Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote :

....and as Dr. Phil would say, "How's that shielded loop thread doing
Yuri? Is it working for you?"


Another jab from Tom da scientwist.

I listened to someone's advice: "do not engage in the ****ing contest with
skunk"
I said what I know, you said what you know, anyone can verify by building
and testing the shielded loops and judging who is full of it.

Shielded loops work as shielded loops, attenuating local noise or
interference with source located within fractions of wavelength from the
antennas, if you know or admit it, or not. It is a FACT that any half baked
ham can observe and verify. You can mumbo - jumbo your theories and display
your falacies on your web pages all you want.

You can call the shield to be an "antenna" or whatever you like.

I thank you for another subject for entertainment and for the "Mythbusters"
articles, when time will permit me. Right now I am busy rejuvenating 175
acres of antennas and building mother of all contest stations. Barely time
to have a pi$$.

Keep it up!

73 Yuri da BUm BUm

Noise level between two ant types
 

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
I listened to someone's advice: "do not engage in a ****ing contest with
a skunk"

How about mud wrestling with pigs?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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. Naming isn't proving. You're
going to have people blaming their arcing problems on pure fantasy.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH


Ahm,
like there are no molecules of air being moved by the wind and rubbing on
conductive parts?
When part is not grounded, it will not accumulate the charge?
If the charge exceeds dielectric strength of the insulator (connector), the
discharge in form of spark would not happen?
Like ariplanes do not accumulate charge when flying? Or my 72 Buick?
Like Cecil is completely off the rocker making stuff up just to make himself
look foolish? Hmmmmmm!
Too much funny stuff going on here from scientwific community. :-)

Yuri K3BU

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
.com...
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
I listened to someone's advice: "do not engage in a ****ing contest with
a skunk"

How about mud wrestling with pigs?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Could be healthy if the mud is medicinal and definitely not foul smelly.
Good for arthritis.

bada BUm

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

O.k., Cecil, prove it experimentally. Many of you
may have experienced a problem, but you don't have the
foggiest notion of what caused it.
Making up causes in your head won't make them real. Making
up names, such as "clear-sky charged-particle problem" won't
magically prove them. Arguing incessantly doesn't
bring them into existence either. The only thing that makes
any sense, now that you've made a theory up in your head, is
to prove it with a series of experiments that anyone can
do to prove, or disprove, the fantasy. If you can't do that,
only fools will believe you.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

"Tom Donaly" wrote

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



Ahm,
like there are no molecules of air being moved by the wind and rubbing on
conductive parts?
When part is not grounded, it will not accumulate the charge?
If the charge exceeds dielectric strength of the insulator (connector), the
discharge in form of spark would not happen?
Like ariplanes do not accumulate charge when flying? Or my 72 Buick?
Like Cecil is completely off the rocker making stuff up just to make himself
look foolish? Hmmmmmm!
Too much funny stuff going on here from scientwific community. :-)

Yuri K3BU



Would you like to tell me how airplanes accumulate charge, Yuri? Would
you like to give me the results of the experiments you're always
threatening to do, but never get around to doing? Would you like
to explain the triboelectric effect and how it relates to antennas
and transmission lines? Perhaps you're an expert on atmospheric
electricity and can tell us all about it. I'd especially like to
hear how the wind "rubbing on conductive parts" causes noise. Cecil
was too chicken to do any meaningful experiments with this, maybe you
can inspire us with your courage and show us how it's done. It'll
sure beat the tired, old attempts at sarcasm you're always posting here,
and probably increase your credibility, too.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

I listened to someone's advice: "do not engage in a ****ing contest
with a skunk"


How about mud wrestling with pigs?

How about learning some experimental technique?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
The only thing that makes
any sense, now that you've made a theory up in your head, is
to prove it with a series of experiments that anyone can
do to prove, or disprove, the fantasy. If you can't do that,
only fools will believe you.

All I am doing is quoting the 2000 ARRL Handbook, Tom. I don't
have to prove anything. It is up to you to prove the 2000 ARRL
Handbook wrong. Here's what it said:

"Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise
that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including
snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes
or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge
on contact with an antenna."

So please prove the ARRL wrong.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil
was too chicken to do any meaningful experiments with this, ...

I don't have to do any experiments, Tom. The ARRL has already
done them for me. From the 2000 ARRL Handbook:

"Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise
that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including
snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes
or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge
on contact with an antenna."

If you don't agree with the ARRL, please present some proof
that they are wrong.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
How about learning some experimental technique?

I would if it was necessary, Tom. But I am relying on
the 2000 ARRL Handbook just as I rely on it for many
facts:

"Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise
that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including
snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes
or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge
on contact with an antenna."

The onus is upon you, Tom. Please prove the ARRL to have made
false statements.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:49:08 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

Would you like to explain the triboelectric effect

More Xerographic philosophy? Please don't ask for more mensa
inflation!

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
Tom Donaly wrote:
How about learning some experimental technique?

I would if it was necessary, Tom. But I am relying on
the 2000 ARRL Handbook just as I rely on it for many
facts:

"Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise
that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including
snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes
or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge
on contact with an antenna."

The onus is upon you, Tom. Please prove the ARRL to have made
false statements.
--

Cecil, the ARRL handbook is *not* an academic journal. it's fine to quote
from it, but it's also not the definitive work of electromagnetic theory.

Gravity

73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

i've solved it. i had to spend about two hours with Maxwell's equations,
but i figured it out. and i compensated for effects of quantum field theory
and relativity.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
Cecil, the ARRL handbook is *not* an academic journal. it's fine to quote
from it, but it's also not the definitive work of electromagnetic theory.

But it is "The Bible" of Amateur Radio and this is an Amateur
Radio newsgroup. Anyone disagreeing with the 2000 ARRL Handbook
should be able to quote some technical references to the contrary.
Where are the technical references that contradict the 2000 ARRL
Handbook statements on "precipitation static"?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

I don't have time to engage in ****ing contests.
There are some people here who "argue" that something is not so, because
they have a theory that "it can't be".
Most of my arguments or descriptions are based on reality that I or others
observed and can be duplicated. If you or anyone doesn't believe in them,
you can duplicate them and see for yourself. I will gladly provide details.
I am not employed or reporting to this esteemed RRAA NG, so it is at the end
of my list of priorities.
Some of the misconceptions are duly noted and in due time, when I have time
to sit down and write it up, I will do so.
The point is, that if Cecil has seen sparks coming from his coax under clear
AZ skies, or I have seen that small loop antenna shield DOES suppress local
interference - measured, seen, experienced - than arguing by scientwists is
just foolish, if not pathetic.
Who's "credibility" are we then talking about?
I do not proclaim to be a scientist who spent tax dollars investigating
phenomena and formulating rock solid theories as why. I am more of real
engineer, who when sees some erroneous stuff posted, and I know it to be
otherwise, I say my piece.
Isn't it interesting that real engineers get hammered on tangents by
scientwists who are wrong and are trying to justify their "truth" by some
mumbo-jumbo and obfuscating the real subject? If that's what turns them on,
than they can have a field day with it.

"It'll sure beat the tired, old attempts at sarcasm you're always posting
here"
Oh, that's what it is!?

73
Yuri Blanarovich, K3BU, VE3BMV


"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
. net...
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

"Tom Donaly" wrote

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



Ahm,
like there are no molecules of air being moved by the wind and rubbing on
conductive parts?
When part is not grounded, it will not accumulate the charge?
If the charge exceeds dielectric strength of the insulator (connector),
the discharge in form of spark would not happen?
Like ariplanes do not accumulate charge when flying? Or my 72 Buick?
Like Cecil is completely off the rocker making stuff up just to make
himself look foolish? Hmmmmmm!
Too much funny stuff going on here from scientwific community. :-)

