Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

"Atmospheric Electrostatics" is a 120 page free book
available for downloading at:

http://www.colutron.com/products/cosmos.html

Here's a quote:
"In contrast to rain, precipitation currents carried to
ground by snow are usually always negative under
potential gradients between +/- 800 V/m (Chalmers 1956).
The total precipitation current around the earth is
estimated to be about +340 amperes."


So that would give a current of about 0.06 picoamperes per square foot?

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
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

Cecil,

That's a good one. Are you going to start referencing the CFA and EH
crowd next?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

"John - KD5YI" wrote in message
news:9SUlg.3599$Td6.1671@trnddc08...
Cecil Moore wrote:

"Atmospheric Electrostatics" is a 120 page free book
available for downloading at:

http://www.colutron.com/products/cosmos.html

Here's a quote:
"In contrast to rain, precipitation currents carried to
ground by snow are usually always negative under
potential gradients between +/- 800 V/m (Chalmers 1956).
The total precipitation current around the earth is
estimated to be about +340 amperes."


So that would give a current of about 0.06 picoamperes per square foot?

oh my god. there are several picoamperes on my antennas! what should i do?

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

John - KD5YI wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
"In contrast to rain, precipitation currents carried to
ground by snow are usually always negative under
potential gradients between +/- 800 V/m (Chalmers 1956).
The total precipitation current around the earth is
estimated to be about +340 amperes."

So that would give a current of about 0.06 picoamperes per square foot?

I assume that's an average value. Localized values could
be much less or much greater.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
"John - KD5YI" wrote in message
news:9SUlg.3599$Td6.1671@trnddc08...

Cecil Moore wrote:


"Atmospheric Electrostatics" is a 120 page free book
available for downloading at:

http://www.colutron.com/products/cosmos.html

Here's a quote:
"In contrast to rain, precipitation currents carried to
ground by snow are usually always negative under
potential gradients between +/- 800 V/m (Chalmers 1956).
The total precipitation current around the earth is
estimated to be about +340 amperes."


So that would give a current of about 0.06 picoamperes per square foot?


oh my god. there are several picoamperes on my antennas! what should i do?

Gravity



Well, one fellow wanted to use them to trickle charge a battery. Good
luck with that!
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
That's a good one. Are you going to start referencing the CFA and EH
crowd next?

Is NASA part of the CFA and EH crowds? Please note the complete
absence of references to corona when fairweather fields are
being discussed.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...d15jun99_1.htm
"Later experimenters showed that *clear, calm air* carries an
electrical current ...

http://www.sgo.fi/SPECIAL/Contributions/Tammet.pdf
"The global component of variations of *fair weather electricity*
is a subject of special attention ..."

http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/02/07/mrstatic.html
"Fair-weather conditions are shown on the left side of the
figure, where a downward electric field drives positive
charges toward ground."

http://www.missioninstruments.com/pa...ec_fields.html
"On a *clear day*, when the atmosphere is clear of storm clouds,
the primary source of electric charge creating an electric field
on the surface of the earth is the ionosphere. ... This scenario
creates what is termed a "fair weather" electric field due to
the positive charge overhead."

http://www.campbellsci.com/documents...0_overview.pdf
"On a *clear day (fair weather)*, a relatively small number of
positive ions exist in the atmosphere that give rise to an
electric field on the order of -100 to -200 V/m."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
That's a good one. Are you going to start referencing the CFA and EH
crowd next?

Is NASA part of the CFA and EH crowds? Please note the complete
absence of references to corona when fairweather fields are
being discussed.


Cecil,

None of those references mention world peace or noise on HF antennas
either. What is your point? There is an entire universe of documents
that include no reference to corona.

I will repeat, nobody has any issues with fairweather fields or any of
the other atmospheric stuff you keep dredging up. So what?

You have not offered a single reference beyond the ARRL Handbook that
supports your model for noise generation.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
I will repeat, nobody has any issues with fairweather fields or any of
the other atmospheric stuff you keep dredging up. So what?

Sour grapes?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene W4SZ wrote:
"You have not offered a single reference beyond the ARRL Handbook that
supports your model for noise generation." (Directed to Cecil)

Particle discharge makes radio static noise.

Look at Terman`s description of "precipitation static". Instead of
charged particles blowing in the wind and alighting on stationary
antennas, Terman describes aircraft and their antennas flying through
clouds of charged particles. The effect is the same.

Terman`s solution: keep the antennas away from sharp points on the
aircraft which tend to noisly discharge the aircraft, insulate antenna
wires, and put Faraday shields on the directional antenna loops.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Noise level between two ant types
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
Gene W4SZ wrote:
"You have not offered a single reference beyond the ARRL Handbook that
supports your model for noise generation." (Directed to Cecil)

Particle discharge makes radio static noise.

Look at Terman`s description of "precipitation static". Instead of
charged particles blowing in the wind and alighting on stationary
antennas, Terman describes aircraft and their antennas flying through
clouds of charged particles. The effect is the same.

Terman`s solution: keep the antennas away from sharp points on the
aircraft which tend to noisly discharge the aircraft, insulate antenna
wires, and put Faraday shields on the directional antenna loops.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Hi Richard,

You skipped the most interesting part in Terman.

In the 1955 edition, page 857, he says,

"The term precipitation static denotes a type of interference frequently
observed in an airplane passing through snow or rain. Under such
circumstances, the airplane may become electrically charged to such a
high potential with respect to the surrounding space that a corona
discharge breaks out at some sharp point on the plane. The interference
that this corona discharge produces with radio reception, termed
precipitation static, is particularly serious at short-wave and lower
frequencies."


So who are ya gonna believe? Terman? the ARRL Handbook? Cecil? Tom R.?


73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
Gene W4SZ wrote:
"You have not offered a single reference beyond the ARRL Handbook that
supports your model for noise generation." (Directed to Cecil)

Particle discharge makes radio static noise.

Look at Terman`s description of "precipitation static". Instead of
charged particles blowing in the wind and alighting on stationary
antennas, Terman describes aircraft and their antennas flying through
clouds of charged particles. The effect is the same.

Terman`s solution: keep the antennas away from sharp points on the
aircraft which tend to noisly discharge the aircraft, insulate antenna
wires, and put Faraday shields on the directional antenna loops.

a PDF reference

http://tinyurl.com/h4o6u

I've done a bit of googling on the subject, and find that most seem to
favor this sort of explanation of the phenomenon. A notable exception is
W8JI. To Tom's credit he performs some experiments along those lines.
I'm not completely sure that I buy the conclusions, but I'll digest them
a bit more. I would suggest that Tom may want to experiment with
charging dust particles with that HV source rather than water.

Some have suggested that Cecil's statements are invalid because he
hasn't done the experiments - not so. His view represents the
mainstream. The debunkers have the burden of proof.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
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.


Just as a point of info Tom. Do you perform experiments to prove or
disprove matters to your satisfaction on everything before accepting it?
That takes a very special person to be ultimately skeptical.

Your posts would indicate that... or maybe that you just enjoy busting
on Cecil. 8^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
"The term precipitation static denotes a type of interference frequently
observed in an airplane passing through snow or rain. Under such
circumstances, the airplane may become electrically charged to such a
high potential with respect to the surrounding space that a corona
discharge breaks out at some sharp point on the plane. The interference
that this corona discharge produces with radio reception, termed
precipitation static, is particularly serious at short-wave and lower
frequencies."

Corona causes RF noise for sure. But RF noise also occurs in
the complete absence of corona. RF noise in the complete absence
of corona is what we have been discussing. *Nobody* is arguing that
corona doesn't cause RF noise. We are arguing that RF noise can be
caused by something other than corona.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Some have suggested that Cecil's statements are invalid because he
hasn't done the experiments - not so. His view represents the
mainstream. The debunkers have the burden of proof.

Yep, here's a quote from the mainstream:

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

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

Given charged dirt (dust) particles encountering a bare-wire
dipole, all the rest is simple physics.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Gene W4SZ wrote:
"You have not offered a single reference beyond the ARRL Handbook that
supports your model for noise generation." (Directed to Cecil)

Particle discharge makes radio static noise.

Look at Terman`s description of "precipitation static". Instead of
charged particles blowing in the wind and alighting on stationary
antennas, Terman describes aircraft and their antennas flying through
clouds of charged particles. The effect is the same.

Terman`s solution: keep the antennas away from sharp points on the
aircraft which tend to noisly discharge the aircraft, insulate antenna
wires, and put Faraday shields on the directional antenna loops.

a PDF reference

http://tinyurl.com/h4o6u

I've done a bit of googling on the subject, and find that most seem
to favor this sort of explanation of the phenomenon. A notable exception
is W8JI. To Tom's credit he performs some experiments along those lines.
I'm not completely sure that I buy the conclusions, but I'll digest them
a bit more. I would suggest that Tom may want to experiment with
charging dust particles with that HV source rather than water.

Some have suggested that Cecil's statements are invalid because he
hasn't done the experiments - not so. His view represents the
mainstream. The debunkers have the burden of proof.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -


Mike,

Did you actually read the reference you provided? It offers complete
support for Tom's position and zero support for Cecil's position.

As usual around RRAA, this entire matter has morphed into all sorts of
side issues. The original and only point of controversy is whether the
so-called "precipitation static" is related to corona discharge or
rather to some sort of particle-by-particle charge transfer of the antenna.

Cecil claims that corona cannot exist in "fairweather" conditions,
although there is no reason given. Therefore the particle-by-particle
hypothesis is the only reasonable choice as the noise generator. The
ARRL Handbook seems to go along with that idea, although not very
explicitly. Other references, including Terman and the training document
you provided say that corona discharge is responsible for the noise
generation. W8JI agrees with that hypothesis.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
"The term precipitation static denotes a type of interference
frequently observed in an airplane passing through snow or rain. Under
such circumstances, the airplane may become electrically charged to
such a high potential with respect to the surrounding space that a
corona discharge breaks out at some sharp point on the plane. The
interference that this corona discharge produces with radio reception,
termed precipitation static, is particularly serious at short-wave and
lower frequencies."

Corona causes RF noise for sure. But RF noise also occurs in
the complete absence of corona. RF noise in the complete absence
of corona is what we have been discussing. *Nobody* is arguing that
corona doesn't cause RF noise. We are arguing that RF noise can be
caused by something other than corona.

Cecil,

How do you know there is no corona discharge? Is there some special test
that tells one if corona discharge is present or not?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Yep, here's a quote from the mainstream:

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

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

Given charged dirt (dust) particles encountering a bare-wire
dipole, all the rest is simple physics.

Cecil,

You have now revealed the root cause of the controversy. Try using real
physics instead of simple physics.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

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.



Just as a point of info Tom. Do you perform experiments to prove or
disprove matters to your satisfaction on everything before accepting it?
That takes a very special person to be ultimately skeptical.

Your posts would indicate that... or maybe that you just enjoy
busting on Cecil. 8^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Actually, when it comes to some of the issues raised on this newsgroup,
yes, I do. I don't see why I should believe what Cecil makes up in his
head just because he makes it up in his head.

"I can't believe _that_!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a
long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe
impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I
was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes
I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There
goes the shawl again!"

Cecil and the White Queen would get along well together.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Mike Coslo wrote:

Richard Harrison wrote:

Gene W4SZ wrote:
"You have not offered a single reference beyond the ARRL Handbook that
supports your model for noise generation." (Directed to Cecil)

Particle discharge makes radio static noise.

Look at Terman`s description of "precipitation static". Instead of
charged particles blowing in the wind and alighting on stationary
antennas, Terman describes aircraft and their antennas flying through
clouds of charged particles. The effect is the same.

Terman`s solution: keep the antennas away from sharp points on the
aircraft which tend to noisly discharge the aircraft, insulate antenna
wires, and put Faraday shields on the directional antenna loops.


a PDF reference

http://tinyurl.com/h4o6u

I've done a bit of googling on the subject, and find that most seem
to favor this sort of explanation of the phenomenon. A notable exception
is W8JI. To Tom's credit he performs some experiments along those lines.
I'm not completely sure that I buy the conclusions, but I'll digest them
a bit more. I would suggest that Tom may want to experiment with
charging dust particles with that HV source rather than water.

Some have suggested that Cecil's statements are invalid because he
hasn't done the experiments - not so. His view represents the
mainstream. The debunkers have the burden of proof.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

It doesn't represent the mainstream. Go back and actually read the
references. Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

Some have suggested that Cecil's statements are invalid because he
hasn't done the experiments - not so. His view represents the
mainstream. The debunkers have the burden of proof.


Yep, here's a quote from the mainstream:

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

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

Given charged dirt (dust) particles encountering a bare-wire
dipole, all the rest is simple physics.

Prove that this causes radio frequency noise, Cecil.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Did you actually read the reference you provided? It offers complete
support for Tom's position and zero support for Cecil's position.

