Noise level between two ant types
 

I said:
wrote:
The "dc path eliminates noise" and the "noise comes from each particle
hitting the antenna and a dc path reduces it" are nearly as far
fetched.


I already explained that to you, Tom. Perhaps you missed it.
In the following diagrams, CH is the charge transferred to
the antenna by a charged particle or any other means.

Given a non-folded dipole, any equalizing of the charge between
the two identical dipole elements must flow through the link
where the noise is picked up by the receiver.


-------CH------+ +---------------
| |
/ /
| |
Link to
receiver


Turning the non-folded dipole into a folded dipole provides
a *local DC path* between the two elements. Most of the
noise will follow that DC path between elements instead of
traveling down the transmission line, through the link, and
back up the transmission line. Hint: Ohm's law.


DC path between elements
+-------------------------------+
+-------CH-----+ +--------------+
| |
/ /
| |
Link to
Receiver


You avoided replying to this last time. One wonders why.
Please explain why you think the charge on the folded dipole
would not take the DC path of least resistance.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

end of quoted text.

The above nonsense is what gets Cecil in trouble.

1.) First he clearly stated he thought the noise was from each
individual charged particle of dust striking the antenna millions of
times a secon making a noise at radio frequencies.

2.) Then he wrongly assumed "shorting the antenna for dc" would also
"short the noise". '

He apparently missed the fact HE (Cecil) claimed the noise was radio
frequency noise caused by each particle hitting the antenna. If it was
such, shorting the antenna for dc would only make the noise worse.

Now it seems he is changing his tune, saying it is arcing in the coax
that is a concern.

Cecil paints himself into a corner with silly statements. Then he tries
to cover it up by saying he never actually said what he said.

But at least now we are in agreement. The noise is caused either by
arcs or corona, not by particle discharges into the antenna as they
connect.
That's all that is really important.

73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
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

.....and it happens here in humid Georgia, and in dry Georgia, and in
Ohio in summer and winter. There doesn't need to be a particle in
sight.

I can go outside and float the feeder of my long 160M dipole that is
300 feet high. The whack will knock you right on your rump. But that
charge is actually pulling the antenna CLOSER to the potential of the
air around the antenna. When I ground that antenna so the antenna moves
to earth potential, the corna from that antenna actually gets
worse....not better.

The reason is pretty simple. The earth is a big charge sink, and is
really at considerably different potential than the air at 300 feet
even on a clear calm day. A little wind helps quite a bit, pushing
charged air past the antenna and increasing the charge rate.

What most people miss is that it is the difference in potential between
earth (or lower heights) and the air around the antenna that causes the
leakage currents. The wind simply increases the problem.

73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
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

.....and it happens here in humid Georgia, and in dry Georgia, and in
Ohio in summer and winter. There doesn't need to be a particle in
sight.

I can go outside and float the feeder of my long 160M dipole that is
300 feet high. The whack will knock you right on your rump. But that
charge is actually pulling the antenna CLOSER to the potential of the
air around the antenna. When I ground that antenna so the antenna moves
to earth potential, the corna from that antenna actually gets
worse....not better.

The reason is pretty simple. The earth is a big charge sink, and is
really at considerably different potential than the air at 300 feet
even on a clear calm day. A little wind helps quite a bit, pushing
charged air past the antenna and increasing the charge rate.

What most people miss is that it is the difference in potential between
earth (or lower heights) and the air around the antenna that causes the
leakage currents. The wind simply increases the problem.

73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

Here is where Cecil claimed the noise was from individual particles
hitting the antenna:



From: Cecil Moore - view profile
Date: Sun, Jun 11 2006 11:59 am
Email: Cecil Moore
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
wrote:
People actually seem to think the little particles voving through the
air charge the antenna to a different potential than the air around the
antenna, and that a "dc" path to earth or "dc" path around an element
somehow magically stops RF noise.


Let's say we have the following bare-wire dipole system
link coupled to the receiver (in fixed font).

|
| dipole element A link coupled
| -////-
+--------------------------------------------------///////--+
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|
| dipole element B
|


Let's assume one highly charged particle hits dipole element
A and transfers half of its charge. Element A will then have
an excess charge one half of which will migrate through the
link while equalizing the charge between element A and element
B. That charge migration/equalization no doubt results in an
RF noise pulse.


This experiment can easily be performed by anyone.
Rub one's leather soles on a wool carpet, touch one side of
the dipole, and listen for noise in the receiver. Guaranteed,
it will be there.


Now multiply the above by millions of charged particles
randomly encountering the bare-wire dipole. The charge on
each side of the dipole will never be exactly equal. Thus,
continuous broad-band noise will be continuously transferred
through the link as long as the particles are transferring
charge to the antenna. That's what some hams are hearing
during dry-air dust and snow conditions. Some have even reported
being able to hear individual particle collisions from large
snowflakes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



Cecil claimed P-static was broadband noise from each particle hitting
the antenna. Notice, unlike Cecil, I don't lift things from context to
change the meaning. His full unedited statement is above, and it shows
what he intended to say.

He made several clear posts like that, but at least now he seems to be
coming around and understanding it is arcing and corona noise.

73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote in message
...
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.

lab experiment: leaf blower.

Gravity


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
Here is where Cecil claimed the noise was from individual particles
hitting the antenna:

particle rubs against aluminum antenna and creates triboelectric charge.

a different particle transfers charge to the conductor.

wind movement causes triboelectric noise.

i'm not sure if all 3 of these are the same thing.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:

wrote:
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

....and it happens here in humid Georgia, and in dry Georgia, and in
Ohio in summer and winter. There doesn't need to be a particle in
sight.

I can go outside and float the feeder of my long 160M dipole that is
300 feet high. The whack will knock you right on your rump. But that
charge is actually pulling the antenna CLOSER to the potential of the
air around the antenna. When I ground that antenna so the antenna moves
to earth potential, the corna from that antenna actually gets
worse....not better.

The reason is pretty simple. The earth is a big charge sink, and is
really at considerably different potential than the air at 300 feet
even on a clear calm day. A little wind helps quite a bit, pushing
charged air past the antenna and increasing the charge rate.

What most people miss is that it is the difference in potential between
earth (or lower heights) and the air around the antenna that causes the
leakage currents. The wind simply increases the problem.

73 Tom

Umm, no, two different things.

If it were charge building somewhere and discharging it wouldn't have
the characteristics it does, which is random, continuous, of extremely
short duration, and at a very high rate.

When it gets bad, it is quite visible as very random "snow" on TV
channels 2 through 4 on an otherwise perfect picture.

The snow is spots of extremely short duration.

Arcing (my neighbor has an arc welder so I have something to compare
it to) shows up as lines. When watching TV while he is welding it
is very obvious from the visual "noise" when he trying to start an
arc on some rusty thing versus an established arc from the length
of the visual "noise".

This particular effect ONLY happens during low humidity on very
windy days.

The intensity of the snow changes very little with wind speed, the
duration not at all, but the rate changes drastically.

I took all the electromagnetic courses to get my BSEE and I'm a
pilot, so yes, I know about corona.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:

I'm going to respond to this posting in two parts.

1.) First he clearly stated he thought the noise was from each
individual charged particle of dust striking the antenna millions of
times a secon making a noise at radio frequencies.

Obviously, I didn't say each particle strikes the antenna
millions of times a second. What I said was that although
others had reported being able to hear each individual
collision, I had never been able to do that. So your statement
is false.

2.) Then he wrongly assumed "shorting the antenna for dc" would also
"short the noise". '

You are mixing apples and oranges. This was in the context of
eliminating the arcing of my coax connector laying on the rug.
Sure enough, shorting the antenna for DC eliminated the arcing
thus eliminating the noise. Your statement is deliberately
misleading.

For the record, when the wind was blowing charged dust particles
across my bare wire antenna under a clear sky, the S-meter noise
increased as the wind speed increased and decreased as the wind
speed decreased.

He apparently missed the fact HE (Cecil) claimed the noise was radio
frequency noise caused by each particle hitting the antenna. If it was
such, shorting the antenna for dc would only make the noise worse.

No, I didn't say that. I specifically said that it was NOT me
who said they could correlate noise to each specific particle.
Is the only way you can win the argument is to falsify what I
have said?

Now it seems he is changing his tune, saying it is arcing in the coax
that is a concern.

No, you are the one who is mixing up the two different subjects.
One was an arcing problem that I needed to solve. The other is
the measures that can be taken to make an antenna less noisy.
Please stop the deliberate mixing of these two subjects. I am
willing to rationally discuss either one separately.

Cecil paints himself into a corner with silly statements. Then he tries
to cover it up by saying he never actually said what he said.

As you are doing, I could cut and paste your postings to make you
seem ignorant and insane. But only an unethical person does that.

But at least now we are in agreement. The noise is caused either by
arcs or corona, not by particle discharges into the antenna as they
connect.

No we are NOT in agreement. In the absence of arcing or corona,
charged particle noise exists and has been experienced by many
people. A web search for "precipitation static" will yield any
number of references, including amateur radio references.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

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

....and it happens here in humid Georgia, and in dry Georgia, and in
Ohio in summer and winter. There doesn't need to be a particle in
sight.

We are talking about antennas that have virtually no charge when
the wind is not blowing and acquire charge when the wind blows
charged particles across the antenna.

It is something that you have apparently never seen are are
therefore completely ignorant of.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
Here is where Cecil claimed the noise was from individual particles
hitting the antenna:

Sorry, Tom, you are mistaken. Read it again. It is true that
each individual particle that touches the antenna transfers
some charge but the following was *purely hypothetical*. I have
*NEVER* said I could hear the noise from an individual particle.
"Let's assume" is what one utters just before a hypothetical
exercise in logic. It is obviously hypothetical because exactly
1/2 of the charge is assumed to be transferred.

W5DXP said:
Let's assume one highly charged particle hits dipole element
A and transfers half of its charge.

This is a hypothetical experimental charged particle as one
would get by rubbing amber on wool and touching it to the
antenna.

wrote:
Cecil claimed P-static was broadband noise from each particle hitting
the antenna.

That's a false statement. When I said *assume* one highly charged
particle, it was a purely hypothetical particle. CP-static is
a cumulative effect. I personally have never heard one particle
hitting an antenna although others have reported that they have
heard it. I have never said that one particle hitting the antenna
could be heard in the receiver.

Notice, unlike Cecil, I don't lift things from context to
change the meaning. His full unedited statement is above, and it shows
what he intended to say.

You are attempting to change the meaning at the present, Tom.
That was a hypothetical highly charged particle, Tom, not one
that is likely to exist in the real world. I have previously
said that I could NOT hear the individual particles. My hypothetical
highly charged particle was like a piece of amber that had been
rubbed against wool and then touched to the antenna. I suspect
that one could hear that event in the receiver.

He made several clear posts like that, but at least now he seems to be
coming around and understanding it is arcing and corona noise.

Please stop the mind fornication. Such is highly unethical
but unfortunately standard practice for you for years now.

Sometimes noise is caused by arcing. Sometimes noise is caused
by corona. Sometimes noise is caused by charged particles in
the absence of arcing and corona. I am NOT coming around and
I do NOT seem to be coming around. Please stop misrepresenting
what I have said. It doesn't make you look any less ignorant
and it confuses the readers.

If you want to proceed with a rational argument, I can explain
and defend everything I have said and I am NOT coming around
to your strange concepts.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp