Well said, and yet here we are over 100 messages latter (even with a
Cecil filter) with strange contentions still going on.

yea, maybe Dr. Moore wrong, maybe Dr. Tom wrong. but i not give advanced
contest physics to American.

Soong

John - KD5YI wrote:
No, Cecil, it seem that *you* misunderstand. My point was that you quote
100 uA/cm^2, and it takes very little current to achieve that with a
tiny point.

How much current does it take to achieve when a tiny
point doesn't exist? Can a dipole made out of #8 wire
with rounded ends exhibit corona during receive? If not,
the other side loses the argument.

I suggest you study exclusive Vs inclusive arguments.
The other side is saying that RF noise due to charged
particles is *always* accompanied by corona no matter
what antenna configuration is used. I am saying it is
not always accompanied by corona.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
John - KD5YI wrote:

No, Cecil, it seem that *you* misunderstand. My point was that you
quote 100 uA/cm^2, and it takes very little current to achieve that
with a tiny point.


How much current does it take to achieve when a tiny
point doesn't exist? Can a dipole made out of #8 wire
with rounded ends exhibit corona during receive? If not,
the other side loses the argument.


Tiny points exist everywhere, all the time, whether you wish it or not.

So, did you make any calculations? Did you even try to refute your own
hypothesis? Have you looked at this from any other viewpoint?


I suggest you study exclusive Vs inclusive arguments.
The other side is saying that RF noise due to charged
particles is *always* accompanied by corona no matter
what antenna configuration is used. I am saying it is
not always accompanied by corona.


Cecil, I am not going to study logic or psychology or philanthropy or
anthropology or Malaysan Frog Worship or anything else you suggest just so I
can understand your comments or arguments. You're input isn't worth it. It
would seem to me that you should be able to present your thoughts so that
people of my un-educatedness could understand. But, perhaps that is not what
you want. Perhaps you feel it is better that you carry on your debate with
those who are more deserving of your debating capabilities.

So be it.

John

John - KD5YI wrote:
Tiny points exist everywhere, all the time, whether you wish it or not.

White cars exist everywhere, all the time, whether one wishes
it or not, yet not all cars are white. To maintain that all
cars are white when at least one is red is not logical.

Cecil, I am not going to study logic ...

You should at least study enough of it to get by in this
world. The truth is, not all cars are white.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"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.

your term ONLY includes nuclear potential energy.

at ordinary energies, your expression is the correct approximation!

Gravity

Cecil Moore wrote:
John - KD5YI wrote:
Tiny points exist everywhere, all the time, whether you wish it or not.

White cars exist everywhere, all the time, whether one wishes
it or not, yet not all cars are white. To maintain that all
cars are white when at least one is red is not logical.

Cecil, I am not going to study logic ...

You should at least study enough of it to get by in this
world. The truth is, not all cars are white.

Early in this thread "conventional accepted physics" said that corona
could not exist in fairweather conditions. Now there has been a subtle
change to the theme of "prove that corona occurs in more than 99.9% of
all cases."

Enjoy the banter, John, but don't expect to ever get Cecil to agree on
anything.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil, I am not going to study logic ...

most Usenet discussions are very low quality due to informal fallacies.

engineers are smart in physics, but can't debate.

Gravity

Gene Fuller wrote:
Early in this thread "conventional accepted physics" said that corona
could not exist in fairweather conditions.

Actually, I said my references indicated that, but
that's past history. I later fine-tuned that concept
to "Corona cannot exist without an extra energy source
besides the fairweather current." Remember - moving
airplanes, etc? Please try to keep up. When I am wrong,
I immediately correct my error. That's the scientific
method in action.

My assertion is that charged particle noise can exist
without corona and that is most probably under fairweather
conditions.

I suggest that you and others review the logical difference
between exclusive statements and inclusive statements.

Exclusive statement: Charged particle noise cannot exist
without corona. A mostly meaningless statement since it
is virtually impossible to prove. Your side has been
asserting these types of exclusive statements.

Inclusive statement: Charged particle noise can exist
without corona. Easy to prove since it only requires
one example.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

gravity wrote:
Cecil, I am not going to study logic ...

most Usenet discussions are very low quality due to informal fallacies.
engineers are smart in physics, but can't debate.

Especially when they don't understand the difference
between "exclusive" and "inclusive".
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Gene Fuller wrote:


Enjoy the banter, John, but don't expect to ever get Cecil to agree on
anything.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Well, thanks, Gene, but I don't really enjoy debating. He will believe
whatever he wants, whether it is right or wrong. The world will not be moved
by it in either case.

73,
John