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

Particle discharge makes radio static noise.

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

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

a PDF reference

http://tinyurl.com/h4o6u

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

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

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

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

Yep, here's a quote from the mainstream:

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

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

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

Cecil Moore wrote:

Yep, here's a quote from the mainstream:

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

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

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

Cecil,

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

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

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


Yep, here's a quote from the mainstream:

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

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

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

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

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

Prove that this causes radio frequency noise, Cecil.

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

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

Particle discharge makes radio static noise.

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

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

a PDF reference

http://tinyurl.com/h4o6u

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

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

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -


Mike,

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

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

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

73,
Gene
W4SZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requirement for corona to exist:

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

Available current during fairweather conditions:

10^-12 amps per square meter

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

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

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

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

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

Cecil Moore wrote:


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

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

Requirement for corona to exist:

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

Available current during fairweather conditions:

10^-12 amps per square meter

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



Cecil,

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

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

The fairweather current and the corona current are completely unrelated.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

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

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