John - KD5YI wrote:
He will believe
whatever he wants, whether it is right or wrong.

I will believe what the technical evidence indicates.
But who knows, there may actually be a Corona God up
there somewhere in control of all antenna noise.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

I just waded back through my postings. A day or two after making
that statement, I added the context in which that statement was
made. (That happened days ago).

Conventional accepted physics says that corona cannot exist in
fairweather conditions without an additional source of energy.
When I asked that the source of corona energy be identified,
I believe it was you who said, "Who cares?". So I ask again.
Given fairweather conditions, what is the source of energy
for corona? In matters of politics, one follows the money.
In matters of physics, one follows the energy.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

gravity wrote:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,
it is
violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


What is being missed is that charged particle RF noise
is already conventional-wisdom/mainstream-physics.

True. The question being asked is "How could it be possible to hear
such tiny charges impacting an antenna?" It is just as reasonable to
ask how could it be possible to detect the presence of tiny
electromagnetically induced currents on an antenna. But in
consideration of the latter, it should be apparent that if the
magnitude of the randomly fluctuating ion current approaches that of a
small electromagnetic current it would be impossible not to detect it.

73, ac6xg

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

I just waded back through my postings. A day or two after making
that statement, I added the context in which that statement was
made. (That happened days ago).

Conventional accepted physics says that corona cannot exist in
fairweather conditions without an additional source of energy.
When I asked that the source of corona energy be identified,
I believe it was you who said, "Who cares?". So I ask again.
Given fairweather conditions, what is the source of energy
for corona? In matters of politics, one follows the money.
In matters of physics, one follows the energy.

Cecil,

I said that one could use either energy or forces (fields) to solve most
problems. (I have said something similar several times in the past.) It
is often much more convenient to use one formalism over the other due to
the availability of numerical information and workable boundary
conditions. If the problem is set up correctly and the math is done
correctly the same answer will result from either formalism.

If you want to solve the corona question by "following the energy", have
at it. Go ahead and set up the correct boundary conditions, figure out
the right equations to use, and just plug-and-crank. Piece o' cake. The
only minor issue is that the atmosphere can act as a effectively
limitless source or sink for energy. But I am confident you can find a
way around that little detail.

By the way, I would sure like to find that reference you have for
"conventional accepted physics." I have a library full of physics books,
all of which seem to be conventional and accepted, but I have not found
one that has such as all-encompassing title.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
If you want to solve the corona question by "following the energy", have
at it.

The basic question is where does the energy from corona
come from? There should be a simple answer to that
simple question.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
If you want to solve the corona question by "following the energy",
have at it.

The basic question is where does the energy from corona
come from? There should be a simple answer to that
simple question.

Cecil,

Why should there be a simple answer?

I already told you that is not the path I would take if I wanted to find
a quantitative solution. You might check your "conventional accepted
physics" references if you are looking for a simple answer. On the other
hand, if those references consist only of hand-waving explanations,
common sense logic, and quotes from legions of experienced radio
amateurs, then you may need to do some actual work to find your answer.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

If you want to solve the corona question by "following the energy",
have at it.


The basic question is where does the energy from corona
come from? There should be a simple answer to that
simple question.




Motion of one material against another. Silk/glass, dust/metal, rubber
belt/metal combs.
They all transfer electrons from one object to anther.

Dave N

David G. Nagel wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Gene Fuller wrote:

If you want to solve the corona question by "following the energy",
have at it.



The basic question is where does the energy from corona
come from? There should be a simple answer to that
simple question.





Motion of one material against another. Silk/glass, dust/metal, rubber
belt/metal combs.
They all transfer electrons from one object to anther.

Dave N

That creates charge. But what is the threshold for CORONA. Charge and corona are
two different entities. Isn't corona entering the realm of plasma physics?

Your response doesn't answer the question.

Cecil Moore wrote:

Gene Fuller wrote:

If you want to solve the corona question by "following the energy",
have at it.


The basic question is where does the energy from corona
come from? There should be a simple answer to that
simple question.

I was taught that the BASIC source is the energy from the FUSION device that can
be seen on a sunny day as it interacts at the atomic level with 'stuff' :-)

But, I don't think that's what you are asking!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge