|
Noise level between two ant types
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:03:45 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Tom Donaly wrote: The air always has ions in it. I hope you understand the difference between isolated ions existing in the air and the air being ionized into a conducting path. Isolated ions is not corona. Nevertheless, air is in a constant state of conduction. It may only be picoamps per square meter but it still exists and it's what causes the earth to be a lousy capacitor. Hi Tom, To support your statement with more specific characteristics, from a 1972 copy of "Astronautics and Aeronautics:" That capacitor can be described as roughly 3.54 F to the atmosphere at an elevation of 50km; charged with a world-wide continuous 630 MW flow; with a potential difference (average) of 350 KV; and current (average) of 1800 A. Taking this current, from earth, on a basis of cm², the current is then 90 aA about 1 pA/m² as you said the same article goes as high as 2.5 pA/m². The difference is I used an homogenous earth model, the author uses a real model with oceans and land with seasonal variations. "...the equipotential planes remain remarkably horizontal in spite of winds, thermals, drizzle, and cloud cover." "few persons realize that when a person stands in an open field on a clear day, his head has a potential approximately 300V more positive than his feet and .... The gradient averages about 180 V/m over land in the summertime." "The gradient in the austauch or mixing layer varies more than at high altitudes because thermal convection in this region often lifts ions and particles from such sources as pollution, dust, and fog, thus generating an electrical convection current." This "austauch" layer, by observation of accompanying charts, appears to be the first mile (actually 7000 feet) in elevation where conductivity is flat at 200 micro-esu; the electric field starts at 180 - 200 V/m, to then vary downward to 60 V/m; and Charges/cm³ goes from 0 to -2 in the first 2000 feet, and rises to +18. The "austauch" layer may, in fact, be this first 2000 feet where the charge density is negative. This accounts for the heavier positive ion drift downward compared to the lighter negative ion rise into the atmosphere. Be that as it may, the description is suitable for antennas and high places. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: If every interaction between objects requires that somehow the charge is transferred to keep things "identical", how did those nasty dust particles get charged in the first place? Huh? It is you who says the dust particles carry exactly the same charge as the antenna they are encountering. Otherwise, there is current flow in the antenna system which you deny. I am not arguing about antenna noise. I am questioning your misuse of physics. There are no charge equalization laws. Huh? Place a charge on a wire. Doesn't current flow in both directions until the charge is equalized throughout the conductor? Did my college professors lie to me? Cecil, If your college professors actually said that, then yes, they lied. Try looking in any basic physics text. I believe you will find discussion of electrostatic forces, equipotential surfaces, fields, and Gauss' law. It is doubtful that you will find any technical description of charge equalization. Simply grabbing random techno-factoids and assembling them into some sort of support for your case does not really help. (I said nothing about dust particles. I merely asked you how they got charged.) 73, Gene W4SZ |
Noise level between two ant types
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Gene Fuller wrote: If every interaction between objects requires that somehow the charge is transferred to keep things "identical", how did those nasty dust particles get charged in the first place? Huh? It is you who says the dust particles carry exactly the same charge as the antenna they are encountering. Otherwise, there is current flow in the antenna system which you deny. I am not arguing about antenna noise. I am questioning your misuse of physics. There are no charge equalization laws. Huh? Place a charge on a wire. Doesn't current flow in both directions until the charge is equalized throughout the conductor? Did my college professors lie to me? Cecil, If your college professors actually said that, then yes, they lied. Try looking in any basic physics text. I believe you will find discussion of electrostatic forces, equipotential surfaces, fields, and Gauss' law. It is doubtful that you will find any technical description of charge equalization. Simply grabbing random techno-factoids and assembling them into some sort of support for your case does not really help. (I said nothing about dust particles. I merely asked you how they got charged.) 73, Gene W4SZ It isn't the charge that is equal, it's the potential. If there were a potential difference between two places on a conductor, there would be a current and then the conditions wouldn't be static. David K. Cheng addresses this in his book _Field and Wave Electromagnetics_. I think it's Cecil's memory that lied to him rather than his professors. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Noise level between two ant types
Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:03:45 GMT, "Tom Donaly" wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Tom Donaly wrote: The air always has ions in it. I hope you understand the difference between isolated ions existing in the air and the air being ionized into a conducting path. Isolated ions is not corona. Nevertheless, air is in a constant state of conduction. It may only be picoamps per square meter but it still exists and it's what causes the earth to be a lousy capacitor. Hi Tom, To support your statement with more specific characteristics, from a 1972 copy of "Astronautics and Aeronautics:" That capacitor can be described as roughly 3.54 F to the atmosphere at an elevation of 50km; charged with a world-wide continuous 630 MW flow; with a potential difference (average) of 350 KV; and current (average) of 1800 A. Taking this current, from earth, on a basis of cm², the current is then 90 aA about 1 pA/m² as you said the same article goes as high as 2.5 pA/m². The difference is I used an homogenous earth model, the author uses a real model with oceans and land with seasonal variations. "...the equipotential planes remain remarkably horizontal in spite of winds, thermals, drizzle, and cloud cover." "few persons realize that when a person stands in an open field on a clear day, his head has a potential approximately 300V more positive than his feet and .... The gradient averages about 180 V/m over land in the summertime." "The gradient in the austauch or mixing layer varies more than at high altitudes because thermal convection in this region often lifts ions and particles from such sources as pollution, dust, and fog, thus generating an electrical convection current." This "austauch" layer, by observation of accompanying charts, appears to be the first mile (actually 7000 feet) in elevation where conductivity is flat at 200 micro-esu; the electric field starts at 180 - 200 V/m, to then vary downward to 60 V/m; and Charges/cm³ goes from 0 to -2 in the first 2000 feet, and rises to +18. The "austauch" layer may, in fact, be this first 2000 feet where the charge density is negative. This accounts for the heavier positive ion drift downward compared to the lighter negative ion rise into the atmosphere. Be that as it may, the description is suitable for antennas and high places. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hi Richard, that's pretty much the basis of my interpretation of Tom Rauch's experience with precipitation static. Some authors (Feynman for one)claim the earthly capacitor is constantly being recharged from lightning storms in the tropics. I don't understand dust storm electrodynamics, though, but since Saint Elmo's fire has been seen in dust storms it may still have something to do with the earth's electrical field added to whatever produces the potentials within the dust storm. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Noise level between two ant types
There ya go. REAL data.
|
Noise level between two ant types
Thanks Richard and Tom D.
I was worried for a while mythology and the magic dust (not Cheech and Chong style, but Texas style) would overshadow what really goes on. Richard Clark wrote: "few persons realize that when a person stands in an open field on a clear day, his head has a potential approximately 300V more positive than his feet and .... The gradient averages about 180 V/m over land in the summertime." We have to be careful with that! Actually the impedance of the field is very high. When a person stands in an open field he actually perturbs the electric field very close to him because his body resistance is very very low compared to the impedance of the electric field. His feet are not really 300V more negative than his head unless you would replace everything below his eyebrows and above his ankles with a very good insulator. On calm windless days the electric field in the air around a structure like an antenna is easily bled off even through extremely high values of resistance, and when the wind picks up, especially when there are particles of some type, the electric field impedance is effectively reduced. There are some people who believe in magic. Some people think a tall metal structure has a potential difference between ends that builds up in storms, eventually charging the top of the structure so much it arcs to the clouds above. To cure that pure fantasy they put little spikey balls on the top of their tower, somehow thinking the leakage from that corona that Cecil knows doesn't exist bleeds off the charge and makes the clouds above and earth below the same potential. It's very strange how those people all argue with each other and argue against themselves, but then that's what happens when too much magic dust hits an antenna. 73 Tom |
Noise level between two ant types
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Try looking in any basic physics text. I believe you will find discussion of electrostatic forces, equipotential surfaces, fields, and Gauss' law. It is doubtful that you will find any technical description of charge equalization. On the contrary, my DC circuits book has an example of the charges on two identical capacitors equalizing when they are paralleled. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
|
Noise level between two ant types
|
Noise level between two ant types
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Try looking in any basic physics text. I believe you will find discussion of electrostatic forces, equipotential surfaces, fields, and Gauss' law. It is doubtful that you will find any technical description of charge equalization. On the contrary, my DC circuits book has an example of the charges on two identical capacitors equalizing when they are paralleled. If I cause 10 coulombs of charge to be on a 10 meter long wire, do I not have a uniform charge distribution of 1 coulomb per meter on the wire, under dc steady state conditions? Isn't this required for any equipotential surface? |
Noise level between two ant types
Richard Clark wrote: Quite true. Its as if a needle has penetrated the equipotential shells over that 300V span. Streamlines would probably reveal a dead short to what are in the distance 300V/90aA = 3,333,333 GOhm resistive paths. .....and when we picture this stuff correctly everything works. For an example the cubical quad antenna. Quads almost always have long insulated spreaders with long leakage paths that allow directors and the reflector to "float". So, unlike the typical Yagi, the elements can charge to whatever potential is around them. Everything around the floating element is around the same potential as the element. There is no corona. The driven element has a path to ground, as most antennas do, so it is at a different potential than stuff around the element. Unlike a Yagi, the quad has the advantage of not having very sharp multiple extended protrusions into the space around its only "grounded" element. Not only does the only quad element with a connection that keeps it at earth potential lack extended protrusions, it also does not have the highest impedance point of the element at the point where corona or leakage current is likely to form. This means the quad, unlike the Yagi, does not have a very high impedance point of the antenna protruding into space around the antenna where any very tiny leakage discharges with very low current and very high voltage are better matched to the antenna. When we don't get all hung up on the very obvious nonsense that a closed loop is somhow magically quieter than an open element by virtue of "dc short", or fixated on an odd idea that the particles hitting the conductor are the actual instant of noise generation, everything fits. In conditions where there is corona or the potential for corona, quads are less susceptable to noise. As a matter of fact the very reason quads were used in their initial applications was in the moist high altitude environment of HCJB, and the quad element was used to prevent errosion of the dipole elements by corona into the moist air! When we look at this, it is almost laughable the very people claiming corona can't be the root cause of what is commonly called p-static noise are often arguing quad or quad like antenna short the noise of particles striking the antenna to ground, and thus can't have corona. Or worse yet they argue moisture prevents corona, when the entire reason the quad was "invented" was to prevent coronal errosion of dipole elements in the moist air at HCJB. 73 Tom |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Try looking in any basic physics text. I believe you will find discussion of electrostatic forces, equipotential surfaces, fields, and Gauss' law. It is doubtful that you will find any technical description of charge equalization. On the contrary, my DC circuits book has an example of the charges on two identical capacitors equalizing when they are paralleled. Cecil, My bad. I forgot that rain drops and antenna wires are identical. The behavior of two identical capacitors certainly covers all charge transfer phenomena. 8-) 73, Gene W4SZ |
Noise level between two ant types
Dave wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Try looking in any basic physics text. I believe you will find discussion of electrostatic forces, equipotential surfaces, fields, and Gauss' law. It is doubtful that you will find any technical description of charge equalization. On the contrary, my DC circuits book has an example of the charges on two identical capacitors equalizing when they are paralleled. If I cause 10 coulombs of charge to be on a 10 meter long wire, do I not have a uniform charge distribution of 1 coulomb per meter on the wire, under dc steady state conditions? Isn't this required for any equipotential surface? Dave, No. A good conductor in DC conditions will have an equipotential surface. Charge distribution depends on the shape of the object and the external environment. The wire you describe will have higher charge density near its ends. Electrostatic analysis would be a lot easier if what you suggested was true. 73, Gene W4SZ |
Noise level between two ant types
My previous comments about the charge on each particle of given
diameter which impinges on a grounded antenna wire appears to have put you on the right track. But you are now over-complicating matters. KISS. A succession of random dis-charges constitutes a noise current induced in an antenna wire. Now carry on from there. You'll eventually sort it out. ---- Reg. |
Noise level between two ant types
Dave wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Try looking in any basic physics text. I believe you will find discussion of electrostatic forces, equipotential surfaces, fields, and Gauss' law. It is doubtful that you will find any technical description of charge equalization. On the contrary, my DC circuits book has an example of the charges on two identical capacitors equalizing when they are paralleled. If I cause 10 coulombs of charge to be on a 10 meter long wire, do I not have a uniform charge distribution of 1 coulomb per meter on the wire, under dc steady state conditions? Isn't this required for any equipotential surface? Nope. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Noise level between two ant types
wrote:
In conditions where there is corona or the potential for corona, quads are less susceptable to noise. Quads are also less susceptible to noise from charged particles because they tend to distribute the charge locally instead of through the transmission line like a dipole does. Corona is like being pregnant. It either exists or it doesn't. Corona is steady-state ionization of the air. Arcing can occur without corona. Or worse yet they argue moisture prevents corona, when the entire reason the quad was "invented" was to prevent coronal errosion of dipole elements in the moist air at HCJB. Apples and oranges, Tom. Since nobody has argued that high humidity prevents corona during transmitting, your statement is just an unfair obfuscation of the facts. On a clear-sky, high-humidity day, the high humidity prevents corona on *receiving* antennas. The antenna at HCJB did *NOT* report any corona problems during receive. The antenna at HCJB had corona problems when 10 KW of power was being supplied by the transmitter. The energy necessary to cause the corona was coming from the transmitter, not from the atmosphere. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Gene Fuller wrote:
I forgot that rain drops and antenna wires are identical. The behavior of two identical capacitors certainly covers all charge transfer phenomena. You apparently misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say the charge on the charged particle and the wire equalized. I said, after the charge is transferred to a point on the wire by the particle, the charge on the wire equalizes up and down the wire. But I am always ready to learn something new. Given two identical conductive spheres with unequal charges, please explain the physics that prohibits those spheres from equalizing their charges when they are brought into physical contact. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Tom Donaly wrote:
If I cause 10 coulombs of charge to be on a 10 meter long wire, do I not have a uniform charge distribution of 1 coulomb per meter on the wire, under dc steady state conditions? Isn't this required for any equipotential surface? Nope. But that wasn't the correct question. Given two identical dipole elements connected by a link coupling, does the charge on each element equalize with the other? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: I forgot that rain drops and antenna wires are identical. The behavior of two identical capacitors certainly covers all charge transfer phenomena. You apparently misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say the charge on the charged particle and the wire equalized. I said, after the charge is transferred to a point on the wire by the particle, the charge on the wire equalizes up and down the wire. I'm sorry, not up and down the single elementary wire, but between the two identical elements of a link-coupled dipole. But I am always ready to learn something new. Given two identical conductive spheres with unequal charges, please explain the physics that prohibits those spheres from equalizing their charges when they are brought into physical contact. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Gene Fuller wrote:
I forgot that rain drops and antenna wires are identical. The behavior of two identical capacitors certainly covers all charge transfer phenomena. I didn't say what I wanted to say in my last reply to this posting so I canceled my first reply and am substituting this one for it. It the older reply made it off my server, please ignore it. You obviously misunderstood what I said. I didn't say the charge equalized between the charged particle and the wire. What I said is after the charge is deposited on the wire and the particle that did the depositing of the charge is long gone, the charge deposited by that particle will equalize between two identical dipole elements that are link coupled. Let's say we have a perfectly symmetrical link-coupled dipole and we deposit one coulomb on one element. Please explain the laws of physics that prohibit those two dipole elements from equalizing at the same charge. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
wrote:
When we look at this, it is almost laughable the very people claiming corona can't be the root cause of what is commonly called p-static noise are often arguing quad or quad like antenna short the noise of particles striking the antenna to ground, and thus can't have corona. W8JI: Tibet doesn't exist. W5DXP: Please prove it. W8JI: I have seen China but I have never seen Tibet. Substitute "corona" for China and "charged particle noise" for Tibet and you will completely understand W8JI's argument. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote: Apples and oranges, Tom. Since nobody has argued that high humidity prevents corona during transmitting, your statement is just an unfair obfuscation of the facts. On a clear-sky, high-humidity day, the high humidity prevents corona on *receiving* antennas. The antenna at HCJB did *NOT* report any corona problems during receive. Typical of Cecil Moore. Do you think you are the center of attention and no one else is worth talking to? I wasn't even talking to you! Look back Cecil. K0TAR said there couldn't be corona in the rain. That's incorrect. Speak when spoken to Cecil. 73 Tom |
Noise level between two ant types
|
Noise level between two ant types
wrote Typical of Cecil Moore. Do you think you are the center of attention and no one else is worth talking to? I wasn't even talking to you! Look back Cecil. K0TAR said there couldn't be corona in the rain. That's incorrect. Speak when spoken to Cecil. 73 Tom Ooooops! Condx is worsening. Now besides being scientwist's guru, purporting to be the Hitler of free speech. Cecil, can you voluntarily relinquish your center of attention title to the Allknowing One, please, in the name of preserving salinity of the Internet? Shades of Freaktenna. :-) Happy Father's Day to all brave fathers! Yuri da BUm not from Tibet, but lived in Zemplin (free dB to anyone identifying the prefix) |
Noise level between two ant types
Tom Ring wrote: I not convinced that corona is what I'm hearing, but I'm no longer convinced it's not, either. That's good. You shouldn't be convinced. Especially if it is something just accepted and circulated without experimental results confirming it. There are a lot of odd ideas that are deeply rooted, especially when it comes to electric fields, noise, and charges. Look at the shielded loop thread that just went on! Someone started a whole thread just to show the shield blocked electric fields and "noise", when all the shield really does is help balance the antenna and eleimnate common mode responses. 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. The potential difference is between the earth and space above the earth. Clouds can also become "charged" and have a large potential difference to earth and anything connected to earth, especially in bad weather. That's why the world has lightning hits! Anything connected to earth and sticking up and out in the air will have a huge potential difference between it and anything in the space around it at the same height or higher. The sharper, higher, and more extended the conductive protrusions are the worse the problem is, and the best ground connection in the world won't reduce it (it can actually only make it worse). Rain or snow or dust won't make the problem less either. Neither will high humidity. I spent a lot of time and money trying to fix what I thought was the problem (the particles making noise) until I learned the folklore was wrong. 73 Tom |
Noise level between two ant types
Yuri Blanarovich wrote: Ooooops! Condx is worsening. Now besides being scientwist's guru, purporting to be the Hitler of free speech. Cecil, can you voluntarily relinquish your center of attention title to the Allknowing One, please, in the name of preserving salinity of the Internet? Shades of Freaktenna. :-) Happy Father's Day to all brave fathers! Yuri da BUm not from Tibet, but lived in Zemplin (free dB to anyone identifying the prefix) .....and as Dr. Phil would say, "How's that shielded loop thread doing Yuri? Is it working for you?" |
Noise level between two ant types
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
wrote Look back Cecil. K0TAR said there couldn't be corona in the rain. K0TAR replied: Hang on, I didn't say "couldn't", ... Speak when spoken to Cecil. God has obviously died and left W8JI in charge of r.r.a.a. :-) Cecil, can you voluntarily relinquish your center of attention title to the Allknowing One, please, in the name of preserving salinity of the Internet? Just as soon as He lives up to His omniscient self-image. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
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 |
Noise level between two ant types
wrote: If the noise is at a different frequency than the good signal, then the receiver itself will sort it all out. There really wasn't any good way to answer an idea so fatally flawed. I ignored it thinking you would figure it out on your own later, or that Yuri would help you get a different perspective on things. 73 Tom By the way Cecil, I'm absolutely serious. I was very surprised you didn't think through what you drew and what you proposed before posting it. I expected even Yuri would catch the mistake you made and correct you. 73 Tom |
Noise level between two ant types
wrote:
Anyone understanding the basic system at all would understand if the little charges made noise from transferring charge, that noise would be at a radio frequency. Anyone looking at what you drew and understaning what you drew would also understand in order to short the noise energy at the radio frequency the path would also be required to short the good signal. Absolutely false! Good grief, Tom, don't you even understand impedance transformation? The impedance changes along a transmission line with reflections. The impedance at the receiver is NOT the same impedance as exists at the antenna feedpoint. Since my noise problems were with a G5RV used to receive on 40m, let's take that as an example. G5RV dipole---30 ft. 300 ohm matching section--x--coax to RCVR Let's assume a 50 ohm impedance at point 'x' looking toward the receiver. What is the impedance at the dipole feedpoint? Are you capable of that calculation? The 300 ohm matching section is known to be 1/2WL on 20m so it is 1/4WL on 40m. The impedance seen at the dipole feedpoint looking back toward the receiver is therefore ~1800 ohms. A 500 ohm RF choke across the feedpoint will considerably decrease the RF noise at the receiver. So, Tom, which way would the RF noise rather flow? Through a 500 ohm RF choke at the feedpoint or down the transmission line that is exhibiting an impedance of 1800 ohms. I thought you were kidding but you really are trying to refute Ohm's law. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
wrote:
I was very surprised you didn't think through what you drew and what you proposed before posting it. And I am astounded that you would assert that an RF noise pulse would rather flow into the 1800 ohms looking into the feedline than to flow through the 500 ohm choke located at the feedpoint. Or through the straight copper wire of a folded dipole. But, as I have said earlier, I'm willing to learn. Please tell us all exactly how your proposed violation of Ohm's law occurs in reality. Please see my other posting involving a G5RV on 40m. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote: And I am astounded that you would assert that an RF noise pulse would rather flow into the 1800 ohms looking into the feedline than to flow through the 500 ohm choke located at the feedpoint. Or through the straight copper wire of a folded dipole. ....and I'm astonished such a basic very simple thing like impedance and frequency resonse has tripped you up so badly. Before you post any more, you should sit back and relax and think about what you are saying. But, as I have said earlier, I'm willing to learn. Please tell us all exactly how your proposed violation of Ohm's law occurs in reality. Please see my other posting involving a G5RV on 40m. I don't want to spend time looking at your other ideas when your basic concept of noise and selective sorting of noise though misapplication of Ohm's law is so far off base. Why don't you take a few days an think about what the noise our receiver's hear is, and how that noise could possibly interact differently than a desired signal! Don't rush. Think about it a while. It'll come to you and you'll understand your mistake. 73 Tom |
Noise level between two ant types
wrote:
By the way Cecil, I'm absolutely serious. So am I, Tom. For the readers who haven't been keeping up with this thread, let me relate exactly what you are serious about. I had a severe clear-sky charged-particle problem in the Arizona desert. My G5RV was arcing at my transceiver's coax connector about once per minute. I wouldn't have been able to hear any signals through the arcing noise. 40m is my favorite band. I installed a 100 uH choke across the feedpoint. It eliminated the arcing and resulted in readable signals on 40m. I don't know what the signal to noise ratio was but I could hear and work other hams during the charged particle wind storms so the S/N ratio obviously improved. You asserted that such is impossible but it actually happened to me about 15 years ago in the Arizona desert. Anything that eliminates the charged particle arcing more than obviously improves the S/N ratio. Here's a challenge for you, Tom. Set up an arc generator across your receiver terminals in parallel with your antenna. Measure the S/N ratio. Turn off the arc generator. If the S/N ratio doesn't improve, I will adopt your Corona God religion. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
wrote:
Why don't you take a few days an think about what the noise our receiver's hear is, and how that noise could possibly interact differently than a desired signal! Here's a repeat from my other posting. Set up an arc generator across your receiver's terminals in parallel with your antenna. What is the S/N ratio while the arc generator is running? What is the S/N ratio when you turn off the arc generator? For you to assert that there is no change whether the antenna terminals are arcing or not is downright pathological. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
I had a severe clear-sky charged-particle problem in the Arizona desert. My G5RV was arcing at my transceiver's coax connector about once per minute. I wouldn't have been able to hear any signals through the arcing noise. Cecil, I am a bit confused by your description. The arcing was once per minute. Presumably the arc occurred over a very short time, much less than one second. What was happening during the other 59 seconds of each minute? I have no doubt that an arc would interfere with reception. What about the remainder of the time? 73, Gene |
Noise level between two ant types
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: I had a severe clear-sky charged-particle problem in the Arizona desert. My G5RV was arcing at my transceiver's coax connector about once per minute. I wouldn't have been able to hear any signals through the arcing noise. I am a bit confused by your description. The arcing was once per minute. Presumably the arc occurred over a very short time, much less than one second. What was happening during the other 59 seconds of each minute? I'm sorry, Gene, my bad. The arcing was once per second not once per minute. I actually have never heard of such a thing as arcing once per minute. Have you? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
|
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: By the way Cecil, I'm absolutely serious. So am I, Tom. For the readers who haven't been keeping up with this thread, let me relate exactly what you are serious about. I had a severe clear-sky charged-particle problem in the Arizona desert. My G5RV was arcing at my transceiver's coax connector about once per minute. I wouldn't have been able to hear any signals through the arcing noise. 40m is my favorite band. I installed a 100 uH choke across the feedpoint. It eliminated the arcing and resulted in readable signals on 40m. I don't know what the signal to noise ratio was but I could hear and work other hams during the charged particle wind storms so the S/N ratio obviously improved. You asserted that such is impossible but it actually happened to me about 15 years ago in the Arizona desert. Anything that eliminates the charged particle arcing more than obviously improves the S/N ratio. Here's a challenge for you, Tom. Set up an arc generator across your receiver terminals in parallel with your antenna. Measure the S/N ratio. Turn off the arc generator. If the S/N ratio doesn't improve, I will adopt your Corona God religion. There's no such thing as a clear-sky charged-particle problem, either in the Arizona desert or anywhere else. Naming isn't proving. You're going to have people blaming their arcing problems on pure fantasy. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Noise level between two ant types
Tom Donaly wrote:
There's no such thing as a clear-sky charged-particle problem, either in the Arizona desert or anywhere else. You are just showing your extreme ignorance, Tom. Many of us have experienced exactly that problem. Jim Kelley reported it just a couple of days ago caused by Santa Anna winds in CA. Just because you have never experienced it is irrelevant. To be consistent, you must also assert that Jesus never existed because you never met him. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com