The Google Hypothesis of Guru Elevation - The Guroogle
 

Richard Clark wrote:

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

Hi Richard,
Cecil is impervious to criticism, anyway. As long as he can
think up "objection stoppers," as fast as an encyclopedia salesman
selling his wares to impoverished housewives, no one can get
to him.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:

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

Hi Tom,

Consider the origin and nature of shot noise.

73, ac6xg

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.


It is the 340 amperes divided by the surface area of the earth in square
feet. I guess you could call it an average.

So, "much greater" than 6E-14 would be what, maybe 6E-13?

Noise level between two ant types
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

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


Hi Tom,

Consider the origin and nature of shot noise.

73, ac6xg


Is that what's causing the Santa Ana wind interference?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

The Google Hypothesis of Guru Elevation - The Guroogle
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
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.

Ad hominem character assignation instead of any technical
content?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
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.

Of course, the high voltage is a *man-made energy source* having
absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. Will
your diversions and obfuscations never end?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
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.

Where is the energy coming from?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
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.

Of course, the high voltage is a *man-made energy source* having
absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. Will
your diversions and obfuscations never end?

Cecil,

You are seriously confused. The energy source is completely irrelevant.
The only issue is what causes the noise heard in the receiver.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
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.

Where is the energy coming from?


Who cares? Do you have your energy hammer out? Does every problem need
to look like an energy nail?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
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.

Where is the energy coming from?


Who cares? Do you have your energy hammer out? Does every problem need
to look like an energy nail?

73,
Gene
W4SZ


I've been away for a few days. Did Cecil ever figure out what was wrong
with his idea about the folded dipole?

I was hoping someone else would walk him through it. Or is he stuck on
something else now?

73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
The only issue is what causes the noise heard in the receiver.

Receiver noise has many causes. Corona is certainly one
of them. There is absolutely no argument about that.

Please provide a reference that says clear-sky wind-
driven charged dust particles cannot cause receiver
noise.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
I've been away for a few days. Did Cecil ever figure out what was wrong
with his idea about the folded dipole?

Nothing wrong with that idea. I implemented that idea when
I was in Arizona to eliminate arcing at the coax connector
which certainly reduced the noise level.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
I've been away for a few days.

Then you probably need to go back and read the web references
that I have posted in your absence. Here's one of them:

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

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

Since dirt particles in the air can be charged then they
can also transfer their charges to bare-wire dipoles which
obviously causes noise.

Also, it seems to me that you have been confusing corona
with the electric fairweather field. A couple of days
ago, I posted about six web references on the subject.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Where is the (corona) energy coming from?

Who cares?

Probably anyone reading this thread. On a clear sky day,
what is the source of energy for your sustained
100 uA/cm^2 corona discharge? That energy has to come
from somewhere. Where does your corona energy come from?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
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.

Where is the energy coming from?


Who cares? Do you have your energy hammer out? Does every problem need
to look like an energy nail?

73,
Gene
W4SZ


I've been away for a few days. Did Cecil ever figure out what was wrong
with his idea about the folded dipole?

I was hoping someone else would walk him through it. Or is he stuck on
something else now?

he seems to be writing a manifesto entitled "Particle Theory for Dummies"
with subtitle "W8JI is wrong!".

Gravity


73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Where is the (corona) energy coming from?

Who cares?

Probably anyone reading this thread. On a clear sky day,
what is the source of energy for your sustained
100 uA/cm^2 corona discharge? That energy has to come
from somewhere. Where does your corona energy come from?

Cecil,

You must have been asleep when your professors at TAMU explained basic
problem solving techniques.

There is often more than one way to correctly address a problem. In the
case of many electrical problems it is possible to follow an approach
that looks at the energy and it is also possible to follow an approach
that looks at forces and fields. Neither approach is wrong, and in the
end both must consistently yield the correct solution. It is often true,
however, that one approach is much easier to pursue, and it therefore
will be preferred.

In this case there is no quantitative information about the sources of
energy, the sinks of energy, or the transport of energy. This is not a
well-bounded system in which the total energy can be easily defined. An
energy-based solution is going to be hard to achieve. Stick to fields
and forces for this one.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
The only issue is what causes the noise heard in the receiver.

Receiver noise has many causes. Corona is certainly one
of them. There is absolutely no argument about that.

Please provide a reference that says clear-sky wind-
driven charged dust particles cannot cause receiver
noise.

Cecil,

Absolutely no one has stated that clear-sky wind-driven charged dust
particles cannot cause receiver noise.

The entire issue is whether the charged dust leads to corona discharge
or whether the charge from the dust finds it way directly through the
receiver front end and into the audio system.

For some reason you seem to believe that corona can exist only in
environments where strong background fields exist and not in "clear sky"
conditions. I don't know where you came up with that one, but it simply
is not true.

Your own favorite example of an arcing connector would seem to indicate
that there is plenty of charging and voltage build-up on the antenna. If
there is enough voltage to support connector arcing why would there not
be enough voltage to support corona discharge from some sharp point on
the antenna?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
In this case there is no quantitative information about the sources of
energy, the sinks of energy, or the transport of energy. This is not a
well-bounded system in which the total energy can be easily defined. An
energy-based solution is going to be hard to achieve. Stick to fields
and forces for this one.

But there is quantitative information about the
source of energy for corona. You have to ignore
that information because your corona concepts
require violation of the conservation of energy
principle. Where is the energy coming from to
sustain a current flow of 100 uA/cm^2 under a
clear sky?

Fields and forces require a supply of energy. If
there is not enough energy available under certain
fairweather conditions to support your esoteric
corona theories, then those theories are wrong.

Of course a moving airplane can cause corona. The
engine fuel is pumping energy into the system.

Of course an RF transmitter can cause corona. The
transmitter is pumping energy into the system.

Under passive clear-sky fairweather conditions,
what is pumping enough energy into the system to
cause your corona? If you were correct, every lightning
rod and antenna in the world would glow at night
under starry skies. When is the last time you
saw a lightning rod glow at night under perfectly
cloudless skies?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Absolutely no one has stated that clear-sky wind-driven charged dust
particles cannot cause receiver noise.

On the contrary, Gene, that is not true. W8JI's assertions to
that effect is what started this argument.

wrote:
People actually seem to think the little particles moving through the
air charge the antenna to a different potential than the air around the
antenna ...

All that crud hitting the antenna isn't significantly different in
potential than the air around the element ...

I've never seen a case of precitation static occuring that way.
In every single case I've seen, whether on tall buildings, tall
towers, or antenna hear earth, it has always been corona discharges
from the antenna or objects near the antenna.

The second is what is commonly called P-static. ... This is the
mechanisim I disagree with being caused by particles striking the
antenna.

I have posted many web page references to show that rain, snow,
and dust particles are subject to triboelectric charging. The
fact that W8JI has never seen such is irrelevant. He never saw
George Washington either.

The entire issue is whether the charged dust leads to corona discharge
or whether the charge from the dust finds it way directly through the
receiver front end and into the audio system.

Then the argument boils down to whether the noise level threshold
is *exactly* equal to the corona threshold. That means there is zero
noise until 100 uA/cm^2 starts to flow through the air accompaning
the corona. Can you appreciate how ridiculous such an argument
really is?

There is most probably a region between zero noise and corona
where noise exists and corona doesn't exist.

For some reason you seem to believe that corona can exist only in
environments where strong background fields exist and not in "clear sky"
conditions. I don't know where you came up with that one, but it simply
is not true.

Nope, I never said that. I asked you to prove that corona always
accompanies charged particle noise even under clear sky conditions.
So far, you have offered zero proof. If clear-sky wind-driven charged
particles increase the noise level from S-1 to S-1.1 do you really
expect us to believe that small amount of charge is enough to cause
100 uA/cm^2 of sustained current to flow through thin air? That is
what is needed for corona to exist.

