Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
In this case there is no quantitative information about the sources of
energy, the sinks of energy, or the transport of energy. This is not a
well-bounded system in which the total energy can be easily defined.
An energy-based solution is going to be hard to achieve. Stick to
fields and forces for this one.

But there is quantitative information about the
source of energy for corona. You have to ignore
that information because your corona concepts
require violation of the conservation of energy
principle. Where is the energy coming from to
sustain a current flow of 100 uA/cm^2 under a
clear sky?

Fields and forces require a supply of energy. If
there is not enough energy available under certain
fairweather conditions to support your esoteric
corona theories, then those theories are wrong.

Of course a moving airplane can cause corona. The
engine fuel is pumping energy into the system.

Of course an RF transmitter can cause corona. The
transmitter is pumping energy into the system.

Under passive clear-sky fairweather conditions,
what is pumping enough energy into the system to
cause your corona? If you were correct, every lightning
rod and antenna in the world would glow at night
under starry skies. When is the last time you
saw a lightning rod glow at night under perfectly
cloudless skies?


Cecil,

Why do you think there is some magic about 100 uA/cm2? You found
something only slightly related on the ESDA web site and now you have
accepted that number as a standard. Even if it were correct, how many
cm2 are you requiring? The size of a stray wire strand on the end of an
antenna is pretty small.

Do you suppose there is a fundamental difference between an airplane
moving through the air and a stationary plane with wind blowing past it?
Does the wind require engine fuel?

Your energy arguments are simply irrelevant. Do you understand the
meaning of quantitative? Can you quote even one relevant number in terms
of watts or joules?

Finally, you might want to check your references about your requirement
that fields and forces require a supply of energy.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Your energy arguments are simply irrelevant.

Of course they are irrelevant to you but not to me
because I believe in the conservation of energy
principle.

Finally, you might want to check your references about
your requirement that fields and forces require a supply
of energy.

Didn't mean to imply it had to be continuous. Maybe
"source" would have been a better choice of words
than "supply".
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
. . .
Finally, you might want to check your references about your requirement
that fields and forces require a supply of energy.

That's been the downfall of many a perpetual motion proponent. A
permanent magnet produces both a field and a force. So it must be a
source of energy, right?

I see Cecil is at it again. Gad.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Noise level between two ant types
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
That's been the downfall of many a perpetual motion proponent. A
permanent magnet produces both a field and a force. So it must be a
source of energy, right?

I would assume the *total* amount of energy in the magnet
is e=mc^2.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
I would assume the *total* amount of energy in the magnet
is e=mc^2.


Cecil,

Before you launch into relativity, did you ever figure out what you
were doing wrong with your folded dipole shorts the noise and not the
desired signal theory???

73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Finally, you might want to check your references about your
requirement that fields and forces require a supply of energy.

That's been the downfall of many a perpetual motion proponent. A
permanent magnet produces both a field and a force. So it must be a
source of energy, right?

Accusing me of saying something I didn't say is standard
procedure for you, Roy. Why must you stoop to such behavior?
Why not argue the technical issues on the technical merits?

My meaning was that a field or a force requires energy for
them to exist in the first place. I did NOT say energy could
be extracted from fields and forces. Please stop misquoting me.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
Before you launch into relativity, did you ever figure out what you
were doing wrong with your folded dipole shorts the noise and not the
desired signal theory???

There was absolutely nothing said about signal in that entire
thread except when you tried to introduce it as a diversion.
The entire thread unfolded as if no signals existed and we
were only interested in measuring and dealing with the noise.

But now let's allow signals to be introduced into the thread.
My dipole was arcing once per second at the coax connector.
I couldn't hear any signals. I estimate the signal to noise
ratio under those conditions to be zero. Would you disagree?

I modified my dipole into a folded dipole. The arcing ceased
and I could then hear signals. I estimate the signal to noise
ratio was not zero any more. Would you disagree?

I really question the IQ of anyone who asserts that eliminating
arcing in a system doesn't reduce the noise. I assume you are
not a member of MENSA. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
Roy Lewallen wrote:
That's been the downfall of many a perpetual motion proponent. A
permanent magnet produces both a field and a force. So it must be a
source of energy, right?

I would assume the *total* amount of energy in the magnet
is e=mc^2.

now hold it from the top of W8JI's tower. e=mc^2 + mgh

Gravity

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

Noise level between two ant types
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I see Cecil is at it again. Gad.

It is probably delusions of grandeur for you to expect
that uttering the word, "Gad", will have any technical
effect on this newsgroup. Hint: The emperor has no clothes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
The entire issue is whether the charged dust leads to corona discharge
or whether the charge from the dust finds it way directly through the
receiver front end and into the audio system.

Seems that I am in the mainstream here.
Here's an interesting related thread from eHam.net:

http://www.eham.net/forums/Elmers/83174
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp