Noise level between two ant types
 

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...

that's what i see. he says something controversial, gets challenged, and
then scrambles for references. the problem is that many of the references
do not directly confirm what he's saying, and a bit of calculation is
required.

i did some googling, and certainly there are others with Cecil's position.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
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...

that's what i see. he says something controversial, gets challenged, and
then scrambles for references. the problem is that many of the references
do not directly confirm what he's saying, and a bit of calculation is
required.

Rather than rationalize and walk through disagreements step-by-step
Cecil prefers to distort and bully.

His posting ratio averages 3.3:1, and sometimes reaches over 6:1.

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
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?


I applied simple arithmetic to show that 100 uA/cm^2 is almost meaningless
because there are conditions much more favorable to the generation of corona
to consider. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Frankly, I think you should try to make up a condition that refutes your own
suppositions and see if it flys. If it does, then think of something else. I
do that all the time. Sometimes I learn, and sometimes I don't. I try to
temper my investigations by asking questions.

Why #14 with rounded ends? Because it supports your position? Why not
suppose smaller wire and sharper points? Make some calculations for us to
review. Use the worst case against yourself, then show why it cannot be so.

Frankly, Cecil, I have been somewhat of a follower of yours for some time.
You have some thought-provoking ideas and comments, but I am beginning to
believe that your entire purpose is to argue. I wish it wasn't so.

John

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
i did some googling, and certainly there are others with Cecil's position.

On most topics, I am mainstream conventional engineering
and physics - discovered over the past century or so. It
is the wannabe gurus who need to discover something
original so badly that they are willing to go against
the accepted laws of physics.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

John - KD5YI wrote:
Frankly, I think you should try to make up a condition that refutes your
own suppositions and see if it flys.

My supposition is that it is possible for charged particle noise
to exist without corona. That inclusive supposition cannot be
refuted by one condition. That supposition can only be refuted
by all conditions which is not possible to implement in reality.

My type of supposition: Not all cars are white.

This cannot be disproved by only one example.

The other sides supposition is that charged particle noise is
*always* accompanied by corona. All it takes is one example to
refute that exclusive assertion.

Their type of supposition: All cars are white.

This can be disproved by only one example.

Why #14 with rounded ends? Because it supports your position? Why not
suppose smaller wire and sharper points?

Seems you misunderstand. I'm not saying corona never occurs.
I'm saying it is possible for charged particle
noise to exist without corona occurring. Do you understand the
difference between an exclusive statement and an inclusive
statement? It's the other side making the exclusive assertions.
All I have to do is present one example where charged particle
noise exists without corona. That case may be a #14 wire with
rounded ends.

I have made no exclusive statements. If there is corona in
99.9% of the cases, the other side still loses the argument.
It is the opposition that has made the exclusive statement
that charged particle noise is *always* accompanied by corona.

My supposition is that charged particle noise is NOT always
accompanied by corona.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
.com...
wrote:
Rather than rationalize and walk through disagreements step-by-step
Cecil prefers to distort and bully.

From Websters:
"rationalize - 1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.)
to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but
that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious
and often less creditable or agreeable causes."

I agree that describes exactly what you do here on this
newsgroup but why do you think rationalizing is a good thing?

agreed. W8JI means being rational.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

My type of supposition: Not all cars are white.

This cannot be disproved by only one example.

i think this is modal logic. "all cars are white" is a statement about the
whole set. thus the whiteness of each element must be verified.

we get into semantics. what is "white". what is "car".

sometimes the situation gets complex. we can prove that 100% of the zeroes
fall up on the critical line, but this does not rule out a counterexample.
i guess my main point is we need to define "clear weather charged particle
noise".

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
i guess my main point is we need to define "clear weather charged particle
noise".

It's what happens when the wind blows in the Arizona
desert when the humidity is low and there's not a
cloud in the state. There are hundreds of reports
on the web of such a phenomenon. Example:

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

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
gravity wrote:
i guess my main point is we need to define "clear weather charged
particle
noise".

It's what happens when the wind blows in the Arizona
desert when the humidity is low and there's not a
cloud in the state. There are hundreds of reports
on the web of such a phenomenon. Example:

i researched ULF antennas and came up with this:

1. triboelectric noise due to movement
2. static on long wires due to lightning

on microwave, you'll get tropospheric scintillation noise.

you are talking HF, so i dunno much.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
gravity wrote:
i guess my main point is we need to define "clear weather charged particle
noise".

It's what happens when the wind blows in the Arizona
desert when the humidity is low and there's not a
cloud in the state. There are hundreds of reports
on the web of such a phenomenon. Example:

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

And it happens in inland Southern California with Santa Ana winds.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Noise level between two ant types
 

I said:
wrote:
The "dc path eliminates noise" and the "noise comes from each particle
hitting the antenna and a dc path reduces it" are nearly as far
fetched.


I already explained that to you, Tom. Perhaps you missed it.
In the following diagrams, CH is the charge transferred to
the antenna by a charged particle or any other means.

Given a non-folded dipole, any equalizing of the charge between
the two identical dipole elements must flow through the link
where the noise is picked up by the receiver.


-------CH------+ +---------------
| |
/ /
| |
Link to
receiver


Turning the non-folded dipole into a folded dipole provides
a *local DC path* between the two elements. Most of the
noise will follow that DC path between elements instead of
traveling down the transmission line, through the link, and
back up the transmission line. Hint: Ohm's law.


DC path between elements
+-------------------------------+
+-------CH-----+ +--------------+
| |
/ /
| |
Link to
Receiver


You avoided replying to this last time. One wonders why.
Please explain why you think the charge on the folded dipole
would not take the DC path of least resistance.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

end of quoted text.

The above nonsense is what gets Cecil in trouble.

1.) First he clearly stated he thought the noise was from each
individual charged particle of dust striking the antenna millions of
times a secon making a noise at radio frequencies.

2.) Then he wrongly assumed "shorting the antenna for dc" would also
"short the noise". '

He apparently missed the fact HE (Cecil) claimed the noise was radio
frequency noise caused by each particle hitting the antenna. If it was
such, shorting the antenna for dc would only make the noise worse.

Now it seems he is changing his tune, saying it is arcing in the coax
that is a concern.

Cecil paints himself into a corner with silly statements. Then he tries
to cover it up by saying he never actually said what he said.

But at least now we are in agreement. The noise is caused either by
arcs or corona, not by particle discharges into the antenna as they
connect.
That's all that is really important.

73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
gravity wrote:
i guess my main point is we need to define "clear weather charged particle
noise".

It's what happens when the wind blows in the Arizona
desert when the humidity is low and there's not a
cloud in the state. There are hundreds of reports
on the web of such a phenomenon. Example:

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

And it happens in inland Southern California with Santa Ana winds.

--
Jim Pennino

.....and it happens here in humid Georgia, and in dry Georgia, and in
Ohio in summer and winter. There doesn't need to be a particle in
sight.

I can go outside and float the feeder of my long 160M dipole that is
300 feet high. The whack will knock you right on your rump. But that
charge is actually pulling the antenna CLOSER to the potential of the
air around the antenna. When I ground that antenna so the antenna moves
to earth potential, the corna from that antenna actually gets
worse....not better.

The reason is pretty simple. The earth is a big charge sink, and is
really at considerably different potential than the air at 300 feet
even on a clear calm day. A little wind helps quite a bit, pushing
charged air past the antenna and increasing the charge rate.

What most people miss is that it is the difference in potential between
earth (or lower heights) and the air around the antenna that causes the
leakage currents. The wind simply increases the problem.

73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
gravity wrote:
i guess my main point is we need to define "clear weather charged particle
noise".

It's what happens when the wind blows in the Arizona
desert when the humidity is low and there's not a
cloud in the state. There are hundreds of reports
on the web of such a phenomenon. Example:

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

And it happens in inland Southern California with Santa Ana winds.

--
Jim Pennino

.....and it happens here in humid Georgia, and in dry Georgia, and in
Ohio in summer and winter. There doesn't need to be a particle in
sight.

I can go outside and float the feeder of my long 160M dipole that is
300 feet high. The whack will knock you right on your rump. But that
charge is actually pulling the antenna CLOSER to the potential of the
air around the antenna. When I ground that antenna so the antenna moves
to earth potential, the corna from that antenna actually gets
worse....not better.

The reason is pretty simple. The earth is a big charge sink, and is
really at considerably different potential than the air at 300 feet
even on a clear calm day. A little wind helps quite a bit, pushing
charged air past the antenna and increasing the charge rate.

What most people miss is that it is the difference in potential between
earth (or lower heights) and the air around the antenna that causes the
leakage currents. The wind simply increases the problem.

73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

Here is where Cecil claimed the noise was from individual particles
hitting the antenna:



From: Cecil Moore - view profile
Date: Sun, Jun 11 2006 11:59 am
Email: Cecil Moore
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
wrote:
People actually seem to think the little particles voving through the
air charge the antenna to a different potential than the air around the
antenna, and that a "dc" path to earth or "dc" path around an element
somehow magically stops RF noise.


Let's say we have the following bare-wire dipole system
link coupled to the receiver (in fixed font).

|
| dipole element A link coupled
| -////-
+--------------------------------------------------///////--+
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|
| dipole element B
|


Let's assume one highly charged particle hits dipole element
A and transfers half of its charge. Element A will then have
an excess charge one half of which will migrate through the
link while equalizing the charge between element A and element
B. That charge migration/equalization no doubt results in an
RF noise pulse.


This experiment can easily be performed by anyone.
Rub one's leather soles on a wool carpet, touch one side of
the dipole, and listen for noise in the receiver. Guaranteed,
it will be there.


Now multiply the above by millions of charged particles
randomly encountering the bare-wire dipole. The charge on
each side of the dipole will never be exactly equal. Thus,
continuous broad-band noise will be continuously transferred
through the link as long as the particles are transferring
charge to the antenna. That's what some hams are hearing
during dry-air dust and snow conditions. Some have even reported
being able to hear individual particle collisions from large
snowflakes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



Cecil claimed P-static was broadband noise from each particle hitting
the antenna. Notice, unlike Cecil, I don't lift things from context to
change the meaning. His full unedited statement is above, and it shows
what he intended to say.

He made several clear posts like that, but at least now he seems to be
coming around and understanding it is arcing and corona noise.

73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
gravity wrote:
i guess my main point is we need to define "clear weather charged
particle
noise".

It's what happens when the wind blows in the Arizona
desert when the humidity is low and there's not a
cloud in the state. There are hundreds of reports
on the web of such a phenomenon. Example:

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

And it happens in inland Southern California with Santa Ana winds.

lab experiment: leaf blower.

Gravity


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
Here is where Cecil claimed the noise was from individual particles
hitting the antenna:

particle rubs against aluminum antenna and creates triboelectric charge.

a different particle transfers charge to the conductor.

wind movement causes triboelectric noise.

i'm not sure if all 3 of these are the same thing.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
gravity wrote:
i guess my main point is we need to define "clear weather charged particle
noise".

It's what happens when the wind blows in the Arizona
desert when the humidity is low and there's not a
cloud in the state. There are hundreds of reports
on the web of such a phenomenon. Example:

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

And it happens in inland Southern California with Santa Ana winds.

--
Jim Pennino

....and it happens here in humid Georgia, and in dry Georgia, and in
Ohio in summer and winter. There doesn't need to be a particle in
sight.

I can go outside and float the feeder of my long 160M dipole that is
300 feet high. The whack will knock you right on your rump. But that
charge is actually pulling the antenna CLOSER to the potential of the
air around the antenna. When I ground that antenna so the antenna moves
to earth potential, the corna from that antenna actually gets
worse....not better.

The reason is pretty simple. The earth is a big charge sink, and is
really at considerably different potential than the air at 300 feet
even on a clear calm day. A little wind helps quite a bit, pushing
charged air past the antenna and increasing the charge rate.

What most people miss is that it is the difference in potential between
earth (or lower heights) and the air around the antenna that causes the
leakage currents. The wind simply increases the problem.

73 Tom

Umm, no, two different things.

If it were charge building somewhere and discharging it wouldn't have
the characteristics it does, which is random, continuous, of extremely
short duration, and at a very high rate.

When it gets bad, it is quite visible as very random "snow" on TV
channels 2 through 4 on an otherwise perfect picture.

The snow is spots of extremely short duration.

Arcing (my neighbor has an arc welder so I have something to compare
it to) shows up as lines. When watching TV while he is welding it
is very obvious from the visual "noise" when he trying to start an
arc on some rusty thing versus an established arc from the length
of the visual "noise".

This particular effect ONLY happens during low humidity on very
windy days.

The intensity of the snow changes very little with wind speed, the
duration not at all, but the rate changes drastically.

I took all the electromagnetic courses to get my BSEE and I'm a
pilot, so yes, I know about corona.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:

I'm going to respond to this posting in two parts.

1.) First he clearly stated he thought the noise was from each
individual charged particle of dust striking the antenna millions of
times a secon making a noise at radio frequencies.

Obviously, I didn't say each particle strikes the antenna
millions of times a second. What I said was that although
others had reported being able to hear each individual
collision, I had never been able to do that. So your statement
is false.

2.) Then he wrongly assumed "shorting the antenna for dc" would also
"short the noise". '

You are mixing apples and oranges. This was in the context of
eliminating the arcing of my coax connector laying on the rug.
Sure enough, shorting the antenna for DC eliminated the arcing
thus eliminating the noise. Your statement is deliberately
misleading.

For the record, when the wind was blowing charged dust particles
across my bare wire antenna under a clear sky, the S-meter noise
increased as the wind speed increased and decreased as the wind
speed decreased.

He apparently missed the fact HE (Cecil) claimed the noise was radio
frequency noise caused by each particle hitting the antenna. If it was
such, shorting the antenna for dc would only make the noise worse.

No, I didn't say that. I specifically said that it was NOT me
who said they could correlate noise to each specific particle.
Is the only way you can win the argument is to falsify what I
have said?

Now it seems he is changing his tune, saying it is arcing in the coax
that is a concern.

No, you are the one who is mixing up the two different subjects.
One was an arcing problem that I needed to solve. The other is
the measures that can be taken to make an antenna less noisy.
Please stop the deliberate mixing of these two subjects. I am
willing to rationally discuss either one separately.

Cecil paints himself into a corner with silly statements. Then he tries
to cover it up by saying he never actually said what he said.

As you are doing, I could cut and paste your postings to make you
seem ignorant and insane. But only an unethical person does that.

But at least now we are in agreement. The noise is caused either by
arcs or corona, not by particle discharges into the antenna as they
connect.

No we are NOT in agreement. In the absence of arcing or corona,
charged particle noise exists and has been experienced by many
people. A web search for "precipitation static" will yield any
number of references, including amateur radio references.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
gravity wrote:
i guess my main point is we need to define "clear weather charged particle
noise".
It's what happens when the wind blows in the Arizona
desert when the humidity is low and there's not a
cloud in the state. There are hundreds of reports
on the web of such a phenomenon. Example:
http://www.eham.net/forums/Elmers/83174
--
And it happens in inland Southern California with Santa Ana winds.

....and it happens here in humid Georgia, and in dry Georgia, and in
Ohio in summer and winter. There doesn't need to be a particle in
sight.

We are talking about antennas that have virtually no charge when
the wind is not blowing and acquire charge when the wind blows
charged particles across the antenna.

It is something that you have apparently never seen are are
therefore completely ignorant of.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
Here is where Cecil claimed the noise was from individual particles
hitting the antenna:

Sorry, Tom, you are mistaken. Read it again. It is true that
each individual particle that touches the antenna transfers
some charge but the following was *purely hypothetical*. I have
*NEVER* said I could hear the noise from an individual particle.
"Let's assume" is what one utters just before a hypothetical
exercise in logic. It is obviously hypothetical because exactly
1/2 of the charge is assumed to be transferred.

W5DXP said:
Let's assume one highly charged particle hits dipole element
A and transfers half of its charge.

This is a hypothetical experimental charged particle as one
would get by rubbing amber on wool and touching it to the
antenna.

wrote:
Cecil claimed P-static was broadband noise from each particle hitting
the antenna.

That's a false statement. When I said *assume* one highly charged
particle, it was a purely hypothetical particle. CP-static is
a cumulative effect. I personally have never heard one particle
hitting an antenna although others have reported that they have
heard it. I have never said that one particle hitting the antenna
could be heard in the receiver.

Notice, unlike Cecil, I don't lift things from context to
change the meaning. His full unedited statement is above, and it shows
what he intended to say.

You are attempting to change the meaning at the present, Tom.
That was a hypothetical highly charged particle, Tom, not one
that is likely to exist in the real world. I have previously
said that I could NOT hear the individual particles. My hypothetical
highly charged particle was like a piece of amber that had been
rubbed against wool and then touched to the antenna. I suspect
that one could hear that event in the receiver.

He made several clear posts like that, but at least now he seems to be
coming around and understanding it is arcing and corona noise.

Please stop the mind fornication. Such is highly unethical
but unfortunately standard practice for you for years now.

Sometimes noise is caused by arcing. Sometimes noise is caused
by corona. Sometimes noise is caused by charged particles in
the absence of arcing and corona. I am NOT coming around and
I do NOT seem to be coming around. Please stop misrepresenting
what I have said. It doesn't make you look any less ignorant
and it confuses the readers.

If you want to proceed with a rational argument, I can explain
and defend everything I have said and I am NOT coming around
to your strange concepts.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
When it gets bad, it is quite visible as very random "snow" on TV
channels 2 through 4 on an otherwise perfect picture.

The snow is spots of extremely short duration.

So one can see the individual charged particles even if
one cannot hear the individual charged particles. That
makes a lot of sense. I wish I had thought to hook my
antenna up to my TV while the charged particle problem
was occurring.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:


As you are doing, I could cut and paste your postings to make you
seem ignorant and insane. But only an unethical person does that.

Then you are also unethical, because if you look back that is EXACTLY
what you do to others.

That is why Roy and others have you in a "Cecil filter".

73 Tom

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
As you are doing, I could cut and paste your postings to make you
seem ignorant and insane. But only an unethical person does that.

Then you are also unethical, because if you look back that is EXACTLY
what you do to others.

It is my custom to trim out the part of postings with which I
agree and respond to the part with which I disagree. I believe
that is in accordance with the newsgroup guidelines. I do not,
as you do, cut and paste to completely change the meaning of
what was previously posted so you can attack a straw man of
your own creation.

Your latest posting, where you take my mental exercise example
of a hypothetical antenna with a hypothetical highly charged
particle hitting it to try to prove that I said each real world
particle causes noise that can be heard in a receiver is really,
really lame.

That is why Roy and others have you in a "Cecil filter".

Roy ploinked me because I said an antenna is a distributed network.
I thought he had previously said an antenna was a lumped circuit.
Instead of telling me that's not what he meant and giving me a chance
to apologize, he ploinked me.

When you are willing to rationally discuss those hypothetical
examples I have posted, let me know.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Dear Jim Pennino WB6DKH:

Well said, and yet here we are over 100 messages latter (even with a
Cecil filter) with strange contentions still going on. It has become
apparent that this is a religious debate and it is time for additional
filtering.

To supplement my message of June 7, 2006:
One should provide continuity to earth from as many elevated conductors
as possible. It is sometimes difficult to do this with guy wires that are
"broken up" with insulators.
Location is an important factor with respect to which local,
non-man-made noise sources dominate. In Toledo, Ohio and Georgia it might
be one thing and in the Arizona desert quite a different thing.
Time and local weather is also an important factor. Lighting discharges
off of, or towards, an antenna will dominate everything else.
Having spent the last 73% of my life in an academic setting involving
science and engineering where orthodoxy applies only (temporarily) to
verified physical laws, I now understand why wars are fought over which end
of the egg is cracked first. It has rounded out my education.

As Roy has pointed out: it important to observe to the readers who are
not participating that they should filter what they read with care.

Thank you Jim for interjecting your experience.

73 Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

snip

Umm, no, two different things.

If it were charge building somewhere and discharging it wouldn't have
the characteristics it does, which is random, continuous, of extremely
short duration, and at a very high rate.

When it gets bad, it is quite visible as very random "snow" on TV
channels 2 through 4 on an otherwise perfect picture.

The snow is spots of extremely short duration.

Arcing (my neighbor has an arc welder so I have something to compare
it to) shows up as lines. When watching TV while he is welding it
is very obvious from the visual "noise" when he trying to start an
arc on some rusty thing versus an established arc from the length
of the visual "noise".

This particular effect ONLY happens during low humidity on very
windy days.

The intensity of the snow changes very little with wind speed, the
duration not at all, but the rate changes drastically.

I took all the electromagnetic courses to get my BSEE and I'm a
pilot, so yes, I know about corona.

--
Jim Pennino

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
When it gets bad, it is quite visible as very random "snow" on TV
channels 2 through 4 on an otherwise perfect picture.

The snow is spots of extremely short duration.

So one can see the individual charged particles even if
one cannot hear the individual charged particles. That
makes a lot of sense. I wish I had thought to hook my
antenna up to my TV while the charged particle problem
was occurring.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Well, at this point I wouldn't bet the farm on the base cause being
charged partcles impacting the antenna, but if it walks like a duck
and quacks like a duck...

However, for this particular effect it is obvious that it is quantized
and that the rate of generation is directly proportional to the
wind speed.

Since there is nothing in the air large enough to be visible, it
would seem reasonable that whatever is delivering charge to something
is dust particles.

The number of dust particles in the air is also directly proportional
to the wind speed, lending further credence to the theory.

As to how to test the theory, fooling around with the TV antenna on
the roof with 40 to 60 knot gusts isn't going to be done by me no
matter how much beer you provide.

One thought would be to make a pair of channel 2 dipoles with one
inside a non-conducting dust cover.

Put the two antennas side by side and compare the results seen on
the TV screen.

Another experiment would be to build a full sized dipole and a
shortened loaded dipole for channel 2.

If the effect is caused by particles impacting the antenna, the
quantity of snow would be proportional to the antenna sizes.

It would be interesting to see what happens.

In any case, Santa Ana winds don't normally appear this time of
year, so there are about six months to come up with a definative
experiment.

And yes, if it is simple and cheap enough, I'm willing to do it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Noise level between two ant types
 

wrote:
Since there is nothing in the air large enough to be visible, it
would seem reasonable that whatever is delivering charge to something
is dust particles.

Unfortunately, one poster here apparently thinks if he cannot
see it, it doesn't exist. Presumably, if he ever goes blind,
even his ham transceiver will cease to exist. :-)

He reminds me of a governmental expert who said yesterday
on Foxnews: Since the successful kill rate for our anti-ICBM
missiles is 60%, we have to fire two of them to be sure we
shoot it down. :-) (After all 60% + 60% = 120% and wouldn't
that be overkill?) :-)

And yes, if it is simple and cheap enough, I'm willing to do it.

I indirectly performed experiments in curing my arcing problem.
I replaced the bare wire with ordinary 600v insulated wire. It
reduced the problem considerably but didn't cure it. I then found
an antenna wire called "quietflex" at a hamfest that has 1000v
insulation. To the best of my knowledge, that cured the problem.
There is apparently a thickness of insulation that prohibits
the transfer of charge from dust particles.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

He reminds me of a governmental expert who said yesterday
on Foxnews: Since the successful kill rate for our anti-ICBM
missiles is 60%, we have to fire two of them to be sure we
shoot it down. :-) (After all 60% + 60% = 120% and wouldn't
that be overkill?) :-)

84%. the "expert" might borrow a copy of Innumeracy.

the astute reader will note that this figure may not work in the real world.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

gravity wrote:
He reminds me of a governmental expert who said yesterday
on Foxnews: Since the successful kill rate for our anti-ICBM
missiles is 60%, we have to fire two of them to be sure we
shoot it down. :-) (After all 60% + 60% = 120% and wouldn't
that be overkill?) :-)

84%. the "expert" might borrow a copy of Innumeracy.

And how many missiles must be fired to 100% assure a
kill? :-) The North Koreans probably understand
probability even if the governmental expert doesn't.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. com...
gravity wrote:
He reminds me of a governmental expert who said yesterday
on Foxnews: Since the successful kill rate for our anti-ICBM
missiles is 60%, we have to fire two of them to be sure we
shoot it down. :-) (After all 60% + 60% = 120% and wouldn't
that be overkill?) :-)

84%. the "expert" might borrow a copy of Innumeracy.

And how many missiles must be fired to 100% assure a
kill? :-)

probabilistic methods can be reliable. for instance, primality testing.
you can get the possibility of error down to 0.0000001%. but harder with
missiles.

they still use MIRVs with a hundred dummy warheads?

the Patriot was $1 mil a shot as i recall.

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

The thickness of insulation on an antenna wire does not entirely
reduce noise due to (charged particle) precipitation.

There are two capacitances involved - the self-capacitance of
individual isolated particles and the much greater capacitance of the
insulating material between its surface and the wire.

When it impacts with the thick insulation, the electric charge on a
particle redistributes itself between antenna capacitance and particle
capacitance.

Only a very small fraction of particle volts is transferred to the
antenna via antenna capacitance. The result is a reduction in
receiver noise.

For given particle volts, size of particle, thickness of antenna wire
insulation, permittivity of insulation, the noise induced in the
receiver is calculable.

As Roy would insist on, to prove the point, all you have to do is
measure the average volts on a particle of average diameter.

And the best way of doing that is to work backwards from the S-meter.
;o)

A nice, low noise antenna can be constructed by removing everything
from the inner conductor of a 1" diameter coaxial cable except the
solid polyethylene insulation.

This is an expensive operation, likely in the UK to of use only for 15
minutes every few years. So nobody bothers.
----
Reg.

Noise level between two ant types
 

Reg Edwards wrote:
The thickness of insulation on an antenna wire does not entirely
reduce noise due to (charged particle) precipitation.

Yes, I assumed that was so, but in my case, it reduced the
noise to an acceptable level under most conditions.

Only a very small fraction of particle volts is transferred to the
antenna via antenna capacitance. The result is a reduction in
receiver noise.

Would you mind explaining this law of physics to W8JI?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Well said, and yet here we are over 100 messages latter (even with a
Cecil filter) with strange contentions still going on.

Please note that 100 years ago, some eminent physicists
had their Einstein filters enabled. Light being affected
by gravity? Good grief!
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Please note that 100 years ago, some eminent physicists
had their Einstein filters enabled. Light being affected
by gravity? Good grief!
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

1687 -- Newton's Principia Mathematica
1912 -- Einstein's General Relativity
2006 -- Cecil's Clear Sky Charged Particles

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

Please note that 100 years ago, some eminent physicists
had their Einstein filters enabled. Light being affected
by gravity? Good grief!

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

Gravity

Noise level between two ant types
 

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

What is being missed is that charged particle RF noise
is already conventional-wisdom/mainstream-physics.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Noise level between two ant types
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John - KD5YI wrote:

Why #14 with rounded ends? Because it supports your position? Why not
suppose smaller wire and sharper points?


Seems you misunderstand. I'm not saying corona never occurs.
I'm saying it is possible for charged particle
noise to exist without corona occurring. Do you understand the
difference between an exclusive statement and an inclusive
statement? It's the other side making the exclusive assertions.
All I have to do is present one example where charged particle
noise exists without corona. That case may be a #14 wire with
rounded ends.

No, Cecil, it seem that *you* misunderstand. My point was that you quote 100
uA/cm^2, and it takes very little current to achieve that with a tiny point.


But, nevermind. This has become pointless.

John

Noise level between two ant types
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
y.net...
J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Well said, and yet here we are over 100 messages latter (even with a
Cecil filter) with strange contentions still going on.

Please note that 100 years ago, some eminent physicists
had their Einstein filters enabled. Light being affected
by gravity? Good grief!
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

people have Art Bell filter, is a bad thing?

silly Americans not know 3 main sources of noise. not hard, use Maxell
equations.

maybe i hire Dr. Moore to waste people time. they have no energy left put
up big array. i win contest.

Soong

Noise level between two ant types
 

"John - KD5YI" wrote in message
news:Wiing.4092$Yk.753@trnddc06...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John - KD5YI wrote:

Why #14 with rounded ends? Because it supports your position? Why not
suppose smaller wire and sharper points?


Seems you misunderstand. I'm not saying corona never occurs.
I'm saying it is possible for charged particle
noise to exist without corona occurring. Do you understand the
difference between an exclusive statement and an inclusive
statement? It's the other side making the exclusive assertions.
All I have to do is present one example where charged particle
noise exists without corona. That case may be a #14 wire with
rounded ends.

No, Cecil, it seem that *you* misunderstand. My point was that you quote
100
uA/cm^2, and it takes very little current to achieve that with a tiny
point.


But, nevermind. This has become pointless.

John

is silly when American need more physics. make up equation and numbers
pulled out of hattrick. you make up anything, maybe 99 percent people
believe.

Soong

Noise level between two ant types
 

And how many missiles must be fired to 100% assure a
kill? :-)

missiles shot at Bikini Island, work 100%. no problem blowing up island.
maybe government pull head out of ass and make more old school technology.

Soong

Noise level between two ant types
 

Unfortunately, one poster here apparently thinks if he cannot
see it, it doesn't exist.

in my country, people say in land of blind one eye man is king.

Soong