Here in Buenos Aires (near de Atlantic Ocean and the River Plate) it is
a very humid area, our typical old wives phrase for all the illness is
"lo que mata es la humedad" (what kills you is the humidity) ;)

(R to Adam I don't see your 2k5 answer, and R also to your doubts about
a documented quieter performance, well, I am just searching for a
documented falsehood of these extended claims, hi hi)

Another antenna very reputed here as "quieter" it is a simple
triangular loop, similar to Cecil's example, maybe the static
explanation is OK.
But... very few days at the year we have low humidity climate. (I never
have burn a FET o MOS IC by touch them in my 38 years of continuated
activity in electronics, but, yes, I kill various equipments by invert
its polarity :) )

Do you think that static precipitation it is a valid explanation in
these conditions?

cheers

Miguel

H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote:
I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell,
(both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections"

"Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer?


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK

lu6etj wrote:
Do you think that static precipitation it is a valid explanation in
these conditions?


No. It makes no difference at all.

If you have a static build-up problem all you need do is install a leak
resistance or a suitable RF choke to ground. One should have that in an
antenna anyway.

I have the choice of any antenna I want and unlimited space to install
them. I often have several antenna types up for any one band at the
very same time. I've had a coaxial dipole up along with another dipole
the same height, and there is no noticeable difference in any aspect of
performance. I've even removed the shorted wire connection (the center
conductor connection past the feedpoint) and restored it, and the
antenna performance remains virtually identical in both noise and
bandwidth.

73 Tom

wrote:
lu6etj wrote:
Do you think that static precipitation it is a valid explanation in
these conditions?

No. It makes no difference at all.

It certainly made a difference in the Arizona desert under
conditions that cause precipitation static in a dipole with
no DC path between the elements. Many hams have direct
experience and have reported it. Here is a discussion of
such over on eHam.net.

http://www.eham.net/forums/Elmers/83...a978db4ce15751

If you have a static build-up problem all you need do is install a leak
resistance or a suitable RF choke to ground. One should have that in an
antenna anyway.

But a lot of hams don't know that and run their dipoles with
the two coax conductors DC isolated from each other. I'll bet
the "plain dipoles" being described by lu6etj as noisy don't
have a leak resistance. The Double Bazooka is automatically
protected from static buildup between the elements as are loops,
and folded dipoles.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

I think he's referring to the Maxwell of Maxwell's Equations.

"Ian White GM3SEK" wrote in message
...
H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote:
I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell,
(both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections"

"Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer?


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote:
I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell,
(both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections"

"Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer?

There's a false attribution above, Ian. It should be:

"lu6etj" wrote:
I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a
fan of Maxwell, (both Maxwells) from their famous article
"Another look on reflections"
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote:

I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell,
(both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections"


"Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer?



It's the royal "their."
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

wrote:
I've even removed the shorted wire connection (the center
conductor connection past the feedpoint) and restored it, and the
antenna performance remains virtually identical in both noise and
bandwidth.

If these tests were not performed under precipitation static
conditions, they obviously wouldn't show any difference.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote:
I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of
Maxwell, (both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on
reflections"
"Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer?

There's a false attribution above, Ian. It should be:

"lu6etj" wrote:
I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a
fan of Maxwell, (both Maxwells) from their famous article
"Another look on reflections"

You're right, Cecil - my apologies to all concerned.


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Hi Hi...

Don't forget I am argentine, here we speak spanish all the day, it is
my own translation error of possesive case... "their" it is wrong ,
"his" is the correct.- "...from HIS famous article..." R?

References to "both" Mawells, yes, James an Walter..., (thanks Adam)

Miguel
-----------------------

Tom Donaly ha escrito:

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote:

I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell,
(both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections"


"Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer?



It's the royal "their."
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH