lu6etj wrote:
I think if this was the case would be enough to install on plain dipole
a RF ckoke or standard trifilar balun + a ckoke to ground on de rig.
what do you think about?

I would like to see the noise comparisons among a Double
Bazooka, a plain dipole, and a folded dipole. My Arizona
desert precipitation problem certainly decreased when
I went from a G5RV to a full-wave 40m loop.

With the G5RV, one element was grounded through the coax
shield and the other element was capacitor isolated from
ground by a series cap in my transceiver. It arced at the
coax connector and a choke did solve the arcing problem.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

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

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