Rain Static

Mon Apr 29 12:13:50 EDT 1996

In a message dated 96-04-26 12:10:51 EDT, you write:

>A good experiment would be to have three identical dipoles; one bare wire,
>one hookup wire, and one made from high-voltage lead wire for really thick
>insulation.  A good substitute for the high-voltage wire would be a length
>of RG-58 with the jacket and braid stripped off.  Then measure the
>noise-level during the next rainstorm.

Ward,

I tried, years ago, to insulate an antenna to eliminate this problem but that
effort was never *in the least* successful.

The only thing that helped was installing a tall grounded mast above the
antenna, and covering or removng sharp points on the antenna elements. Those
steps reduced the noise substantially.  

If anyone tries your experiment, they need to be sure the antennas are the
same height and in a clear location free from other metalic or conductive
objects. The antennas need to be A-B'd. 

To my knowlege, no one has ever done an experiment proving charged rain drops
are the source of the problem, and that insulation helps this and not a
corona problem. I'd be willing to bet the "rain drop discharge" is folklore,
and the real problem is corona discharge.

73 Tom

>From John Dorr K1AR" <p00259 at psilink.com  Mon Apr 29 16:34:53 1996
From: John Dorr K1AR" <p00259 at psilink.com (John Dorr K1AR)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 96 10:34:53 -0500
Subject: k1ea/k1ar conspiracy
Message-ID: <3039874458.5.p00259 at psilink.com>

Jose--

Thanks for explaining it to me...and I just thought it was because we 
were loud!

73 John

>DATE:   Sat, 27 Apr 1996 15:19:03 +0100
>FROM:   CT1BOH - Jose Carlos Cardoso Nunes <ct1boh at telepac.pt>
>
>Ever wonder why K1EA/K1AR always win?
>There is a vicious conspiracy behind all those victories...(see P.S.)
>
>I recently moved to another QTH about 30 Kms away from my station, at my =
>parents home.
>Having no radio to distract me I started thinking about the decision maki=
>ng process in the CQWW and in any
>contest in general as far as Running or S&P is concerned.
>
>I believe one must update his decisions every 10 minutes, and you can eit=
>her choose to Run or to S&P.
>Lets say at the beginning of your next decision your score is:
>
>S0=3DP*Q*M
>
>where P equals points per QSO, Q equals QSOS and M equals multipliers
>If you decide to Run for the next 10 minutes at the end of those 10 minut=
>es your score will be:
>
>S10R=3DP*(Q+x)*(M+v*x)
>
>where x will be the number of QSOs you will work in the next 10 minutes a=
>nd v will be the velocity you will
>work the multipliers.
>If your decision is to S&P your score at the end of those 10 minutes will=
> be:
>
>S10S=3DP*(Q+y)(M+y)
>
>where y is the number of new multipliers you found during those 10 next m=
>inutes.
>If you think S10R will be greater than S10S RUN if not S&P. Sounds easy..=
>.doesn=92t it?
>In order to calculate the value of x that gives the indifference QSO numb=
>er between Run or S&P all we have to
>do is to equal the two equations:
>
>S10R=3DS10S
>
>P*(Q+x)*(M+v*x)=3DP*(Q+y)(M+y)
>
>resolving the equation in order to x
>
>x =3D (-(Q*v+M)+SQRT((Q*V+M)^2+4*V*(Q*y+y*M+y^2)))/(2*V)
>
>(SQRT=3DSquare Root)
>So if you think during the next 10 minutes you can actually work more QSO=
>s than x you should RUN otherwise S&P.
>Looking at the formula there are two variables you don=92t know upon taki=
>ng your decision:
>
>v - Velocity of Multipliers during the next 10 minutes
>
>        You don=92t know how many multipliers you would work, in case you=
> decide to Run therefore you must
>estimate what this number will be. I use the last 500 QSOs to estimate v =
>(use the number that gives you the
>highest correlation, depending upon your location, upon the time during t=
>he contest, upon how strong your
>signal is etc.). Also the historical value of M/Q during the last 12 hour=
>s at 12:00, 24:00 36:00 and 48:00 is a
>good indication. So in the next 10 minutes I assume I will work the same =
>proportion of Multipliers per QSO I
>did in the last 500, for example.
>
>y - Number of Multipliers you are going to work in the next 10 minutes.
>
>        You don=92t know how many Multipliers you will work if you decide=
> to S&P therefore you must estimate this
>number. Of course this depends on how good you are, how many Multipliers =
>you already have, how powerful your
>station is etc. But just for your reference, on Sunday from a DX location=
>, after 12:00 if you can find more
>than 3 new Mults in 10 minutes, that would be really great (PY0FF 95 CW).
>Now the K1EA/K1AR Conspiracy.
>
>K1EA/K1AR competition at the East Coast is using CT as their main logging=
> program.
>They look at CT screen and they can value the time worth in minutes of a =
>Multiplier..
>So instead of thinking in the next 10 minutes think of time you will spen=
>d working a new multiplier or the
>number of QSOs you can work during that period of time (the rationale beh=
>ind it is exactly the same).
>
>How does CT calculate that number?
>
>Well K1EA CT thinks
>
>if you S&P for 1 mult your score at the end will be:
>
>S1S(CT)=3DP*(Q+Y)*(M+Y)
>
>and if you run instead of S&P for 1 Mult
>
>S1R(CT)=3DP*(Q+x)*(M+0)
>
>then for S1R(CT)=3DS1S(CT)
>
>x=3DQ/M+1+1/M
>
>therefore the value in minutes of a multiplier in CT is given by:
>
>(Q/M+1)*(60)/(rate last 100 QSOs)
>
>CT assumes that for y=3D1  x=3D(Q/M+1+1/M)
>
>instead of
>
>x =3D (-(Q*v+M)+SQRT((Q*v+M)^2+4*v*(Q*y+y*M+y^2)))/(2*v)
>
>Running examples x(CT) is always greater than x for reasonable values of =
>v (depending of v, but about 50%
>greater)
>So when you have to make a decision to Run or to S&P and look at the valu=
>e of a multiplier in CT you think you
>have more time to work a multiplier than you really have if you would con=
>tinue Running.
>
>If you are a strong believer in conspiracy theories you will think K1EA/K=
>1AR use the correct value for the
>worth in minutes of a Multiplier. Their competition thinking they still h=
>ave time available to look for one
>multipliers in fact don=92t and lose precious QSOs and points S&P when th=
>ey should have been Running.
>That is why they always win........
>
>P.S. I don=92t believe in conspiracy theories=85
>
>Jose Carlos Cardoso Nunes
>ct1boh at telepac.pt

>From Ward Silver <hwardsil at wolfenet.com>  Mon Apr 29 17:28:32 1996
From: Ward Silver <hwardsil at wolfenet.com> (Ward Silver)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 09:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Rain Static
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.93.960429092708.9675I-100000 at gonzo.wolfenet.com>

Yup, probably a combination of having more rain hit it in the first place,
draining a little of the potential off the drops that get close, and being
generally noisier due to the corona drain that happens continuously (see
W0UN's post about the 300' tower and the 6-8" blue fire!).

Now, if I just had enough tower and aluminum to worry about it!

73, Ward N0AX

>From DFREY at maila.harris.com (DFREY)  Sat Apr 27 16:15:01 1996
From: DFREY at maila.harris.com (DFREY) (DFREY)
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:15:01 -0400
Subject: reducing plate voltage
Message-ID: <184eeba0 at maila.harris.com>

     >From: "michael d. ihry" <mihry at topher.net> 
     >Subject: [cq-contest 15176] help..need variac 

     >hi all
     >been working on a homebrew amp. found a transformer, but it puts out 
     >too much voltage. need a variac to control the input. does anybody 
     >have a variac that will do 0 to 120 volts at about 10 to 15 amps?? 
     >tnx
     >de ac5ct..mike in tx

     Mike,

     A better idea:  use a filament transformer with a secondary rated at 
     the 10-15A of primary current you need.  Hook it up as an 
     autotransformer to reduce your plate transformer's voltage by the 
     amount you want.  6.3V = 5%, 12.6V = 10%, etc.

     Less space, less cost, more reliable, easier to find, and no operator 
     intervention required!

     Dick,  K4XU

>From Jay Pryor <JPRYOR at uga.cc.uga.edu>  Mon Apr 29 16:56:51 1996
From: Jay Pryor <JPRYOR at uga.cc.uga.edu> (Jay Pryor)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 96 11:56:51 EDT
Subject: Early Logs
Message-ID: <960429.123114.EDT.JPRYOR at UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>

It is interesting that so many of us got our first license in the late
50s/early 60s. My guess is that the Sputnik/space race climate had
something to do with it. Recent postings here prompted me to look through
a couple of my first logs this weekend. Got the Novice (Kn4OGG) in Sept.
1959 and went on the air with a DX-20 and now-forgotten receiver. Log shows
many CQs (all are in log) but few QSOs till I upgraded to Globe Chief Deluxe
and RME-4350A. First contest was '60 Novice Roundup: 152 Qs over a 2-week
period, including first DX, KP4AOO.

In April 1960, after my third trip to the Atlanta FCC office, I received a
self-addressed postcard (now framed) with a single word stamped on the

back: "passed".  In May 1960, after assembling a Knight-kit VFO, I checked
in to the Georgia State (traffic) Net for the first time. There I met some
great ops including K4BAI, K4BVD (now W6OAT), K4TEA and W4DDY.

Other contests in '60 included the Delaware QSO Parth, the W/VE Contest and
the one that hooked me forever, the CW Sweepstakes. That first SS log is now
framed -- some of your calls are probably listed. Each new SS reminds me of
those cold days in the basement in the early 60s. Good memories.
73,
Jay/K4OGG