Yuri K3BU

Would you like to tell me how airplanes accumulate charge, Yuri? Would you
like to give me the results of the experiments you're always
threatening to do, but never get around to doing? Would you like
to explain the triboelectric effect and how it relates to antennas
and transmission lines? Perhaps you're an expert on atmospheric
electricity and can tell us all about it. I'd especially like to
hear how the wind "rubbing on conductive parts" causes noise. Cecil
was too chicken to do any meaningful experiments with this, maybe you
can inspire us with your courage and show us how it's done. It'll
sure beat the tired, old attempts at sarcasm you're always posting here,
and probably increase your credibility, too.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

gravity wrote:

Cecil, the ARRL handbook is *not* an academic journal. it's fine to
quote
from it, but it's also not the definitive work of electromagnetic theory.


But it is "The Bible" of Amateur Radio and this is an Amateur
Radio newsgroup. Anyone disagreeing with the 2000 ARRL Handbook
should be able to quote some technical references to the contrary.
Where are the technical references that contradict the 2000 ARRL
Handbook statements on "precipitation static"?

Where's the experimental evidence, Cecil? You and Yuri don't have
any because you're too afraid to get your hands dirty. Insulting
Tom isn't going to help any, either, nor is intellectual
weaseling and selective quotations from dubious sources.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...

Tom Donaly wrote:

How about learning some experimental technique?

I would if it was necessary, Tom. But I am relying on
the 2000 ARRL Handbook just as I rely on it for many
facts:

"Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise
that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including
snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes
or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge
on contact with an antenna."

The onus is upon you, Tom. Please prove the ARRL to have made
false statements.
--


Cecil, the ARRL handbook is *not* an academic journal. it's fine to quote
from it, but it's also not the definitive work of electromagnetic theory.

Gravity


73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp




It's also a poor substitute for experimentation. Even people who
actually could think rationally, like Maxwell, Faraday, and the
others, had to base their theories on experimental evidence.
Of course, since Cecil once belonged to Mensa, all he has to
do is think something to make it true.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Where's the experimental evidence, Cecil?

Why not ask the ARRL? I'm just quoting them
and relating my personal experience which
agrees with them. Since you are the one
who is disagreeing with conventional wisdom,
seems the onus of proof falls upon you.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
It's also a poor substitute for experimentation.

Quoting the ARRL Handbook sure beats having to move
back to the Arizona desert in order to perform
those experiments. Exactly what do you have against
conventional wisdom?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:


Where's the experimental evidence, Cecil?

Ever heard of Ben Franklin? :-)

73, ac6xg

Noise level between two ant types
 

just a note, "charged particle" normally refers to a fermion like an
electron or proton. "charged dust particle" might be a better term.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...

The point is, that if Cecil has seen sparks coming from his coax under
clear
AZ skies, or I have seen that small loop antenna shield DOES suppress
local
interference - measured, seen, experienced - than arguing by scientwists
is
just foolish, if not pathetic.

it's not dust particles, it's probably WIMPs or neutrinos. or an
evaporating graviton passing from another universe into ours.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

Jim Kelley wrote:



Tom Donaly wrote:


Where's the experimental evidence, Cecil?


Ever heard of Ben Franklin? :-)

73, ac6xg


Yes, and I've heard of Thales of Miletus, too, and both of
those gentlemen would have agreed with Tom Rauch because both
knew the value of experimentation and experience.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Jim Kelley wrote:



Tom Donaly wrote:


Where's the experimental evidence, Cecil?


Ever heard of Ben Franklin? :-)

73, ac6xg


Every winter here in New England we run numerous experiments, every time I walk
across the living room and touch a metal door knob.

The US military has an ESD specification of 25 KV @ 5 KOhms from a healthy
capacitor as a simulator.

Electro static discharge on antennas has been around for years. It is real!

Dry Climate and Wind are all that's needed. Now, is the Physics at the air
molecule level [Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.], ionized Oxygen or Nitrogen atoms,
charged dust particle level [that just begs the issue ... how did the dust get
charged?], Van De Graff level, etc.? Who knows?

