Like ariplanes do not accumulate charge when flying? Or my 72 Buick?
Like Cecil is completely off the rocker making stuff up just to make himself
look foolish? Hmmmmmm!
Too much funny stuff going on here from scientwific community. :-)

Yuri K3BU

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
.com...
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
I listened to someone's advice: "do not engage in a ****ing contest with
a skunk"

How about mud wrestling with pigs?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Could be healthy if the mud is medicinal and definitely not foul smelly.
Good for arthritis.

bada BUm

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

O.k., Cecil, prove it experimentally. Many of you
may have experienced a problem, but you don't have the
foggiest notion of what caused it.
Making up causes in your head won't make them real. Making
up names, such as "clear-sky charged-particle problem" won't
magically prove them. Arguing incessantly doesn't
bring them into existence either. The only thing that makes
any sense, now that you've made a theory up in your head, is
to prove it with a series of experiments that anyone can
do to prove, or disprove, the fantasy. If you can't do that,
only fools will believe you.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

"Tom Donaly" wrote

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



Ahm,
like there are no molecules of air being moved by the wind and rubbing on
conductive parts?
When part is not grounded, it will not accumulate the charge?
If the charge exceeds dielectric strength of the insulator (connector), the
discharge in form of spark would not happen?
Like ariplanes do not accumulate charge when flying? Or my 72 Buick?
Like Cecil is completely off the rocker making stuff up just to make himself
look foolish? Hmmmmmm!
Too much funny stuff going on here from scientwific community. :-)

Yuri K3BU



Would you like to tell me how airplanes accumulate charge, Yuri? Would
you like to give me the results of the experiments you're always
threatening to do, but never get around to doing? Would you like
to explain the triboelectric effect and how it relates to antennas
and transmission lines? Perhaps you're an expert on atmospheric
electricity and can tell us all about it. I'd especially like to
hear how the wind "rubbing on conductive parts" causes noise. Cecil
was too chicken to do any meaningful experiments with this, maybe you
can inspire us with your courage and show us how it's done. It'll
sure beat the tired, old attempts at sarcasm you're always posting here,
and probably increase your credibility, too.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

I listened to someone's advice: "do not engage in a ****ing contest
with a skunk"


How about mud wrestling with pigs?

How about learning some experimental technique?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
The only thing that makes
any sense, now that you've made a theory up in your head, is
to prove it with a series of experiments that anyone can
do to prove, or disprove, the fantasy. If you can't do that,
only fools will believe you.

All I am doing is quoting the 2000 ARRL Handbook, Tom. I don't
have to prove anything. It is up to you to prove the 2000 ARRL
Handbook wrong. Here's what it said:

"Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise
that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including
snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes
or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge
on contact with an antenna."

So please prove the ARRL wrong.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil
was too chicken to do any meaningful experiments with this, ...

I don't have to do any experiments, Tom. The ARRL has already
done them for me. From the 2000 ARRL Handbook:

"Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise
that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including
snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes
or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge
on contact with an antenna."

If you don't agree with the ARRL, please present some proof
that they are wrong.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
How about learning some experimental technique?

I would if it was necessary, Tom. But I am relying on
the 2000 ARRL Handbook just as I rely on it for many
facts:

"Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise
that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including
snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes
or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge
on contact with an antenna."

The onus is upon you, Tom. Please prove the ARRL to have made
false statements.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp