|
Noise level between two ant types
Well said, and yet here we are over 100 messages latter (even with a
Cecil filter) with strange contentions still going on. yea, maybe Dr. Moore wrong, maybe Dr. Tom wrong. but i not give advanced contest physics to American. Soong |
Noise level between two ant types
John - KD5YI wrote:
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. How much current does it take to achieve when a tiny point doesn't exist? Can a dipole made out of #8 wire with rounded ends exhibit corona during receive? If not, the other side loses the argument. I suggest you study exclusive Vs inclusive arguments. The other side is saying that RF noise due to charged particles is *always* accompanied by corona no matter what antenna configuration is used. I am saying it is not always accompanied by corona. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
John - KD5YI wrote: 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. How much current does it take to achieve when a tiny point doesn't exist? Can a dipole made out of #8 wire with rounded ends exhibit corona during receive? If not, the other side loses the argument. Tiny points exist everywhere, all the time, whether you wish it or not. So, did you make any calculations? Did you even try to refute your own hypothesis? Have you looked at this from any other viewpoint? I suggest you study exclusive Vs inclusive arguments. The other side is saying that RF noise due to charged particles is *always* accompanied by corona no matter what antenna configuration is used. I am saying it is not always accompanied by corona. Cecil, I am not going to study logic or psychology or philanthropy or anthropology or Malaysan Frog Worship or anything else you suggest just so I can understand your comments or arguments. You're input isn't worth it. It would seem to me that you should be able to present your thoughts so that people of my un-educatedness could understand. But, perhaps that is not what you want. Perhaps you feel it is better that you carry on your debate with those who are more deserving of your debating capabilities. So be it. John |
Noise level between two ant types
John - KD5YI wrote:
Tiny points exist everywhere, all the time, whether you wish it or not. White cars exist everywhere, all the time, whether one wishes it or not, yet not all cars are white. To maintain that all cars are white when at least one is red is not logical. Cecil, I am not going to study logic ... You should at least study enough of it to get by in this world. The truth is, not all cars are white. -- 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. your term ONLY includes nuclear potential energy. at ordinary energies, your expression is the correct approximation! Gravity |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
John - KD5YI wrote: Tiny points exist everywhere, all the time, whether you wish it or not. White cars exist everywhere, all the time, whether one wishes it or not, yet not all cars are white. To maintain that all cars are white when at least one is red is not logical. Cecil, I am not going to study logic ... You should at least study enough of it to get by in this world. The truth is, not all cars are white. Early in this thread "conventional accepted physics" said that corona could not exist in fairweather conditions. Now there has been a subtle change to the theme of "prove that corona occurs in more than 99.9% of all cases." Enjoy the banter, John, but don't expect to ever get Cecil to agree on anything. 73, Gene W4SZ |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil, I am not going to study logic ...
most Usenet discussions are very low quality due to informal fallacies. engineers are smart in physics, but can't debate. Gravity |
Noise level between two ant types
Gene Fuller wrote:
Early in this thread "conventional accepted physics" said that corona could not exist in fairweather conditions. Actually, I said my references indicated that, but that's past history. I later fine-tuned that concept to "Corona cannot exist without an extra energy source besides the fairweather current." Remember - moving airplanes, etc? Please try to keep up. When I am wrong, I immediately correct my error. That's the scientific method in action. My assertion is that charged particle noise can exist without corona and that is most probably under fairweather conditions. I suggest that you and others review the logical difference between exclusive statements and inclusive statements. Exclusive statement: Charged particle noise cannot exist without corona. A mostly meaningless statement since it is virtually impossible to prove. Your side has been asserting these types of exclusive statements. Inclusive statement: Charged particle noise can exist without corona. Easy to prove since it only requires one example. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
gravity wrote:
Cecil, I am not going to study logic ... most Usenet discussions are very low quality due to informal fallacies. engineers are smart in physics, but can't debate. Especially when they don't understand the difference between "exclusive" and "inclusive". -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Gene Fuller wrote:
Enjoy the banter, John, but don't expect to ever get Cecil to agree on anything. 73, Gene W4SZ Well, thanks, Gene, but I don't really enjoy debating. He will believe whatever he wants, whether it is right or wrong. The world will not be moved by it in either case. 73, John |
Noise level between two ant types
John - KD5YI wrote:
He will believe whatever he wants, whether it is right or wrong. I will believe what the technical evidence indicates. But who knows, there may actually be a Corona God up there somewhere in control of all antenna noise. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Gene Fuller wrote:
Early in this thread "conventional accepted physics" said that corona could not exist in fairweather conditions. I just waded back through my postings. A day or two after making that statement, I added the context in which that statement was made. (That happened days ago). Conventional accepted physics says that corona cannot exist in fairweather conditions without an additional source of energy. When I asked that the source of corona energy be identified, I believe it was you who said, "Who cares?". So I ask again. Given fairweather conditions, what is the source of energy for corona? In matters of politics, one follows the money. In matters of physics, one follows the energy. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
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. True. The question being asked is "How could it be possible to hear such tiny charges impacting an antenna?" It is just as reasonable to ask how could it be possible to detect the presence of tiny electromagnetically induced currents on an antenna. But in consideration of the latter, it should be apparent that if the magnitude of the randomly fluctuating ion current approaches that of a small electromagnetic current it would be impossible not to detect it. 73, ac6xg |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: Early in this thread "conventional accepted physics" said that corona could not exist in fairweather conditions. I just waded back through my postings. A day or two after making that statement, I added the context in which that statement was made. (That happened days ago). Conventional accepted physics says that corona cannot exist in fairweather conditions without an additional source of energy. When I asked that the source of corona energy be identified, I believe it was you who said, "Who cares?". So I ask again. Given fairweather conditions, what is the source of energy for corona? In matters of politics, one follows the money. In matters of physics, one follows the energy. Cecil, I said that one could use either energy or forces (fields) to solve most problems. (I have said something similar several times in the past.) It is often much more convenient to use one formalism over the other due to the availability of numerical information and workable boundary conditions. If the problem is set up correctly and the math is done correctly the same answer will result from either formalism. If you want to solve the corona question by "following the energy", have at it. Go ahead and set up the correct boundary conditions, figure out the right equations to use, and just plug-and-crank. Piece o' cake. The only minor issue is that the atmosphere can act as a effectively limitless source or sink for energy. But I am confident you can find a way around that little detail. By the way, I would sure like to find that reference you have for "conventional accepted physics." I have a library full of physics books, all of which seem to be conventional and accepted, but I have not found one that has such as all-encompassing title. 73, Gene W4SZ |
Noise level between two ant types
Gene Fuller wrote:
If you want to solve the corona question by "following the energy", have at it. The basic question is where does the energy from corona come from? There should be a simple answer to that simple question. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: If you want to solve the corona question by "following the energy", have at it. The basic question is where does the energy from corona come from? There should be a simple answer to that simple question. Cecil, Why should there be a simple answer? I already told you that is not the path I would take if I wanted to find a quantitative solution. You might check your "conventional accepted physics" references if you are looking for a simple answer. On the other hand, if those references consist only of hand-waving explanations, common sense logic, and quotes from legions of experienced radio amateurs, then you may need to do some actual work to find your answer. 73, Gene W4SZ |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: If you want to solve the corona question by "following the energy", have at it. The basic question is where does the energy from corona come from? There should be a simple answer to that simple question. Motion of one material against another. Silk/glass, dust/metal, rubber belt/metal combs. They all transfer electrons from one object to anther. Dave N |
Noise level between two ant types
David G. Nagel wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Gene Fuller wrote: If you want to solve the corona question by "following the energy", have at it. The basic question is where does the energy from corona come from? There should be a simple answer to that simple question. Motion of one material against another. Silk/glass, dust/metal, rubber belt/metal combs. They all transfer electrons from one object to anther. Dave N That creates charge. But what is the threshold for CORONA. Charge and corona are two different entities. Isn't corona entering the realm of plasma physics? Your response doesn't answer the question. |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: If you want to solve the corona question by "following the energy", have at it. The basic question is where does the energy from corona come from? There should be a simple answer to that simple question. I was taught that the BASIC source is the energy from the FUSION device that can be seen on a sunny day as it interacts at the atomic level with 'stuff' :-) But, I don't think that's what you are asking! |
Noise level between two ant types
|
Noise level between two ant types
Jim Kelley wrote:
But in consideration of the latter, it should be apparent that if the magnitude of the randomly fluctuating ion current approaches that of a small electromagnetic current it would be impossible not to detect it. Exactly. Whether one particle can cause a detectable noise pulse obviously depends on the charge on the noise particle and a number of other parameters. But given, e.g. a coax fed dipole with the coax braid grounded, a difference is charge is likely to occur between the elements that is large enough to be heard. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Gene Fuller wrote:
Why should there be a simple answer? Because conservation of energy is a very simple concept. Energy either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't, corona is impossible. I already told you that is not the path I would take if I wanted to find a quantitative solution. I know that already and your particular quantitative solution explains absolutely nothing about reality so it has to be taken on faith. Quantum physics is currently filled with such solutions. Nobody can prove that virtual photons exist because if virtual photons could be proved to exist, they wouldn't be virtual anymore. That's essentially the same argument you are using. "Forget energy reality and place your faith in my religious mathematical model that doesn't require any energy". Sorry, but no thanks. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
David G. Nagel wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: The basic question is where does the energy from corona come from? There should be a simple answer to that simple question. Motion of one material against another. Silk/glass, dust/metal, rubber belt/metal combs. They all transfer electrons from one object to anther. Does triboelectricity *always* cause corona? Of course not! -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
gravity wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge What happens when the charge is not enough to cause corona or arcing? Could RF noise occur before corona occurs? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message . net... I know that already and your particular quantitative solution explains absolutely nothing about reality so it has to be taken on faith. Quantum physics is currently filled with such solutions. Nobody can prove that virtual photons exist because if virtual photons could be proved to exist, they wouldn't be virtual anymore. surely you mean virtual particles like electron and positron pairs. i believe these are mainly a construct to simplify calculations. for instance, Heisenberg had a different approach than Schroedinger. Gravity |
Noise level between two ant types
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message . net... gravity wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge What happens when the charge is not enough to cause corona or arcing? Could RF noise occur before corona occurs? Cebik says you will get a lot of noise with high wind and dry weather. he has a PhD (?), i don't. Gravity |
Noise level between two ant types
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message . net... Quantum physics is currently filled with such solutions. we (engineers, physicists) use constructs to get answers. as Feynman said "Shut up and calculate." in some cases, we don't know the underlying mechanism for centuries. e.g. Newtonian gravity. Michael |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: Why should there be a simple answer? Because conservation of energy is a very simple concept. Energy either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't, corona is impossible. Cecil, OK, energy exists, and it is even conserved. Do you feel better now? 73, Gene W4SZ |
Noise level between two ant types
Gene Fuller wrote:
OK, energy exists, and it is even conserved. Do you feel better now? That's a good first step. Now where does the energy come from that supports corona under fairweather conditions? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
either the clear air field/current or any wind.
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message . com... Gene Fuller wrote: OK, energy exists, and it is even conserved. Do you feel better now? That's a good first step. Now where does the energy come from that supports corona under fairweather conditions? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
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. Afraid you have this wrong, gravity. Consider: P=today is my birthday Q=I will receive a present If (today is my birthday) then (I will receive a present). If (I will receive a present) then MAYBE today is my birthday and MAYBE it is not. 73, Chuck 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 ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Noise level between two ant types
chuck wrote:
If (I will receive a present) then MAYBE today is my birthday and MAYBE it is not. Expanding: "If I receive a present today, then today is my birthday." Assuming no present is received today, that statement is true by definition. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
chuck wrote: If (I will receive a present) then MAYBE today is my birthday and MAYBE it is not. Expanding: "If I receive a present today, then today is my birthday." Assuming no present is received today, that statement is true by definition. :-) Sorry, Cecil. I'm not following you on that. Whether the statement P implies Q is true has nothing to do with whether P is true. My point was that P implies Q does NOT mean if ~Q then not ~P. 73, Chuck ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Noise level between two ant types
chuck wrote:
My point was that P implies Q does NOT mean if ~Q then not ~P. Well, I screwed up again. Of course it does. Mixed up converse and contrapositive and sorry for the diversion. 73, Chuck ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Noise level between two ant types
chuck wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: "If I receive a present today, then today is my birthday." Assuming no present is received today, that statement is true by definition. :-) Sorry, Cecil. I'm not following you on that. Neither do a lot of other people. Here's the truth table for an: (If A then B) = C logical statement A B C True True True True False False False True True False False True If the if-portion of an if/then statement is false, then the entire statement is true, by definition. For instance, this is a logically true statement. If I were ever to play in the NBA, then I would be a superstar. Since the A portion can never be true, the entire statement is true, by definition. In your earlier example, *both of these statements are true* if you didn't receive a present. Only if you actually received a present can one be true and the other false. 1. If I receive a present, it's my birthday. 2. If I receive a present, it's not my birthday. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Noise level between two ant types
"chuck" wrote in message ... 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. Afraid you have this wrong, gravity. Consider: P=today is my birthday Q=I will receive a present If (today is my birthday) then (I will receive a present). If (I will receive a present) then MAYBE today is my birthday and MAYBE it is not. that's not the contrapositive. that's the converse, i think. Gravity |
Noise level between two ant types
contraposition in logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrapositive affirmation of the consequent. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html Gravity |
Noise level between two ant types
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: OK, energy exists, and it is even conserved. Do you feel better now? That's a good first step. Now where does the energy come from that supports corona under fairweather conditions? If the antenna is a vertical, ungrounded, uncharged wire, it is a conductor in an electric field (the fairweather field). The free charges in the antenna will move so as to cancel the fairweather field inside the antenna wire. At the top of the antenna, there will be a concentration of negative charge. If a single strand of wire sticks out, that concentration could be sufficient to ionize the air and cause corona. If the corona starting voltage is typically 30 kV/cm radius, then a tiny wire could ionize the air at only 300volts or so for a 0.01 cm radius. http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/corona.htm Corona Based on that, it would seem the fairweather field can support corona formation by itself. If a charged particle now strikes the uncharged antenna, free charges will redistribute themselves to maintain no net electric field inside the conductor. The antenna's charge will increase until it exceeds some breakdown threshold. This process seems functionally similar to that due to the existence of the fairweather field, although either could exist independently. The question then seems to be whether the redistribution of charges that occurs when charged particles strike the antenna causes a current in the antenna which is detected by the receiver as noise. I believe this is the question Cecil has been posing. It occurs to me that the current due to charge redistribution could be rather significant if numerous particles are striking the antenna in a short time interval. Even a corona discharge will cause a redistribution of free charges that may show up as a detectable current at the receiver. This would be a different effect from the noise generating property of the corona itself. Any thoughts? Chuck ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Noise level between two ant types
chuck wrote:
If the corona starting voltage is typically 30 kV/cm radius, then a tiny wire could ionize the air at only 300volts or so for a 0.01 cm radius. http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/corona.htm Corona As an update, I see that Llewellyn (not W7EL) in 1975 established experimentally that for a point radius of 0.01 cm, a corona will be formed with fields of only 100 V/m. These results differ a bit from what would be predicted by Paschen's curve. 73, Chuck ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Noise level between two ant types
chuck wrote:
Based on that, it would seem the fairweather field can support corona formation by itself. Even though the fairweather current is 13 magnitudes below the corona current? It occurs to me that the current due to charge redistribution could be rather significant if numerous particles are striking the antenna in a short time interval. Maybe aggravated by one element of the dipole being grounded and the other floating? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com