Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Did you actually read the reference you provided? It offers complete
support for Tom's position and zero support for Cecil's position.

I cannot find any support for Tom's position except from
wishful thinking by a certain group of ignorant people here
on r.r.a.a.

As usual around RRAA, this entire matter has morphed into all sorts of
side issues. The original and only point of controversy is whether the
so-called "precipitation static" is related to corona discharge or
rather to some sort of particle-by-particle charge transfer of the antenna.

Yes, and the references I have provided indicate that natural
*corona is impossible under clear-sky fairweather conditions*.
You obviously have not read them.

Cecil claims that corona cannot exist in "fairweather" conditions,
although there is no reason given.

Again, obviously a false statement based on wishful thinking.
As proved by my references, the existence of corona requires
~100 uA per cm^2. Quoting from the previous NASA web page, for
the fairweather field, "the current is 10^-12 amps per square
meter."

Requirement for corona to exist:

100 uA per cm^2 = 10 amps per square meter

Available current during fairweather conditions:

10^-12 amps per square meter

Conclusion: During fairweather conditions, the current is
13 magnitudes too low for corona to exist.

Therefore the particle-by-particle
hypothesis is the only reasonable choice as the noise generator. The
ARRL Handbook seems to go along with that idea, although not very
explicitly. Other references, including Terman and the training document
you provided say that corona discharge is responsible for the noise
generation. W8JI agrees with that hypothesis.

Again, obviously a false statement based on wishful thinking.
Terman said no such thing about stationary antennas. The energy
for the corona referenced by Terman is coming from the movement
of the airplane, i.e. from the engine fuel. Corona requires a
supply of energy that simply doesn't exist for a stationary
receiving antenna under fairweather conditions.

If the airplane was not moving, i.e. not being supplied with
energy by the engines, the corona would probably not exist.
Comparing a moving airplane to a stationary antenna is apples
and oranges and is therefore an invalid argument.

If we supply the antenna with enough RF energy from a transmitter,
corona will surely occur. But a supply of extra energy from a
transmitter or from a moving airplane is not what we have been
discussing. We have been discussing fairweather conditions for
a stationary antenna.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
How do you know there is no corona discharge?

Because under fairweather conditions, corona requires
13 magnitudes more current than is available. Please
see my other posting.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Actually, when it comes to some of the issues raised on this newsgroup,
yes, I do. I don't see why I should believe what Cecil makes up in his
head just because he makes it up in his head.

Do you really think I faked all those web page references
including one from NASA?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.

Please describe your experiments for proving Maxwell's equations.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Given charged dirt (dust) particles encountering a bare-wire
dipole, all the rest is simple physics.

Prove that this causes radio frequency noise, Cecil.

Already have previously in this thread, Tom. I even
drew you guys some pictures. Maybe you should actually
read what I have posted instead of continuing to do
nothing but regurgitate your gut feelings over and
over and over ...
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
How do you know there is no corona discharge?

Because under passive fairweather conditions, corona
requires 13 magnitudes more current than is available
in nature. Please see my other posting.

And just a comment on your seeming innocent question
above. You seem to be asking me to prove that there
is no corona discharge when proving a negative is
impossible. The onus of proof is upon the one(s) who
assert(s) the positive position.

W8JI asserted that there is a corona discharge and
you agreed with him. Therefore, the onus of proof
is upon you. Please prove that corona can exist
on a receiving antenna under passive fairweather
conditions.

People are free to assert negatives at any time
without any proof. For instance, if I assert that
you cannot dunk a basketball, my assertion will
remain true until you prove that you can dunk
a basketball.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene, W4SZ wrote:
"Cecil claims that corona cannot exist in "fairweather" conditions,
although there is no reason given."

My broadcast station experience includes blue-skys in advance of
thunderstorms when guy-wire segements became so charged that the
compression insulators separating the guy segments would flashover with
loud bangs. These times would be windy. My conclusion is that charged
air particles (ions) strike the guy wires charging them to high but
varying potentials.

The arc or flashover between segments is a corona of short duration, not
St. Elmo`s fire. It sounds like a gun shot. These may become so numerous
that the sounds are as if a battle were occurring. The sounds are not
unlike shorting the leads of a highly-charged large capacitor.

If leakage across the insulators were fast enough, rhere would be no
bangs.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
y.net...
Tom Donaly wrote:
Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.

Please describe your experiments for proving Maxwell's equations.
--

you raise a good point.

first of all, Tom is wrong. not much of anything can be proven. in
mathematics, you proceed from axioms, which are accepted assumptions. then
you chain things together to result in proof. some proofs are more formal
than others.

Russell and Whitehead attempted to axiomatize mathematics, which resulted in
failure. Russell never did serious math again. Tom should read the work of
Godel, Chatin, and Turing.

in M-theory (strings), there are many things which can't be proven at this
time, and may never be proven. there are some experiments which never can
be performed. this why we say string theory is unfalsifiable.

so toss out this idea of "proof", because it's a just a term that engineers
think they know something about.

and i didn't even get started on epistemology.

Gravity

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

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
y.net...

Tom Donaly wrote:

Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.

Please describe your experiments for proving Maxwell's equations.
--


you raise a good point.

first of all, Tom is wrong. not much of anything can be proven. in
mathematics, you proceed from axioms, which are accepted assumptions. then
you chain things together to result in proof. some proofs are more formal
than others.

Russell and Whitehead attempted to axiomatize mathematics, which resulted in
failure. Russell never did serious math again. Tom should read the work of
Godel, Chatin, and Turing.

in M-theory (strings), there are many things which can't be proven at this
time, and may never be proven. there are some experiments which never can
be performed. this why we say string theory is unfalsifiable.

so toss out this idea of "proof", because it's a just a term that engineers
think they know something about.

and i didn't even get started on epistemology.

Gravity


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




If nothing can be proven, then how do you know I'm wrong? Besides,
it isn't a question of whether or not I'm right. It's a question of
whether or not to believe the fantasies of people who are unwilling
to examine Nature. If you've really read and understood the
mathematicians, you'd know that few, or none, of them care the
slightest about the real world. It now seems that some physicists -
the string theorists - have decided to move to Cloud Cuckoo Land
(See Jonathon Swift) so they can live in a nice, comfortable
world of well-paid solipsism, confident that a theory that is
incapable of proof, is also incapable of disproof.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:

Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.


Please describe your experiments for proving Maxwell's equations.

Maxwell thought up Maxwell's equations, Cecil, you didn't. Heinrich
Hertz, Farady, and others did the experimentation. Besides, you only
have to turn on your radio to prove the equations valid. Even Maxwell
knew that without experimental proof, his fine mathematics was only
idle speculation.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH