Noise level between two ant types
 

I'm not sure that anyone here believes Cecil just because he is Cecil.
I don't. Some times I see him posting his way into some very deep holes...

that's what i see. he says something controversial, gets challenged, and
then scrambles for references. the problem is that many of the references
do not directly confirm what he's saying, and a bit of calculation is
required.

i did some googling, and certainly there are others with Cecil's position.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
I'm not sure that anyone here believes Cecil just because he is Cecil.
I don't. Some times I see him posting his way into some very deep holes...

that's what i see. he says something controversial, gets challenged, and
then scrambles for references. the problem is that many of the references
do not directly confirm what he's saying, and a bit of calculation is
required.

Rather than rationalize and walk through disagreements step-by-step
Cecil prefers to distort and bully.

His posting ratio averages 3.3:1, and sometimes reaches over 6:1.

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John - KD5YI wrote:

Well, suppose you have a #18 ga stranded wire composed of 7 strands of
#26. One strand is sticking up all by itself. The end of the strand
(if cut off squarely) is about 0.0013 cm^2. So a current flow of 0.13
uA from the end of this strand is 100 uA/cm^2.


We can suppose all sorts of conditions to obtain corona.
There's absolutely no argument about that. The argument
is whether corona occurs 100% of the time on any and all
antennas with charged particle static. If corona occurs
only 99.9% of the time, the corona gang loses the argument.

The argument is whether corona *always* accompanies charged
particle noise. That's an exclusive assertion that there
exists no cases where corona doesn't accompany charged
particle noise.

I fully agree that corona *often* accompanies charged particle
noise but that's an inclusive assertion.

If enough particles hit the antenna to just
barely hear the noise on a receiver, the corona crowd says
that corona caused the noise. I would like to see some proof
for such a statement so far out of mainstream physics.

Can we suppose a condition where corona won't happen?
How about a #14 solid wire with rounded ends? Do you think
it could build up enough charged particle noise to be heard
in a receiver without the existence of corona?


I applied simple arithmetic to show that 100 uA/cm^2 is almost meaningless
because there are conditions much more favorable to the generation of corona
to consider. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Frankly, I think you should try to make up a condition that refutes your own
suppositions and see if it flys. If it does, then think of something else. I
do that all the time. Sometimes I learn, and sometimes I don't. I try to
temper my investigations by asking questions.

Why #14 with rounded ends? Because it supports your position? Why not
suppose smaller wire and sharper points? Make some calculations for us to
review. Use the worst case against yourself, then show why it cannot be so.

Frankly, Cecil, I have been somewhat of a follower of yours for some time.
You have some thought-provoking ideas and comments, but I am beginning to
believe that your entire purpose is to argue. I wish it wasn't so.

John

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
i did some googling, and certainly there are others with Cecil's position.

On most topics, I am mainstream conventional engineering
and physics - discovered over the past century or so. It
is the wannabe gurus who need to discover something
original so badly that they are willing to go against
the accepted laws of physics.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

John - KD5YI wrote:
Frankly, I think you should try to make up a condition that refutes your
own suppositions and see if it flys.

My supposition is that it is possible for charged particle noise
to exist without corona. That inclusive supposition cannot be
refuted by one condition. That supposition can only be refuted
by all conditions which is not possible to implement in reality.

My type of supposition: Not all cars are white.

This cannot be disproved by only one example.

The other sides supposition is that charged particle noise is
*always* accompanied by corona. All it takes is one example to
refute that exclusive assertion.

Their type of supposition: All cars are white.

This can be disproved by only one example.

Why #14 with rounded ends? Because it supports your position? Why not
suppose smaller wire and sharper points?

Seems you misunderstand. I'm not saying corona never occurs.
I'm saying it is possible for charged particle
noise to exist without corona occurring. Do you understand the
difference between an exclusive statement and an inclusive
statement? It's the other side making the exclusive assertions.
All I have to do is present one example where charged particle
noise exists without corona. That case may be a #14 wire with
rounded ends.

I have made no exclusive statements. If there is corona in
99.9% of the cases, the other side still loses the argument.
It is the opposition that has made the exclusive statement
that charged particle noise is *always* accompanied by corona.

My supposition is that charged particle noise is NOT always
accompanied by corona.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
.com...
wrote:
Rather than rationalize and walk through disagreements step-by-step
Cecil prefers to distort and bully.

From Websters:
"rationalize - 1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.)
to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but
that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious
and often less creditable or agreeable causes."

I agree that describes exactly what you do here on this
newsgroup but why do you think rationalizing is a good thing?

agreed. W8JI means being rational.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

My type of supposition: Not all cars are white.

This cannot be disproved by only one example.

i think this is modal logic. "all cars are white" is a statement about the
whole set. thus the whiteness of each element must be verified.

we get into semantics. what is "white". what is "car".

sometimes the situation gets complex. we can prove that 100% of the zeroes
fall up on the critical line, but this does not rule out a counterexample.
i guess my main point is we need to define "clear weather charged particle
noise".

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
i guess my main point is we need to define "clear weather charged particle
noise".

It's what happens when the wind blows in the Arizona
desert when the humidity is low and there's not a
cloud in the state. There are hundreds of reports
on the web of such a phenomenon. Example:

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

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
gravity wrote:
i guess my main point is we need to define "clear weather charged
particle
noise".

It's what happens when the wind blows in the Arizona
desert when the humidity is low and there's not a
cloud in the state. There are hundreds of reports
on the web of such a phenomenon. Example:

i researched ULF antennas and came up with this:

1. triboelectric noise due to movement
2. static on long wires due to lightning

on microwave, you'll get tropospheric scintillation noise.

you are talking HF, so i dunno much.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
gravity wrote:
i guess my main point is we need to define "clear weather charged particle
noise".

It's what happens when the wind blows in the Arizona
desert when the humidity is low and there's not a
cloud in the state. There are hundreds of reports
on the web of such a phenomenon. Example:

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

And it happens in inland Southern California with Santa Ana winds.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.