Noise level between two ant types
 

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:49:08 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

Would you like to explain the triboelectric effect

More Xerographic philosophy? Please don't ask for more mensa
inflation!

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
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.
--

Cecil, the ARRL handbook is *not* an academic journal. it's fine to quote
from it, but it's also not the definitive work of electromagnetic theory.

Gravity

73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

i've solved it. i had to spend about two hours with Maxwell's equations,
but i figured it out. and i compensated for effects of quantum field theory
and relativity.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
Cecil, the ARRL handbook is *not* an academic journal. it's fine to quote
from it, but it's also not the definitive work of electromagnetic theory.

But it is "The Bible" of Amateur Radio and this is an Amateur
Radio newsgroup. Anyone disagreeing with the 2000 ARRL Handbook
should be able to quote some technical references to the contrary.
Where are the technical references that contradict the 2000 ARRL
Handbook statements on "precipitation static"?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

I don't have time to engage in ****ing contests.
There are some people here who "argue" that something is not so, because
they have a theory that "it can't be".
Most of my arguments or descriptions are based on reality that I or others
observed and can be duplicated. If you or anyone doesn't believe in them,
you can duplicate them and see for yourself. I will gladly provide details.
I am not employed or reporting to this esteemed RRAA NG, so it is at the end
of my list of priorities.
Some of the misconceptions are duly noted and in due time, when I have time
to sit down and write it up, I will do so.
The point is, that if Cecil has seen sparks coming from his coax under clear
AZ skies, or I have seen that small loop antenna shield DOES suppress local
interference - measured, seen, experienced - than arguing by scientwists is
just foolish, if not pathetic.
Who's "credibility" are we then talking about?
I do not proclaim to be a scientist who spent tax dollars investigating
phenomena and formulating rock solid theories as why. I am more of real
engineer, who when sees some erroneous stuff posted, and I know it to be
otherwise, I say my piece.
Isn't it interesting that real engineers get hammered on tangents by
scientwists who are wrong and are trying to justify their "truth" by some
mumbo-jumbo and obfuscating the real subject? If that's what turns them on,
than they can have a field day with it.

"It'll sure beat the tired, old attempts at sarcasm you're always posting
here"
Oh, that's what it is!?

73
Yuri Blanarovich, K3BU, VE3BMV


"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
. net...
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:

gravity wrote:

Cecil, the ARRL handbook is *not* an academic journal. it's fine to
quote
from it, but it's also not the definitive work of electromagnetic theory.


But it is "The Bible" of Amateur Radio and this is an Amateur
Radio newsgroup. Anyone disagreeing with the 2000 ARRL Handbook
should be able to quote some technical references to the contrary.
Where are the technical references that contradict the 2000 ARRL
Handbook statements on "precipitation static"?

Where's the experimental evidence, Cecil? You and Yuri don't have
any because you're too afraid to get your hands dirty. Insulting
Tom isn't going to help any, either, nor is intellectual
weaseling and selective quotations from dubious sources.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...

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.
--


Cecil, the ARRL handbook is *not* an academic journal. it's fine to quote
from it, but it's also not the definitive work of electromagnetic theory.

Gravity


73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp




It's also a poor substitute for experimentation. Even people who
actually could think rationally, like Maxwell, Faraday, and the
others, had to base their theories on experimental evidence.
Of course, since Cecil once belonged to Mensa, all he has to
do is think something to make it true.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Where's the experimental evidence, Cecil?

Why not ask the ARRL? I'm just quoting them
and relating my personal experience which
agrees with them. Since you are the one
who is disagreeing with conventional wisdom,
seems the onus of proof falls upon you.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
It's also a poor substitute for experimentation.

Quoting the ARRL Handbook sure beats having to move
back to the Arizona desert in order to perform
those experiments. Exactly what do you have against
conventional wisdom?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:


Where's the experimental evidence, Cecil?

Ever heard of Ben Franklin? :-)

73, ac6xg