Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Double Bazooka? | Antenna | |||
Double Bazooka question | Antenna | |||
FS: Connectors, Antennas, Meters, Mounts, etc. | Antenna | |||
FS: Connectors/Adapters/Meters/Etc. | Equipment | |||
FS: Connectors/Adapters/Meters/Etc. | Equipment |