I cannot find any support for Tom's position except from
wishful thinking by a certain group of ignorant people here
on r.r.a.a.

As usual around RRAA, this entire matter has morphed into all sorts of
side issues. The original and only point of controversy is whether the
so-called "precipitation static" is related to corona discharge or
rather to some sort of particle-by-particle charge transfer of the antenna.

Yes, and the references I have provided indicate that natural
*corona is impossible under clear-sky fairweather conditions*.
You obviously have not read them.

Cecil claims that corona cannot exist in "fairweather" conditions,
although there is no reason given.

Again, obviously a false statement based on wishful thinking.
As proved by my references, the existence of corona requires
~100 uA per cm^2. Quoting from the previous NASA web page, for
the fairweather field, "the current is 10^-12 amps per square
meter."

Requirement for corona to exist:

100 uA per cm^2 = 10 amps per square meter

Available current during fairweather conditions:

10^-12 amps per square meter

Conclusion: During fairweather conditions, the current is
13 magnitudes too low for corona to exist.

Therefore the particle-by-particle
hypothesis is the only reasonable choice as the noise generator. The
ARRL Handbook seems to go along with that idea, although not very
explicitly. Other references, including Terman and the training document
you provided say that corona discharge is responsible for the noise
generation. W8JI agrees with that hypothesis.

Again, obviously a false statement based on wishful thinking.
Terman said no such thing about stationary antennas. The energy
for the corona referenced by Terman is coming from the movement
of the airplane, i.e. from the engine fuel. Corona requires a
supply of energy that simply doesn't exist for a stationary
receiving antenna under fairweather conditions.

If the airplane was not moving, i.e. not being supplied with
energy by the engines, the corona would probably not exist.
Comparing a moving airplane to a stationary antenna is apples
and oranges and is therefore an invalid argument.

If we supply the antenna with enough RF energy from a transmitter,
corona will surely occur. But a supply of extra energy from a
transmitter or from a moving airplane is not what we have been
discussing. We have been discussing fairweather conditions for
a stationary antenna.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
How do you know there is no corona discharge?

Because under fairweather conditions, corona requires
13 magnitudes more current than is available. Please
see my other posting.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Actually, when it comes to some of the issues raised on this newsgroup,
yes, I do. I don't see why I should believe what Cecil makes up in his
head just because he makes it up in his head.

Do you really think I faked all those web page references
including one from NASA?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.

Please describe your experiments for proving Maxwell's equations.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Given charged dirt (dust) particles encountering a bare-wire
dipole, all the rest is simple physics.

Prove that this causes radio frequency noise, Cecil.

Already have previously in this thread, Tom. I even
drew you guys some pictures. Maybe you should actually
read what I have posted instead of continuing to do
nothing but regurgitate your gut feelings over and
over and over ...
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
How do you know there is no corona discharge?

Because under passive fairweather conditions, corona
requires 13 magnitudes more current than is available
in nature. Please see my other posting.

And just a comment on your seeming innocent question
above. You seem to be asking me to prove that there
is no corona discharge when proving a negative is
impossible. The onus of proof is upon the one(s) who
assert(s) the positive position.

W8JI asserted that there is a corona discharge and
you agreed with him. Therefore, the onus of proof
is upon you. Please prove that corona can exist
on a receiving antenna under passive fairweather
conditions.

People are free to assert negatives at any time
without any proof. For instance, if I assert that
you cannot dunk a basketball, my assertion will
remain true until you prove that you can dunk
a basketball.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene, W4SZ wrote:
"Cecil claims that corona cannot exist in "fairweather" conditions,
although there is no reason given."

My broadcast station experience includes blue-skys in advance of
thunderstorms when guy-wire segements became so charged that the
compression insulators separating the guy segments would flashover with
loud bangs. These times would be windy. My conclusion is that charged
air particles (ions) strike the guy wires charging them to high but
varying potentials.

The arc or flashover between segments is a corona of short duration, not
St. Elmo`s fire. It sounds like a gun shot. These may become so numerous
that the sounds are as if a battle were occurring. The sounds are not
unlike shorting the leads of a highly-charged large capacitor.

If leakage across the insulators were fast enough, rhere would be no
bangs.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
y.net...
Tom Donaly wrote:
Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.

Please describe your experiments for proving Maxwell's equations.
--

you raise a good point.

first of all, Tom is wrong. not much of anything can be proven. in
mathematics, you proceed from axioms, which are accepted assumptions. then
you chain things together to result in proof. some proofs are more formal
than others.

Russell and Whitehead attempted to axiomatize mathematics, which resulted in
failure. Russell never did serious math again. Tom should read the work of
Godel, Chatin, and Turing.

in M-theory (strings), there are many things which can't be proven at this
time, and may never be proven. there are some experiments which never can
be performed. this why we say string theory is unfalsifiable.

so toss out this idea of "proof", because it's a just a term that engineers
think they know something about.

and i didn't even get started on epistemology.

Gravity

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

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
y.net...

Tom Donaly wrote:

Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.

Please describe your experiments for proving Maxwell's equations.
--


you raise a good point.

first of all, Tom is wrong. not much of anything can be proven. in
mathematics, you proceed from axioms, which are accepted assumptions. then
you chain things together to result in proof. some proofs are more formal
than others.

Russell and Whitehead attempted to axiomatize mathematics, which resulted in
failure. Russell never did serious math again. Tom should read the work of
Godel, Chatin, and Turing.

in M-theory (strings), there are many things which can't be proven at this
time, and may never be proven. there are some experiments which never can
be performed. this why we say string theory is unfalsifiable.

so toss out this idea of "proof", because it's a just a term that engineers
think they know something about.

and i didn't even get started on epistemology.

Gravity


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




If nothing can be proven, then how do you know I'm wrong? Besides,
it isn't a question of whether or not I'm right. It's a question of
whether or not to believe the fantasies of people who are unwilling
to examine Nature. If you've really read and understood the
mathematicians, you'd know that few, or none, of them care the
slightest about the real world. It now seems that some physicists -
the string theorists - have decided to move to Cloud Cuckoo Land
(See Jonathon Swift) so they can live in a nice, comfortable
world of well-paid solipsism, confident that a theory that is
incapable of proof, is also incapable of disproof.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:

Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.


Please describe your experiments for proving Maxwell's equations.

Maxwell thought up Maxwell's equations, Cecil, you didn't. Heinrich
Hertz, Farady, and others did the experimentation. Besides, you only
have to turn on your radio to prove the equations valid. Even Maxwell
knew that without experimental proof, his fine mathematics was only
idle speculation.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

The Google Hypothesis of Guru Elevation - The Guroogle
 

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:23:47 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:

Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.


Please describe your experiments for proving Maxwell's equations.

Maxwell thought up Maxwell's equations, Cecil, you didn't. Heinrich
Hertz, Farady, and others did the experimentation. Besides, you only
have to turn on your radio to prove the equations valid. Even Maxwell
knew that without experimental proof, his fine mathematics was only
idle speculation.

C'Mon Tom,

Cecil's objective is NOT about technical discourse, it is about having
more posts than others and seeing his name responded to as hits. Of
the last 212 posts, 87 are his and there are 13 other posters to share
barely an average of 10 each.

You are responding to Cecil's usual forced expectation of others
proving a body of science before he proceeds to measure something he
maintains is commonly observable. His demands:fulfillments far exceed
his 9:1 posting frequency.

So, as this is actually nothing new, it remains that his postings
serve only the purpose of entertainment. Those that confuse them with
insight or balanced correspondence (or believe in quantity = quality)
are beyond hope.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
y.net...
Gene Fuller wrote:
How do you know there is no corona discharge?

Because under passive fairweather conditions, corona
requires 13 magnitudes more current than is available
in nature. Please see my other posting.

And just a comment on your seeming innocent question
above. You seem to be asking me to prove that there
is no corona discharge when proving a negative is
impossible. The onus of proof is upon the one(s) who
assert(s) the positive position.

W8JI asserted that there is a corona discharge and
you agreed with him. Therefore, the onus of proof
is upon you. Please prove that corona can exist
on a receiving antenna under passive fairweather
conditions.

People are free to assert negatives at any time
without any proof. For instance, if I assert that
you cannot dunk a basketball, my assertion will
remain true until you prove that you can dunk
a basketball.

you can restate most negatives as positives. an example of this is a
logical statement, in which case the contrapositive is always true. if P,
then Q. if not Q, then not P. another example is Demorgan's theorem in set
theory and electronics.

if you say that general relativity is wrong, the burden is on you to prove
otherwise.

if the corona discharge theory is held by 90% of physicists and engineers,
then anyone with a charged particle theory (a minority viewpoint) must do
experimental verification or formulate a theoretical model.

in this case, i think that both Cecil and others should cite peer reviewed
articles.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Please describe your experiments for proving Maxwell's equations.

Maxwell thought up Maxwell's equations, Cecil, you didn't.

Aha, so you don't even follow your own advice. I quote
conventional wisdom from the last 100 years of physics
research and you ask me to to prove it experimentally.

Why do you try to hold me to a higher standard than the
one to which you hold W8JI and yourself? Everything I
have reported is old hat to competent physicists and
competent engineers who know anything at all about
atmospheric physics.

What you and others have asserted goes against 100 years
of conventional wisdom and thousands of experiments in
the field of atmospheric physics during those 100 years.

In fact, the only way to win your argument now is to
prove that a Corona God really exists and is in control
of fairweather fields.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
if the corona discharge theory is held by 90% of physicists and engineers,
then anyone with a charged particle theory (a minority viewpoint) must do
experimental verification or formulate a theoretical model.

100% of physicists and engineers hold the corona discharge
theory. 0.1% of posters to r.r.a.a seem to hold that corona
discharge is the only force at work in the entire universe
and caused the big bang. :-)

99.9% of competent physicists and competent
engineers know that corona is not the only cause of RF
noise. Unfortunately, r.r.a.a. has more than its fair share
of people who deny the past 100 years of scientific experimentation
and research into atmospheric physics and stick with their Corona
God religion.

Other assertions by that same new-world anti-conventional
wisdom crowd:

Reflected waves contain zero energy and are not the cause
of standing waves.

Standing-wave energy just sloshes from side to side in a
transmission line.

The distributed network model is gobbledygook.

Lumped-circuit analysis never fails.

There is zero delay through a real-world 75m bugcatcher coil.

Charged particle RF noise doesn't exist.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

The Google Hypothesis of Guru Elevation - The Guroogle
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:23:47 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:


Tom Donaly wrote:


Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.


Please describe your experiments for proving Maxwell's equations.

Maxwell thought up Maxwell's equations, Cecil, you didn't. Heinrich
Hertz, Farady, and others did the experimentation. Besides, you only
have to turn on your radio to prove the equations valid. Even Maxwell
knew that without experimental proof, his fine mathematics was only
idle speculation.


C'Mon Tom,

Cecil's objective is NOT about technical discourse, it is about having
more posts than others and seeing his name responded to as hits. Of
the last 212 posts, 87 are his and there are 13 other posters to share
barely an average of 10 each.

You are responding to Cecil's usual forced expectation of others
proving a body of science before he proceeds to measure something he
maintains is commonly observable. His demands:fulfillments far exceed
his 9:1 posting frequency.

So, as this is actually nothing new, it remains that his postings
serve only the purpose of entertainment. Those that confuse them with
insight or balanced correspondence (or believe in quantity = quality)
are beyond hope.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You're absolutely right, Richard. Of course, if he can use all of
his rural debate tricks to get people who disagree with him
into abandoning the thread, then he thinks he can claim victory
as being the only combatant left on the field of honor. Notice how
he used the Mensa Society post to destroy the discourse? Cecil isn't
really serious, as you point out, and his posts are only valuable for
their entertainment value, as you also point out, but there are,
alas, people who are soft-minded enough not only to take him seriously,
but to agree with him as well. I think Roy had the right idea when
he plonked him. The rest of us should probably follow Roy's example.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:


Cecil claims that corona cannot exist in "fairweather" conditions,
although there is no reason given.

Again, obviously a false statement based on wishful thinking.
As proved by my references, the existence of corona requires
~100 uA per cm^2. Quoting from the previous NASA web page, for
the fairweather field, "the current is 10^-12 amps per square
meter."

Requirement for corona to exist:

100 uA per cm^2 = 10 amps per square meter

Available current during fairweather conditions:

10^-12 amps per square meter

Conclusion: During fairweather conditions, the current is
13 magnitudes too low for corona to exist.



Cecil,

That's a good one. I believe the fairweather reference relates to the
average current density over the entire earth. The corona reference
(which does not even come close to being a "requirement") applies to a
very localized environment. If the average current density over the
entire earth increased to 100 uA per cm^2 I think it might be best to
live far underground.

I have not measured currents, fields, or corona in the atmosphere, but I
have some experience with high voltage equipment in laboratory
environments. I can assure you that corona can occur even when there are
no preexisting fields or currents in the surrounding air. High voltage
and sharp emission points are quite adequate.

The fairweather current and the corona current are completely unrelated.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
How do you know there is no corona discharge?

Because under passive fairweather conditions, corona
requires 13 magnitudes more current than is available
in nature. Please see my other posting.

And just a comment on your seeming innocent question
above. You seem to be asking me to prove that there
is no corona discharge when proving a negative is
impossible. The onus of proof is upon the one(s) who
assert(s) the positive position.

W8JI asserted that there is a corona discharge and
you agreed with him. Therefore, the onus of proof
is upon you. Please prove that corona can exist
on a receiving antenna under passive fairweather
conditions.


Cecil,

I have not said that I agree with W8JI or that corona is a necessary
condition for radio noise.

What I have said is that I disagree with your half-baked fractured
physics explanations.

Corona does not require ANY preexisting current, and certainly not the
global "fairweather" current. The high fields near a sharp point will
create all the corona current necessary.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. com...
gravity wrote:
if the corona discharge theory is held by 90% of physicists and
engineers,
then anyone with a charged particle theory (a minority viewpoint) must
do
experimental verification or formulate a theoretical model.

100% of physicists and engineers hold the corona discharge
theory. 0.1% of posters to r.r.a.a seem to hold that corona
discharge is the only force at work in the entire universe
and caused the big bang. :-)

99.9% of competent physicists and competent
engineers know that corona is not the only cause of RF
noise. Unfortunately, r.r.a.a. has more than its fair share
of people who deny the past 100 years of scientific experimentation
and research into atmospheric physics and stick with their Corona
God religion.

Other assertions by that same new-world anti-conventional
wisdom crowd:

Reflected waves contain zero energy and are not the cause
of standing waves.

Standing-wave energy just sloshes from side to side in a
transmission line.

The distributed network model is gobbledygook.

Lumped-circuit analysis never fails.

There is zero delay through a real-world 75m bugcatcher coil.

Charged particle RF noise doesn't exist.

LMAO. i enjoyed reading this.

Gravity

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

The Google Hypothesis of Guru Elevation - The Guroogle
 

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:50:31 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

Notice how he used the Mensa Society post to destroy the discourse?

Hi Tom,

I notice past membership is one of those unprovable positive facts.

there are,
alas, people who are soft-minded enough not only to take him seriously,
but to agree with him as well.

So rare so that Cecil has to offer they support him in secret email.
Even this is about hit counts when your thumb is on the scale. ;-)

I think Roy had the right idea when
he plonked him. The rest of us should probably follow Roy's example.

What's the fun in that? Pick one point and drill down; ignore the
side topics and drill down; discard the tailored citations and drill
down. Everyone of these drillings leads to a dry hole.
win-lose (classic American competition)

And yes, Mike, busting on Cecil is one pursuit here, we will leave it
to you to judge if it is indiscriminant and across the board, or fits
to threads dominated 9:1 by your Rodney King of the antennas.

Gimme another baton! I broke mine!
(classic American entertainment)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
y.net...

Gene Fuller wrote:

How do you know there is no corona discharge?

Because under passive fairweather conditions, corona
requires 13 magnitudes more current than is available
in nature. Please see my other posting.

And just a comment on your seeming innocent question
above. You seem to be asking me to prove that there
is no corona discharge when proving a negative is
impossible. The onus of proof is upon the one(s) who
assert(s) the positive position.

W8JI asserted that there is a corona discharge and
you agreed with him. Therefore, the onus of proof
is upon you. Please prove that corona can exist
on a receiving antenna under passive fairweather
conditions.

People are free to assert negatives at any time
without any proof. For instance, if I assert that
you cannot dunk a basketball, my assertion will
remain true until you prove that you can dunk
a basketball.


you can restate most negatives as positives. an example of this is a
logical statement, in which case the contrapositive is always true. if P,
then Q. if not Q, then not P. another example is Demorgan's theorem in set
theory and electronics.

if you say that general relativity is wrong, the burden is on you to prove
otherwise.

if the corona discharge theory is held by 90% of physicists and engineers,
then anyone with a charged particle theory (a minority viewpoint) must do
experimental verification or formulate a theoretical model.

in this case, i think that both Cecil and others should cite peer reviewed
articles.

Gravity



Don't be an ass, Gravity.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH