Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Perhaps a very high resistance hooked to the radiator and gnd would be
the quick, cheap fix?

Perhaps not. Such is already provided inside the SG-230.

Cecil:

I am slow to fence with you, your logic is impressive; however, perhaps
this "safe guard" has failed? It is hard for me to picture static which
is able to resist (pun intended) a path to ground ...

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
How many power lines do you see running vertically?

How many ground wires do you see running vertically
from power pole capacitors and transformers? :-)

Cecil:

True. But, given the hundred-of-thousands/millions? of miles in
conductors, carrying noise generating power in a horizontal plane, those
ground wires must only amount to a small percentage of the whole ...

Regards,
JS

Cecil if a static charge has a time varying field applied by gravity
would it have radiatiatonal
properties and if so would it not be vertically polarised?
Can't be true as it is not printed in a book !



Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Perhaps a very high resistance hooked to the radiator and gnd would be
the quick, cheap fix?

Perhaps not. Such is already provided inside the SG-230.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

John Smith wrote:
I am slow to fence with you, ...

On guard, varlet! :-)

your logic is impressive; however, perhaps
this "safe guard" has failed? It is hard for me to picture static which
is able to resist (pun intended) a path to ground ...

If the SG-230 weren't there you would be right. But
the SG-230 already has two built-in paths to ground
from the main RF line. One is about 40K ohms resistive
and the other is 20 turns on a transformer, probably
a toroid. Your high-resistance path would probably
have negligible effect in this particular situation.

Tom, W8JI, explained it as not just a static charge
problem but as an RF problem. If the impedance is
low enough to discharge RF static, then it is also
low enough to discharge desirable RF signals. What
a parallel impedance does is prevent arcing due to
static DC buildup but it does little to prevent RF
noise due to precipitation static which is many small
discharges but only one small one at a time. (Someone
reported being able to count the charged snowflakes.)

In the absence of a parallel impedance as exists in
the SG-230, a parallel impedance can certainly eliminate
DC arcing along with its associated corona so it's not a
bad idea. But precipitation static is a number of small
hits each generating a small amount of RF energy. The
only way I know of to reduce the amount of that RF energy
reaching the receiver is to partially short it out with
a loop antenna or insulate the antenna from the physical
hits. And in fact, those are the most popular ways of
reducing precipitation static on airplane antennas.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
How many ground wires do you see running vertically
from power pole capacitors and transformers? :-)

True. But, given the hundred-of-thousands/millions? of miles in
conductors, carrying noise generating power in a horizontal plane, those
ground wires must only amount to a small percentage of the whole ...

A small percentage of the length of wires - a very large
percentage of the vertically polarized noise. Probably two
S-units of noise at my QTH that goes away during a power
failure.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
bad idea. But precipitation static is a number of small
hits each generating a small amount of RF energy. The
...
a loop antenna or insulate the antenna from the physical
hits. And in fact, those are the most popular ways of
...
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil:

Stated was:

"Interesting Cecil, my vertical antenna is constucted from a 42 foot length
of coaxial cable using the outer braid as the radiator (but the inner and
outer are shorted together anyway) and this fat vertical "wire" is suspended
inside a telescopic fibre glass pole from Spiderbeam ( not the conductive
type). So, I guess my verical wire is quite well insulated and certainly not
in contact with charged rain."

How better could the actual metal radiator (receiving element) be insulated
from the physical striking of rain drops, other than in the nonconductive
fiberglass casing it already resides in? What am I missing?

Warmest regards,
JS

art wrote:
Cecil if a static charge has a time varying field applied by gravity
would it have radiatiatonal
properties and if so would it not be vertically polarised?
Can't be true as it is not printed in a book !

Whoa there, Art. There seems to be confusion between
two topics. As far as I know, there is no obvious
difference between the precipitation static levels
on a horizontal Vs vertical antenna. That this
particular antenna is vertical is mostly irrelevant
to the alleged precipitation static problem. It could
just as easily be happening with a horizontal antenna.

The fact that the noise might be attributed to something
other than precipitation static might involve vertical
polarization but I don't think precipitation static has
much to do with polarization. A wind-driven charged
particle is just as likely to encounter a vertical wire
as a horizontal wire.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil:

Undoubtably, in a power failure, "most all" of the noise, both horiz and
vert, goes away. How to you differentiate between what is the horiz
component and that of the vert component?

Regards,
JS

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
How many ground wires do you see running vertically
from power pole capacitors and transformers? :-)

True. But, given the hundred-of-thousands/millions? of miles in
conductors, carrying noise generating power in a horizontal plane, those
ground wires must only amount to a small percentage of the whole ...

A small percentage of the length of wires - a very large
percentage of the vertically polarized noise. Probably two
S-units of noise at my QTH that goes away during a power
failure.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 07:27:39 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

Dave wrote:
...

Most all verticals have higher noise levels than horizontal antennas.
Reason, as it is reported, is that man made noise is vertically polarized.


Dave:

Frankly, I think that the statement, "most man made noise is vertical
polarized" is a myth. How many power lines do you see running

Perhaps the explanation for the observation that the vertically
polarised component of man made noise is greater at a receiver antenna
than the horizontal component lies in the propagation mechanism.

Most man made noise is received from nearby and by ground wave, and
vertically polarised ground waves are attenuated less than
horizontally polarised waves over the same path.

This explanation is supported by the observation that the closer one
is to a high intensity man made noise source (but still within
radiating far field), the less variation in field strength with
antenna polarisation.

Owen
--

John Smith wrote:
How better could the actual metal radiator (receiving element) be insulated
from the physical striking of rain drops, other than in the nonconductive
fiberglass casing it already resides in? What am I missing?

Netnews is a challenge. Apparently you have read his
followup posting without reading mine. Just be patient.
My followups will arrive on your server sooner or later.
For instance, if he has uninsulated elevated radials,
the same thing might be happening. Or maybe it's noise
from lightning and not precipitation static at all.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com