Your own favorite example of an arcing connector would seem to indicate
that there is plenty of charging and voltage build-up on the antenna. If
there is enough voltage to support connector arcing why would there not
be enough voltage to support corona discharge from some sharp point on
the antenna?

That's not the question. The question is given 1% of the charge
necessary to cause arcing, can RF noise exist without corona
existing? If there is just one case of charged particle RF
noise in the entire world in the absence of corona, your
argument is wrong.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
I've never seen a case of precitation static occuring that way.

ATIS is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_precipitation_static.html

"precipitation static (p-static): Radio interference caused by the
impact of charged particles against an antenna. Note: Precipitation
static may occur in a receiver during certain weather conditions, such
as snowstorms, hailstorms, rainstorms, dust storms, or combinations
thereof."
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
In this case there is no quantitative information about the sources of
energy, the sinks of energy, or the transport of energy. This is not a
well-bounded system in which the total energy can be easily defined.
An energy-based solution is going to be hard to achieve. Stick to
fields and forces for this one.

But there is quantitative information about the
source of energy for corona. You have to ignore
that information because your corona concepts
require violation of the conservation of energy
principle. Where is the energy coming from to
sustain a current flow of 100 uA/cm^2 under a
clear sky?

Fields and forces require a supply of energy. If
there is not enough energy available under certain
fairweather conditions to support your esoteric
corona theories, then those theories are wrong.

Of course a moving airplane can cause corona. The
engine fuel is pumping energy into the system.

Of course an RF transmitter can cause corona. The
transmitter is pumping energy into the system.

Under passive clear-sky fairweather conditions,
what is pumping enough energy into the system to
cause your corona? If you were correct, every lightning
rod and antenna in the world would glow at night
under starry skies. When is the last time you
saw a lightning rod glow at night under perfectly
cloudless skies?


Cecil,

Why do you think there is some magic about 100 uA/cm2? You found
something only slightly related on the ESDA web site and now you have
accepted that number as a standard. Even if it were correct, how many
cm2 are you requiring? The size of a stray wire strand on the end of an
antenna is pretty small.

Do you suppose there is a fundamental difference between an airplane
moving through the air and a stationary plane with wind blowing past it?
Does the wind require engine fuel?

Your energy arguments are simply irrelevant. Do you understand the
meaning of quantitative? Can you quote even one relevant number in terms
of watts or joules?

Finally, you might want to check your references about your requirement
that fields and forces require a supply of energy.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Your energy arguments are simply irrelevant.

Of course they are irrelevant to you but not to me
because I believe in the conservation of energy
principle.

Finally, you might want to check your references about
your requirement that fields and forces require a supply
of energy.

Didn't mean to imply it had to be continuous. Maybe
"source" would have been a better choice of words
than "supply".
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
. . .
Finally, you might want to check your references about your requirement
that fields and forces require a supply of energy.

That's been the downfall of many a perpetual motion proponent. A
permanent magnet produces both a field and a force. So it must be a
source of energy, right?

I see Cecil is at it again. Gad.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Noise level between two ant types
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
That's been the downfall of many a perpetual motion proponent. A
permanent magnet produces both a field and a force. So it must be a
source of energy, right?

I would assume the *total* amount of energy in the magnet
is e=mc^2.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
I would assume the *total* amount of energy in the magnet
is e=mc^2.


Cecil,

Before you launch into relativity, did you ever figure out what you
were doing wrong with your folded dipole shorts the noise and not the
desired signal theory???

73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Finally, you might want to check your references about your
requirement that fields and forces require a supply of energy.

That's been the downfall of many a perpetual motion proponent. A
permanent magnet produces both a field and a force. So it must be a
source of energy, right?

Accusing me of saying something I didn't say is standard
procedure for you, Roy. Why must you stoop to such behavior?
Why not argue the technical issues on the technical merits?

My meaning was that a field or a force requires energy for
them to exist in the first place. I did NOT say energy could
be extracted from fields and forces. Please stop misquoting me.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
Before you launch into relativity, did you ever figure out what you
were doing wrong with your folded dipole shorts the noise and not the
desired signal theory???

There was absolutely nothing said about signal in that entire
thread except when you tried to introduce it as a diversion.
The entire thread unfolded as if no signals existed and we
were only interested in measuring and dealing with the noise.

But now let's allow signals to be introduced into the thread.
My dipole was arcing once per second at the coax connector.
I couldn't hear any signals. I estimate the signal to noise
ratio under those conditions to be zero. Would you disagree?

I modified my dipole into a folded dipole. The arcing ceased
and I could then hear signals. I estimate the signal to noise
ratio was not zero any more. Would you disagree?

I really question the IQ of anyone who asserts that eliminating
arcing in a system doesn't reduce the noise. I assume you are
not a member of MENSA. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
Roy Lewallen wrote:
That's been the downfall of many a perpetual motion proponent. A
permanent magnet produces both a field and a force. So it must be a
source of energy, right?

I would assume the *total* amount of energy in the magnet
is e=mc^2.

now hold it from the top of W8JI's tower. e=mc^2 + mgh

Gravity

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

Noise level between two ant types
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I see Cecil is at it again. Gad.

It is probably delusions of grandeur for you to expect
that uttering the word, "Gad", will have any technical
effect on this newsgroup. Hint: The emperor has no clothes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
The entire issue is whether the charged dust leads to corona discharge
or whether the charge from the dust finds it way directly through the
receiver front end and into the audio system.

Seems that I am in the mainstream here.
Here's an interesting related thread from eHam.net:

http://www.eham.net/forums/Elmers/83174
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
But now let's allow signals to be introduced into the thread.
My dipole was arcing once per second at the coax connector.
I couldn't hear any signals. I estimate the signal to noise
ratio under those conditions to be zero. Would you disagree?

So now you are saying you were talking about arcs in connectors?
Talk about diversions!

You SPECIFICALLY proposed the noise came from millions of dust
particles hitting the antenna each second. RF noise generated directly
by charged particles hitting the antenna. No arcs, no corona according
to YOU. Not me!

I modified my dipole into a folded dipole. The arcing ceased
and I could then hear signals. I estimate the signal to noise
ratio was not zero any more. Would you disagree?

Well, I would agree you have a VERY screwed up system to start with if
you had a big antenna without a leak resistance that offered a high
resistance or reactance at radio frequencies.

I've said all from the very start no one should be so careless as to
float the antenna.

I really question the IQ of anyone who asserts that eliminating
arcing in a system doesn't reduce the noise. I assume you are
not a member of MENSA. :-)

Nice tactic. Attack the other guy while totally changing what you
originally claimed.
Of course anyone can read back and see you were the one who claimed the
noise was from particles hitting the antenna.

Anyway, I'm glad you realized your folded dipole nonsense about the dc
loop stopping p-static from particle noise as they hit the antenna was
just that, and now you realize it is charge differences and arcing and
forms of arcing that causes the problems.

Pretty soon you will realize the largest charge difference is from the
air and things in the air around the antenna and earth that causes the
problem, and that grounding the antenna doesn't reduce that problem.

There's hope for you yet!

73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
But now let's allow signals to be introduced into the thread.
My dipole was arcing once per second at the coax connector.
I couldn't hear any signals. I estimate the signal to noise
ratio under those conditions to be zero. Would you disagree?

So now you are saying you were talking about arcs in connectors?

I have been very careful from the very beginning of this
thread to specify that the problem I was trying to solve
was arcing at the coax connector. You said a folded dipole
cannot solve that problem. You were wrong.

You SPECIFICALLY proposed the noise came from millions of dust
particles hitting the antenna each second. RF noise generated directly
by charged particles hitting the antenna. No arcs, no corona according
to YOU. Not me!

Sorry, I even said the arcing scorched my carpet when the coax
connector was disconnected. Anyone who wants to check the history
of this thread can verify that. Your assertion that a folded dipole
wouldn't change the noise level was 100% false.

Nice tactic. Attack the other guy while totally changing what you
originally claimed.

If you can prove that I changed what I originally claimed, I
will write you a check for $1000. From the very beginning of
this argument, my problem was arcing. You asserted that eliminating
arcing didn't change the noise level. You were wrong. Anyone who
wants to can go back and verify those facts can do so.

Of course anyone can read back and see you were the one who claimed the
noise was from particles hitting the antenna.

Yes, it was, and it caused arcing which I needed to eliminate.
The folded dipole eliminated the problem contrary to what you
asserted.

... and that grounding the antenna doesn't reduce that problem.

Grounding the antenna eliminated the arcing which was my problem.
Sorry about that, Tom, but your ignorance has been exposed. Seems
you need a tutorial on how a DC arc can convert energy to RF
noise.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:


How does it feel to be caught in a bold-faced lie?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Only you would know that Cecil.

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
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.

Okay, Tom. I'll accept that you have personal experimental results for
your statements. Not many do.

I'm not sure that anyone here believes Cecil just because he is Cecil.
I don't. Some times I see him posting his way into some very deep holes...



"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


I am corrected. You both determine everything experimentally and enjoy
busting on Cecil. I assumed an "And" situation, while it was actually an
"OR" situation.. 8^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
How does it feel to be caught in a bold-faced lie?

Only you would know that Cecil.

You have known ever since June 10 that I have been talking
about *arcing* at the coax connector. Yet here it is
June 23 with you still pretending that you didn't know
I was talking about arcing. Here's a June 11 posting
following the June 9 one where I told you I was talking
about arcing.

wrote:
When did you do that test?

Around 1990 to cure the *arcing* at the coax connector
during clear-sky high-wind conditions in the Arizona
desert.

Please stop pretending that you didn't know I was talking
about arcing.

Going from a dipole to a folded dipole eliminated my arcing
problem.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Then the argument boils down to whether the noise level threshold
is *exactly* equal to the corona threshold. That means there is zero
noise until 100 uA/cm^2 starts to flow through the air accompaning
the corona. Can you appreciate how ridiculous such an argument
really is?


Well, suppose you have a #18 ga stranded wire composed of 7 strands of #26.
One strand is sticking up all by itself. The end of the strand (if cut off
squarely) is about 0.0013 cm^2. So a current flow of 0.13 uA from the end of
this strand is 100 uA/cm^2.

And, the situation is exacerbated by wire with smaller strands and with
strands more pointed than by being squarely cut off.

John

Noise level between two ant types
 

John - KD5YI wrote:
Well, suppose you have a #18 ga stranded wire composed of 7 strands of
#26. One strand is sticking up all by itself. The end of the strand (if
cut off squarely) is about 0.0013 cm^2. So a current flow of 0.13 uA
from the end of this strand is 100 uA/cm^2.

We can suppose all sorts of conditions to obtain corona.
There's absolutely no argument about that. The argument
is whether corona occurs 100% of the time on any and all
antennas with charged particle static. If corona occurs
only 99.9% of the time, the corona gang loses the argument.

The argument is whether corona *always* accompanies charged
particle noise. That's an exclusive assertion that there
exists no cases where corona doesn't accompany charged
particle noise.

I fully agree that corona *often* accompanies charged particle
noise but that's an inclusive assertion.

If enough particles hit the antenna to just
barely hear the noise on a receiver, the corona crowd says
that corona caused the noise. I would like to see some proof
for such a statement so far out of mainstream physics.

Can we suppose a condition where corona won't happen?
How about a #14 solid wire with rounded ends? Do you think
it could build up enough charged particle noise to be heard
in a receiver without the existence of corona?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
....

Going from a dipole to a folded dipole eliminated my arcing
problem.

Thank you for sharing that with us, Cecil.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Noise level between two ant types
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Going from a dipole to a folded dipole eliminated my arcing
problem.

Thank you for sharing that with us, Cecil.

Well, W8JI said going from a dipole to a folded dipole
doesn't change the noise level. Not only did it eliminate
arcing but it probably eliminated any trace of corona.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp