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 -

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 -

Gene Fuller wrote:
"The term precipitation static denotes a type of interference frequently
observed in an airplane passing through snow or rain. Under such
circumstances, the airplane may become electrically charged to such a
high potential with respect to the surrounding space that a corona
discharge breaks out at some sharp point on the plane. The interference
that this corona discharge produces with radio reception, termed
precipitation static, is particularly serious at short-wave and lower
frequencies."

Corona causes RF noise for sure. But RF noise also occurs in
the complete absence of corona. RF noise in the complete absence
of corona is what we have been discussing. *Nobody* is arguing that
corona doesn't cause RF noise. We are arguing that RF noise can be
caused by something other than corona.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

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

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
"The term precipitation static denotes a type of interference
frequently observed in an airplane passing through snow or rain. Under
such circumstances, the airplane may become electrically charged to
such a high potential with respect to the surrounding space that a
corona discharge breaks out at some sharp point on the plane. The
interference that this corona discharge produces with radio reception,
termed precipitation static, is particularly serious at short-wave and
lower frequencies."

Corona causes RF noise for sure. But RF noise also occurs in
the complete absence of corona. RF noise in the complete absence
of corona is what we have been discussing. *Nobody* is arguing that
corona doesn't cause RF noise. We are arguing that RF noise can be
caused by something other than corona.

Cecil,

How do you know there is no corona discharge? Is there some special test
that tells one if corona discharge is present or not?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

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

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.

"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

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 -

It doesn't represent the mainstream. Go back and actually read the
references. Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

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