But, the antenna ESD is a very REAL effect. You can hypothesize the cause all
day. To solve the problem at the system level, I added an ESD bleed into my
antenna switches.

I'm going to filter this thread to the circular file.

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Yes, and I've heard of Thales of Miletus, too, and both of
those gentlemen would have agreed with Tom Rauch because both
knew the value of experimentation and experience.

Virtually everything about clear-sky charged-particle
static is already known. It's just that some people
choose to ignore the laws of physics and remain ignorant
which is their right.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Dave wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:



Tom Donaly wrote:


Where's the experimental evidence, Cecil?



Ever heard of Ben Franklin? :-)

73, ac6xg


Every winter here in New England we run numerous experiments, every time
I walk across the living room and touch a metal door knob.

The US military has an ESD specification of 25 KV @ 5 KOhms from a
healthy capacitor as a simulator.

Electro static discharge on antennas has been around for years. It is real!

Dry Climate and Wind are all that's needed. Now, is the Physics at the
air molecule level [Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.], ionized Oxygen or Nitrogen
atoms, charged dust particle level [that just begs the issue ... how did
the dust get charged?], Van De Graff level, etc.? Who knows?

But, the antenna ESD is a very REAL effect. You can hypothesize the
cause all day. To solve the problem at the system level, I added an ESD
bleed into my antenna switches.

I'm going to filter this thread to the circular file.


No one said ESD didn't exist. But you hit the nail on the head so far
as wind caused ESD, "Who knows?" I don't, and neither does Cecil,
although he thinks he does.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Dave wrote:
Electro static discharge on antennas has been around for years. It is real!

Here's some interesting quotes from:

http://www.esda.org/basics/part1.cfm

"Virtually all materials, including water and dirt particles in the air,
can be triboelectrically charged."

"When a conductive material becomes charged, the charge (i.e., the
deficiency or excess of electrons) will be uniformly distributed across
the surface of the material. If the charged conductive material makes
contact with another conductive material, the electrons will transfer
between the materials quite easily. If the second conductor is attached
to an earth grounding point, the electrons will flow to ground and the
excess charge on the conductor will be "neutralized."

"Electrostatic charge can be created triboelectrically on conductors the
same way it is created on insulators. As long as the conductor is
isolated from other conductors or ground, the static charge will remain
on the conductor. If the conductor is grounded the charge will easily go
to ground. Or, if the charged conductor contacts or nears another
conductor, the charge will flow between the two conductors."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
No one said ESD didn't exist. But you hit the nail on the head so far
as wind caused ESD, "Who knows?" I don't, and neither does Cecil,
although he thinks he does.

You are free to alleviate your ignorance by reading the same
technical material that I have read or continue your present
path and choose to remain ignorant.

For instance, seems to me the Electrostatic Discharge Association
knows something about charged particles that you don't know.

http://www.esda.org/basics/part1.cfm

"Creating electrostatic charge by contact and separation of
materials is known as "triboelectric charging."

"Virtually all materials, *including water and dirt particles
in the air*, can be triboelectrically charged."

Seems the Electrostatic Discharge Association is in complete
agreement with the 2000 ARRL Handbook:

"Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise
that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including
snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes
or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge
on contact with an antenna."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

In article ,
Cecil Moore wrote:

Dave wrote:
Electro static discharge on antennas has been around for years. It is real!

Here's some interesting quotes from:

http://www.esda.org/basics/part1.cfm

"Virtually all materials, including water and dirt particles in the air,
can be triboelectrically charged."

"When a conductive material becomes charged, the charge (i.e., the
deficiency or excess of electrons) will be uniformly distributed across
the surface of the material. If the charged conductive material makes
contact with another conductive material, the electrons will transfer
between the materials quite easily. If the second conductor is attached
to an earth grounding point, the electrons will flow to ground and the
excess charge on the conductor will be "neutralized."

"Electrostatic charge can be created triboelectrically on conductors the
same way it is created on insulators. As long as the conductor is
isolated from other conductors or ground, the static charge will remain
on the conductor. If the conductor is grounded the charge will easily go
to ground. Or, if the charged conductor contacts or nears another
conductor, the charge will flow between the two conductors."

some old grain elevators have blown up because of static charge.

Grain has power and is electric, at times.

Moral: Eat more grain.

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Tom Donaly" wrote

Where's the experimental evidence, Cecil? You and Yuri don't have
any because you're too afraid to get your hands dirty. Insulting
Tom isn't going to help any, either, nor is intellectual
weaseling and selective quotations from dubious sources.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

You got it slightly wrong.
We mostly relate cases based on our experiments, which are repeatable and
unbelievers could easily duplicate them and see with their own
eyes/ears/whatever instead of "theorizing" here why "it can't be".
On insulting Tom, why don't you look up the threads and see who is insulting
first, pontificating and parading his "theories" on the web pages and if
questioned or debunked, takes of after wives, brings Dr. Phil, etc..
Interesting that bunch of baloney on his web site gets pass and is
proclaimed as gospel by his worshippers, while debunking gets attacked and
smacked with personal comments about .... Are you drinking the same Koolaid?
Shield is the antenna, riiiiight! Current along the loading coil is always
the same, riiiight!

73 Yuri da BUm

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
om...
Dave wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:



Tom Donaly wrote:


Where's the experimental evidence, Cecil?



Ever heard of Ben Franklin? :-)

73, ac6xg


Every winter here in New England we run numerous experiments, every time
I walk across the living room and touch a metal door knob.

The US military has an ESD specification of 25 KV @ 5 KOhms from a
healthy capacitor as a simulator.

Electro static discharge on antennas has been around for years. It is
real!

Dry Climate and Wind are all that's needed. Now, is the Physics at the
air molecule level [Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.], ionized Oxygen or Nitrogen
atoms, charged dust particle level [that just begs the issue ... how did
the dust get charged?], Van De Graff level, etc.? Who knows?

But, the antenna ESD is a very REAL effect. You can hypothesize the
cause all day. To solve the problem at the system level, I added an ESD
bleed into my antenna switches.

I'm going to filter this thread to the circular file.


No one said ESD didn't exist. But you hit the nail on the head so far
as wind caused ESD, "Who knows?" I don't, and neither does Cecil,
although he thinks he does.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

i thought it came from distant thunderstorms?

and if wind blows an ELF system around, it does get noisier. i believe
that's due to physical movement of the antenna system.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:


You got it slightly wrong.
We mostly relate cases based on our experiments, which are repeatable and
unbelievers could easily duplicate them and see with their own
eyes/ears/whatever instead of "theorizing" here why "it can't be".
On insulting Tom, why don't you look up the threads and see who is insulting
first, pontificating and parading his "theories" on the web pages and if
questioned or debunked, takes of after wives, brings Dr. Phil, etc..
Interesting that bunch of baloney on his web site gets pass and is
proclaimed as gospel by his worshippers, while debunking gets attacked and
smacked with personal comments about .... Are you drinking the same Koolaid?
Shield is the antenna, riiiiight! Current along the loading coil is always
the same, riiiight!

73 Yuri da BUm



PLONK!

And I've never plonked anyone else here before. You are very special.

tom
K0TAR

Noise level between two ant types
 

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
We mostly relate cases based on our experiments, which are repeatable and
unbelievers could easily duplicate them and see with their own
eyes/ears/whatever instead of "theorizing" here why "it can't be".

http://www.esda.org/basics/part1.cfm

I'm beginning to believe that anyone who is incapable of
understanding the considerable body of human knowledge
concerning the physics of electrostatic discharge, which
includes charged particles in the air around us, is
simply suffering from an inadequate IQ level. I won't
mention any names but would you agree that those emperors
have no clothes. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
om...

Dave wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:



Tom Donaly wrote:



Where's the experimental evidence, Cecil?



Ever heard of Ben Franklin? :-)

73, ac6xg


Every winter here in New England we run numerous experiments, every time
I walk across the living room and touch a metal door knob.

The US military has an ESD specification of 25 KV @ 5 KOhms from a
healthy capacitor as a simulator.

Electro static discharge on antennas has been around for years. It is

real!

Dry Climate and Wind are all that's needed. Now, is the Physics at the
air molecule level [Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.], ionized Oxygen or Nitrogen
atoms, charged dust particle level [that just begs the issue ... how did
the dust get charged?], Van De Graff level, etc.? Who knows?

But, the antenna ESD is a very REAL effect. You can hypothesize the
cause all day. To solve the problem at the system level, I added an ESD
bleed into my antenna switches.

I'm going to filter this thread to the circular file.


No one said ESD didn't exist. But you hit the nail on the head so far
as wind caused ESD, "Who knows?" I don't, and neither does Cecil,
although he thinks he does.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH


i thought it came from distant thunderstorms?

and if wind blows an ELF system around, it does get noisier. i believe
that's due to physical movement of the antenna system.

Gravity



You could be right, who knows? Certainly not the people who
are afraid to experiment.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Dave wrote:

Electro static discharge on antennas has been around for years. It is
real!


Here's some interesting quotes from:

http://www.esda.org/basics/part1.cfm

"Virtually all materials, including water and dirt particles in the air,
can be triboelectrically charged."

"When a conductive material becomes charged, the charge (i.e., the
deficiency or excess of electrons) will be uniformly distributed across
the surface of the material. If the charged conductive material makes
contact with another conductive material, the electrons will transfer
between the materials quite easily. If the second conductor is attached
to an earth grounding point, the electrons will flow to ground and the
excess charge on the conductor will be "neutralized."

"Electrostatic charge can be created triboelectrically on conductors the
same way it is created on insulators. As long as the conductor is
isolated from other conductors or ground, the static charge will remain
on the conductor. If the conductor is grounded the charge will easily go
to ground. Or, if the charged conductor contacts or nears another
conductor, the charge will flow between the two conductors."

So, you've discovered the triboelectric effect. You're now up to
Thales of Miletus.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
"There`s no such thing as a clear-skycharged-particle problem, either in
the Arizona desert or anywhere else."

I believe there is from countless observations at AM broadcast stations
I`ve worked in over a period of many years.

The insulators used to break up the guy-wires flash over with "bangs" on
certain clear windy days. This might be no problem except it becomes so
severe at times that it overloads the transmitter, taking it off the air
momentarily.

Flash-overs of the guy insulators occurs in S.E. Texas where the
humidity is often very high by most standards. Each guy has many
insulators in its length and double insulators at the guy attachment
point to the tower.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
You could be right, who knows? Certainly not the people who
are afraid to experiment.

Why re-invent the wheel when all you have to do is read
this web page from the Electrostatic Discharge Association
to know what is old hat to most competent engineers?

http://www.esda.org/basics/part1.cfm
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
So, you've discovered the triboelectric effect.

Sorry, it was discovered before I was born.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
Flash-overs of the guy insulators occurs in S.E. Texas where the
humidity is often very high by most standards.

http://www.esda.org/basics/part1.cfm

Take a look at Table 2 where humidity is taken into account.
The static voltages at low relative humidity are magnitudes
higher than the voltages at high relative humidity. It certainly
can happen at high humidity but low humidity makes the problem
magnitudes worse.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Do you suppose corona cares whether the air molecules themselves are
charged or whether the unbalanced charge is held on these highly
electrified dust particles?

Corona requires an ionized path through the air with
a sustained current of 100 uA per cm^2. What you are
calling corona is not corona. If a charged particle
is not in the act of discharging, by definition it
cannot be corona. On a clear dusty day, where is the
ionized glowing path through the air that necessarily
accompanies corona?

What W8JI has previously been describing is the electric
fairweather field, not corona. Please see:

http://www.colutron.com/products/cosmos.html
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp