Tom Donaly wrote:
You're the one who made the statements, Cecil, so you're the one
who has to prove them.

Sorry, I'm just agreeing with the 2000 ARRL Handbook and
all other references I can find on the subject. It is you
who has to prove all those references wrong.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

wrote:
1.) It isn't the noise made by the actual contact of particle to the
antenna that makes what is commonly called p-static noise.

Assuming that "p-static" is precipitation static, you already
agreed with the laws of physics that make your statement false.
Any particle with a charge different from the antenna wire
will cause particle noise even when the corona threshold
is not even close. There's no way to stop a charged particle
from transferring its charge to a bare-wire antenna. There's
no way to keep that charge from equalizing through the
link coupling in a non-folded dipole. This is all easily proved
using very small charges nowhere near the corona threshold.

I agree that some cars are white. I just disagree with your
assertion that all cars are white. I agree with the 2000
ARRL Handbook about precipitation static Vs corona static.

The 2000 ARRL Handbook says:
"Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise
that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including
snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes
or even wind-blown dust, transferring a small electrical charge
on contact with an antenna."

I also agree with what they say about corona static which certainly
exists and is what you are talking about. But corona static is not
the only thing that exists, as you are asserting.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:05:08 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

As Judge Judy would say, "Don't discharge on my leg and tell me its
corona even if you've been drinking beer."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In Cecil's case he'd claim it was Corona Extra.

BAILIFF! Whack his pee-pee!

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

You're the one who made the statements, Cecil, so you're the one
who has to prove them.


Sorry, I'm just agreeing with the 2000 ARRL Handbook and
all other references I can find on the subject. It is you
who has to prove all those references wrong.

Ha, ha! Nice joke, Cecil. I'll tell you what: if you can show
that a group of students can tell whether it's raining or not solely
by listening to the static on a radio with an outside antenna, I
might begin to believe part of what you say. Otherwise, all your
talk about carefully selected references is little more than a
pathetically hollow attempt at self justification.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

(P.S. You'll have to figure out a way to get rid of any charge
buildup in order to keep the corona noise at bay.)

Cecil Moore wrote:

be true for you to be correct. Sorry Tom, please peddle
your magical thinking to someone else. What do you think
about the 2000 ARRL Handbook quote?

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

The physics of charged particles has been understood for
a century or so. I am not going to waste my time proving
those known and accepted facts of physics. It is up to you
and W8JI to prove a century of physics knowledge to be
wrong. Good luck on proving that all static is caused by
corona discharge even in the absence of the necessary
ionization that defines the word "corona".

It especially shows up in the 300 inches a year lake effect snowfalls in
northern NY. You can hear it on 6 and 2 quite well. These were DC
grounded yagi antennas on all elements, so no corona available here,
thank you.

Also, K1RQG, who is net control of the EMENet on 14345 Sat and Sun
mornings, had it so bad from rain last weekend that he couldn't copy
most of the participants for a few minutes. And in a heavy rainstorm, I
have doubts that it had much to do with corona.

tom
K0TAR

Roy Lewallen wrote:
jawod wrote:

. . .
Seems to me, that Joules per unit time is precisely the measure that's
needed in this "analysis". Is this Voltage, or am I mistaken?


Joules (energy) per unit time is power, not voltage.


Compare the density of the dust cloud with the charge collected. There
should be a correlation. What about velocity of the cloud: more
charges transferred per unit time.


Charge per unit time is current.

If your rug was scorched, some "work" was done. My college physiscs
is only a nightmare away: what is the relation of Joules to work?


The joule is a unit of energy. Work is energy, so it can also be
expressed in joules. Welcome to my nightmare. How many joules does it take to scorch a carpet?

. . .
If a given volume of dust particles moves through the field of an
antenna (it would have a field, wouldn't it? ... even if grounded?


An antenna creates an electrostatic field if charged, but an
electromagnetic field only if that charge is being accelerated, that is,
if it carries current which changes with time.
If the antenna is at ground potential and charged particles move across it, does it not induce a current inthe antenna?

perhaps field is the wrong word), increasing velocity of the volume
would mean more particles per unit time passing the antenna. Hence
more charge transferred: more charge per unit time. Again, is this
Voltage?


No, charge per unit time is current.
OK, current.
You just saved me the trouble of digging out my old physics book, thanks.
. . .

It's impossible to contribute much to the understanding of complex
phenomena without first gaining an understanding of the most basic
principles.
I couldn't care less about "contributing" to the diatribes on this ng that pretend to address "understanding"
Like, I said, I just wanted to butt in.
I'll continue to read the posts (for some strange reason). If I post, I
trust that someone will always be there to correct my errors.

Tom Donaly wrote:


There was once an article in the old Scientific American Amateur
Scientist section about using the earth's electric field to
power various static electric motors. Just build a motor from
one of the simple designs on the web; using a weather balloon,
run a wire up 300 feet or so (should give you 9000 volts or
so on a clear day); attach your motor between the wire and ground, and,
once the wire charges up, the motor turns. You won't get much work
out of it, but it'll run a long time.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
Thanks, Tom, for your reasonable response. So, I guess we're talking
lots of voltage and very little current...makes sense.
Wasn't Ben Franklin involved in working all this out?

I'll ask another question that no doubt is off the mark:

The Santa Ana winds in California are supposed to blow for long periods
of time. Are there any measures of voltage, current, joules or cole
slaw on antennas in this area? Do they experience the "noise"?
Couldn't one connect a large capacitor circuit to store the charge and
trickle it to a battery?

(I just won't give up, eh?)

It especially shows up in the 300 inches a year lake effect snowfalls in
northern NY. You can hear it on 6 and 2 quite well. These were DC
grounded yagi antennas on all elements, so no corona available here,
thank you.

What makes you think the charge gradient and corona goes away with a
grounded element? Because there is never lightning and lightning never
hits a grounded object? Where dod you get that idea?

The earth is one terminal, the air and things in the air (like clouds)
have a charge difference.

Since the "sky" is one terminal and the earth the other with large
charge differential, why would you think connecting a tall sructure to
earth REDUCES the charge differential?

Also, K1RQG, who is net control of the EMENet on 14345 Sat and Sun
mornings, had it so bad from rain last weekend that he couldn't copy
most of the participants for a few minutes. And in a heavy rainstorm, I
have doubts that it had much to do with corona.

Why? Maybe you can answer this.....

Do we have more lightning, which is caused by a charge difference
between clouds and earth so severe it actually arcs for thousands of
feet, in heavy rain or on clear dry days?

Do the leaders and streamers form on clear dry days, or when the
weather is nasty?

You have it exactly backwards Tom. Grounding the element doesn't reduce
corna or reduce the charge difference between air and things in air
around the element and the element, it INCREASES the difference. If we
could float the element and allow the element to charge to the
potential of things around the element, the voltage gradient between
the element and things around the element would be reduced. Why do you
think the element, if we float the feedline, arcs to earth? It does
that because the air around the element is greatly different in
potential than the earth.

As for moisture, you also might do another test. Blow gently on a CRT
anode lead. See if your hot humid breath increases corona or decreases
it. Now go get a Windex bottle full of water and spray a mist on the
anode lead and see if the corna goes away, or gets worse.

I wonder how many people really understand there is a huge potential
difference between the air and earth even on a calm clear day, and
nasty weather can just make it worse.

73 Tom

jawod wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:



There was once an article in the old Scientific American Amateur
Scientist section about using the earth's electric field to
power various static electric motors. Just build a motor from
one of the simple designs on the web; using a weather balloon,
run a wire up 300 feet or so (should give you 9000 volts or
so on a clear day); attach your motor between the wire and ground, and,
once the wire charges up, the motor turns. You won't get much work
out of it, but it'll run a long time.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Thanks, Tom, for your reasonable response. So, I guess we're talking
lots of voltage and very little current...makes sense.
Wasn't Ben Franklin involved in working all this out?

I'll ask another question that no doubt is off the mark:

The Santa Ana winds in California are supposed to blow for long periods
of time. Are there any measures of voltage, current, joules or cole
slaw on antennas in this area? Do they experience the "noise"? Couldn't
one connect a large capacitor circuit to store the charge and trickle it
to a battery?

(I just won't give up, eh?)

You'll get a lot more energy out of the wind by just putting up a wind
generator. There are many wind farms in California.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Ring wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

be true for you to be correct. Sorry Tom, please peddle
your magical thinking to someone else. What do you think
about the 2000 ARRL Handbook quote?

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

The physics of charged particles has been understood for
a century or so. I am not going to waste my time proving
those known and accepted facts of physics. It is up to you
and W8JI to prove a century of physics knowledge to be
wrong. Good luck on proving that all static is caused by
corona discharge even in the absence of the necessary
ionization that defines the word "corona".


It especially shows up in the 300 inches a year lake effect snowfalls in
northern NY. You can hear it on 6 and 2 quite well. These were DC
grounded yagi antennas on all elements, so no corona available here,
thank you.

Also, K1RQG, who is net control of the EMENet on 14345 Sat and Sun
mornings, had it so bad from rain last weekend that he couldn't copy
most of the participants for a few minutes. And in a heavy rainstorm, I
have doubts that it had much to do with corona.

tom
K0TAR

Grounding might make it worse. Can you see why?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH