wrote:
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.

So one can see the individual charged particles even if
one cannot hear the individual charged particles. That
makes a lot of sense. I wish I had thought to hook my
antenna up to my TV while the charged particle problem
was occurring.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:


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.

Then you are also unethical, because if you look back that is EXACTLY
what you do to others.

That is why Roy and others have you in a "Cecil filter".

73 Tom

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Then you are also unethical, because if you look back that is EXACTLY
what you do to others.

It is my custom to trim out the part of postings with which I
agree and respond to the part with which I disagree. I believe
that is in accordance with the newsgroup guidelines. I do not,
as you do, cut and paste to completely change the meaning of
what was previously posted so you can attack a straw man of
your own creation.

Your latest posting, where you take my mental exercise example
of a hypothetical antenna with a hypothetical highly charged
particle hitting it to try to prove that I said each real world
particle causes noise that can be heard in a receiver is really,
really lame.

That is why Roy and others have you in a "Cecil filter".

Roy ploinked me because I said an antenna is a distributed network.
I thought he had previously said an antenna was a lumped circuit.
Instead of telling me that's not what he meant and giving me a chance
to apologize, he ploinked me.

When you are willing to rationally discuss those hypothetical
examples I have posted, let me know.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Dear Jim Pennino WB6DKH:

Well said, and yet here we are over 100 messages latter (even with a
Cecil filter) with strange contentions still going on. It has become
apparent that this is a religious debate and it is time for additional
filtering.

To supplement my message of June 7, 2006:
One should provide continuity to earth from as many elevated conductors
as possible. It is sometimes difficult to do this with guy wires that are
"broken up" with insulators.
Location is an important factor with respect to which local,
non-man-made noise sources dominate. In Toledo, Ohio and Georgia it might
be one thing and in the Arizona desert quite a different thing.
Time and local weather is also an important factor. Lighting discharges
off of, or towards, an antenna will dominate everything else.
Having spent the last 73% of my life in an academic setting involving
science and engineering where orthodoxy applies only (temporarily) to
verified physical laws, I now understand why wars are fought over which end
of the egg is cracked first. It has rounded out my education.

As Roy has pointed out: it important to observe to the readers who are
not participating that they should filter what they read with care.

Thank you Jim for interjecting your experience.

73 Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

snip

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

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
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.

So one can see the individual charged particles even if
one cannot hear the individual charged particles. That
makes a lot of sense. I wish I had thought to hook my
antenna up to my TV while the charged particle problem
was occurring.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Well, at this point I wouldn't bet the farm on the base cause being
charged partcles impacting the antenna, but if it walks like a duck
and quacks like a duck...

However, for this particular effect it is obvious that it is quantized
and that the rate of generation is directly proportional to the
wind speed.

Since there is nothing in the air large enough to be visible, it
would seem reasonable that whatever is delivering charge to something
is dust particles.

The number of dust particles in the air is also directly proportional
to the wind speed, lending further credence to the theory.

As to how to test the theory, fooling around with the TV antenna on
the roof with 40 to 60 knot gusts isn't going to be done by me no
matter how much beer you provide.

One thought would be to make a pair of channel 2 dipoles with one
inside a non-conducting dust cover.

Put the two antennas side by side and compare the results seen on
the TV screen.

Another experiment would be to build a full sized dipole and a
shortened loaded dipole for channel 2.

If the effect is caused by particles impacting the antenna, the
quantity of snow would be proportional to the antenna sizes.

It would be interesting to see what happens.

In any case, Santa Ana winds don't normally appear this time of
year, so there are about six months to come up with a definative
experiment.

And yes, if it is simple and cheap enough, I'm willing to do it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
Since there is nothing in the air large enough to be visible, it
would seem reasonable that whatever is delivering charge to something
is dust particles.

Unfortunately, one poster here apparently thinks if he cannot
see it, it doesn't exist. Presumably, if he ever goes blind,
even his ham transceiver will cease to exist. :-)

He reminds me of a governmental expert who said yesterday
on Foxnews: Since the successful kill rate for our anti-ICBM
missiles is 60%, we have to fire two of them to be sure we
shoot it down. :-) (After all 60% + 60% = 120% and wouldn't
that be overkill?) :-)

And yes, if it is simple and cheap enough, I'm willing to do it.

I indirectly performed experiments in curing my arcing problem.
I replaced the bare wire with ordinary 600v insulated wire. It
reduced the problem considerably but didn't cure it. I then found
an antenna wire called "quietflex" at a hamfest that has 1000v
insulation. To the best of my knowledge, that cured the problem.
There is apparently a thickness of insulation that prohibits
the transfer of charge from dust particles.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

He reminds me of a governmental expert who said yesterday
on Foxnews: Since the successful kill rate for our anti-ICBM
missiles is 60%, we have to fire two of them to be sure we
shoot it down. :-) (After all 60% + 60% = 120% and wouldn't
that be overkill?) :-)

84%. the "expert" might borrow a copy of Innumeracy.

the astute reader will note that this figure may not work in the real world.

Gravity

gravity wrote:
He reminds me of a governmental expert who said yesterday
on Foxnews: Since the successful kill rate for our anti-ICBM
missiles is 60%, we have to fire two of them to be sure we
shoot it down. :-) (After all 60% + 60% = 120% and wouldn't
that be overkill?) :-)

84%. the "expert" might borrow a copy of Innumeracy.

And how many missiles must be fired to 100% assure a
kill? :-) The North Koreans probably understand
probability even if the governmental expert doesn't.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. com...
gravity wrote:
He reminds me of a governmental expert who said yesterday
on Foxnews: Since the successful kill rate for our anti-ICBM
missiles is 60%, we have to fire two of them to be sure we
shoot it down. :-) (After all 60% + 60% = 120% and wouldn't
that be overkill?) :-)

84%. the "expert" might borrow a copy of Innumeracy.

And how many missiles must be fired to 100% assure a
kill? :-)

probabilistic methods can be reliable. for instance, primality testing.
you can get the possibility of error down to 0.0000001%. but harder with
missiles.

they still use MIRVs with a hundred dummy warheads?

the Patriot was $1 mil a shot as i recall.

Gravity

The thickness of insulation on an antenna wire does not entirely
reduce noise due to (charged particle) precipitation.

There are two capacitances involved - the self-capacitance of
individual isolated particles and the much greater capacitance of the
insulating material between its surface and the wire.

When it impacts with the thick insulation, the electric charge on a
particle redistributes itself between antenna capacitance and particle
capacitance.

Only a very small fraction of particle volts is transferred to the
antenna via antenna capacitance. The result is a reduction in
receiver noise.

For given particle volts, size of particle, thickness of antenna wire
insulation, permittivity of insulation, the noise induced in the
receiver is calculable.

As Roy would insist on, to prove the point, all you have to do is
measure the average volts on a particle of average diameter.

And the best way of doing that is to work backwards from the S-meter.
;o)

A nice, low noise antenna can be constructed by removing everything
from the inner conductor of a 1" diameter coaxial cable except the
solid polyethylene insulation.

This is an expensive operation, likely in the UK to of use only for 15
minutes every few years. So nobody bothers.
----
Reg.