lu6etj wrote:
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?

The negative comments occurred because of errors in
the attribution of your posting. It wasn't your fault
so please don't worry about it.

Back to Double Bazookas: It is a well accepted fact that
insulation reduces the precipitation static problem.
So the Double Bazooka reduces the precipitation static
in two ways. 1. DC path between elements, 2. Insulation.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

I A B tested a regular low dipole made from number 8 AWG bare wire
against a double bazooka. Even during severe weather there never was a
difference in measureable noise levels.

That's just from a direct observation over a long period of time
between the two antenna types.

There also was no measurable or noticeable difference in signal
strength or bandwidth.

73 Tom

wrote:
I A B tested a regular low dipole made from number 8 AWG bare wire
against a double bazooka. Even during severe weather there never was a
difference in measureable noise levels.

Did you A B test them under precipitation static conditions?
If not, the test was incomplete. There is obviously a charged
particle difference between a bare wire dipole and a double
bazooka. If you weren't testing using charged particles, the
test was just as obviously incomplete.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

I A B tested a regular low dipole made from number 8 AWG bare wire
against a double bazooka. Even during severe weather there never was a
difference in measureable noise levels.


Did you A B test them under precipitation static conditions?
If not, the test was incomplete. There is obviously a charged
particle difference between a bare wire dipole and a double
bazooka. If you weren't testing using charged particles, the
test was just as obviously incomplete.

Cecil,

There is absolutely no reason to believe that one antenna is less
responsive to charged particle noise than the other. Whether or not
the antenna can accumulate a static charge is a separate issue.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
There is absolutely no reason to believe that one antenna is less
responsive to charged particle noise than the other.

What about all the web references that say precipitation
static can be decreased by insulating the antenna from
the charged particles in the air?

Think about it. A charged particle hitting a bare wire
will likely transfer a charge. A charged particle hitting
an insulated wire may or may not transfer a charge depending
upon the insulation.

After all, air is an insulator. A charged particle missing
the antenna entirely is in contact with that air insulator.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. com...
Jim Kelley wrote:
There is absolutely no reason to believe that one antenna is less
responsive to charged particle noise than the other.

What about all the web references that say precipitation
static can be decreased by insulating the antenna from
the charged particles in the air?

Think about it. A charged particle hitting a bare wire
will likely transfer a charge. A charged particle hitting
an insulated wire may or may not transfer a charge depending
upon the insulation.

After all, air is an insulator. A charged particle missing
the antenna entirely is in contact with that air insulator.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

I once had a ladder line fed doublet.
It was disconnected at the feedthroughs because a thunderstorm was about ten
miles North.
I could pull 1 inch arcs off the feedthroughs to a grounded wire.
Made me think of Ben Franklin.

73
H.
NQ5H

H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. com...

Jim Kelley wrote:

There is absolutely no reason to believe that one antenna is less
responsive to charged particle noise than the other.

What about all the web references that say precipitation
static can be decreased by insulating the antenna from
the charged particles in the air?

Think about it. A charged particle hitting a bare wire
will likely transfer a charge. A charged particle hitting
an insulated wire may or may not transfer a charge depending
upon the insulation.

After all, air is an insulator. A charged particle missing
the antenna entirely is in contact with that air insulator.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


I once had a ladder line fed doublet.
It was disconnected at the feedthroughs because a thunderstorm was about ten
miles North.
I could pull 1 inch arcs off the feedthroughs to a grounded wire.
Made me think of Ben Franklin.

73
H.
NQ5H



A man could get killed fooling with that kind of stuff. It's a wonder
Ben lived as long as he did.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. com...

Jim Kelley wrote:

There is absolutely no reason to believe that one antenna is less
responsive to charged particle noise than the other.


What about all the web references that say precipitation
static can be decreased by insulating the antenna from
the charged particles in the air?

I refuse to take responsibility for the things other people say. :-)

Think about it. A charged particle hitting a bare wire
will likely transfer a charge. A charged particle hitting
an insulated wire may or may not transfer a charge depending
upon the insulation.

Consider the nature of dielectric materials. I could be wrong, but I
bet if you stuck a negative oxygen ion on the outside of a jacketed
conductor, you could make the conductor inside think you had put an
electron directly on it.

After all, air is an insulator. A charged particle missing
the antenna entirely is in contact with that air insulator.

And air, which is an insulator, is also in contact with a bare wire
antenna - presumably 'insulating' it. The difference is one of
density (and dielectric constant).

I suppose if you set up a big electric or magnetic field in the proper
orientation, you could make a lot of the ions go away from an antenna.
But controlling plasmas is kinda like herding cats.

73, ac6xg

"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. com...

Jim Kelley wrote:

There is absolutely no reason to believe that one antenna is less
responsive to charged particle noise than the other.


What about all the web references that say precipitation
static can be decreased by insulating the antenna from
the charged particles in the air?

I refuse to take responsibility for the things other people say. :-)

Think about it. A charged particle hitting a bare wire
will likely transfer a charge. A charged particle hitting
an insulated wire may or may not transfer a charge depending
upon the insulation.

Consider the nature of dielectric materials. I could be wrong, but I bet
if you stuck a negative oxygen ion on the outside of a jacketed conductor,
you could make the conductor inside think you had put an electron directly
on it.

After all, air is an insulator. A charged particle missing
the antenna entirely is in contact with that air insulator.

And air, which is an insulator, is also in contact with a bare wire
antenna - presumably 'insulating' it. The difference is one of density
(and dielectric constant).

I suppose if you set up a big electric or magnetic field in the proper
orientation, you could make a lot of the ions go away from an antenna. But
controlling plasmas is kinda like herding cats.

73, ac6xg


My first physics job was in fusion.
Herding cats is trivial.
73
H.
NQ5H

PS I like my SteppIR.
Now THAT's broadband and insulated.

H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote:
I once had a ladder line fed doublet.
It was disconnected at the feedthroughs because a thunderstorm was about ten
miles North.
I could pull 1 inch arcs off the feedthroughs to a grounded wire.
Made me think of Ben Franklin.

For sure, a gradient is established by thunderstorms
resulting in all sorts of electrical and magnetic
phenomena. But the particular type of noise I am
talking about is precipitation static caused by
charged particles hitting a bare wire dipole when
one element of the dipole is floating. In particular,
this type of noise can occur in the Arizona desert
when there is not a cloud in the sky. Here is how
"precipitation static" is defined:

http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_precipitation_static.html

"ATIS is a United States based body that is committed to
rapidly developing and promoting technical and operations
standards for the communications and related information
technologies industry worldwide using a pragmatic, flexible
and open approach. ATIS is accredited by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI)."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp