View Single Post
  #241   Report Post  
Old November 6th 03, 08:38 PM
Yuri Blanarovich
 
Posts: n/a
Default

OK let me take it point by point he

(Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:
I explained that your previous posting was based on wrong assumptions (not
reading carefully the threads?) - the 100mA on 8A meter, measurement
techniques, etc.


Hi Yuri,

This, above, is exactly my complaint and it illustrates how you are
projecting your problem on me. It is you who is not reading carefully
because you did not respond to the issues, but rather injected this
specious comment.


I gathered that you mixed W9UCW measurements where he set the power level going
into the antenna such, that he achieved 100 mA full deflection on his 100 mA
ammeter mounted on the bottom of the coil, then he read at the same time
deflection on the similar 100 mA meter mounted on the top of the coil, showing
40 to 60 mA deflection, depending on the band and position of the coil, quoting
some figures as I showed them in my article. What is wrong with that? Where he
went wrong? Can you elaborate?

I responded specifically to 100mA, I responded specifically to 8A, I
responded to how you are going to lose accuracy through scaling, I
responded specifically to how you could approach that, I responded
directly to what it would demand.


I was planning to do the "W9UCW thing" duplicate the setup, put my 8A meter at
the bottom of the coil, drive it to full deflection and then read the current
at the top 8A meter and expect to read somewhere between 4 - 6 A. If the Tom
camp is right and we are full of it, it should read 8A (minus fraction for all
the losses "calculated"). What's wrong with that?


You answered NONE of these
technical issues and instead made this lame complaint above.


I have not done it yet. You have technical questions about W9UCW measurements
and setup, ask him

You left
me to speculate about the model - NO RESPONSE to that either.


What model? Hardware "model" W9UCW used was 60 quarter wave radials on ground
(40m - see the picture) shorted radiator tuned to resonance with loading coil
(see picture). Normal loaded antenna.
Soft model by W5DXP was described by him.

You
left me to speculate about drive level - NO RESPONSE to that either.


I said that W9UCW set the drive level to show 100 mA deflection on the bottom
meter, to eliminate errors you worried about, can't get any better than full
scale deflection. The objective was to see the how much current decreases from
the bottom to the top of the coil. Is it +-0 as Tom camp claims or is it
significantly more like around 50% we found and claim. How is that terribly
wrong that would prove Toms are right?

You describe the enormous heat issues that come with these
characteristics that have been UNRESPONDED to.


Huh?
I mentioned heat effect, where "lousy" Hustler coil demonstrates more heat
generation at the bottom than at the top, therefore higher current at the
bottom than at the top. What's wrong with that and conclusion that there must
be more current flowing in the bottom turns than in top turns?

Instead you dismiss
the issue of heat in the same breath as applied to a caloric based
measuring device as:
nitpicking in the .01 area of significance

Which is unsupported by any data.


Huh? Can you elaborate?
What has bottom third of the coil heating up from the current (no meters) has
to do with caloric based measuring device? You stick heat sensitive strip on
the coil you will see the rapid change of colors going from the bottom to the
top. What is wrong with that?

Obviously you find it simpler to
reject than to investigate. This is the class of argument you decry
coming from Tom, but it is consistent with the class of sneer review
common in this forum.


Reject what? I said I would measure it myself, both on mobile and test set up
aka W9UCW. What am I supposed to investigate? Why the Rauchians don't get it? I
provided 7 points and asked for rebuttal or showing what was wrong with them,
can you answer them point by point, where did we go wrong?

As I stated, please insert the stage directions [applause here] for
your scripting if you are not going to respond to the technical
comments.


What technical comments? We showed what we have found, showed pictures of
reality, showed how it was done so far, what we measured, what we think is
doing it. Where is anybody showing that was wrong and they found right? Again,
if you are questioning W9UCW measurements go to him.
If you have problem with modeling programs goto Roy.

What is the program? If you prefer (as shown by your more than single
participation in) these ethereal speculations of how to measure a real
infinitesimal component (a contradiction on the face of it); then
please for the sake of truth in labeling also mark your postings as
being "for entertainment only."


Who is speculating? What truth? Modeled and calculated by those who "know"?

OK, I confess, all this is was just made up for the entertainment purposes
only, we are full of sh1t, pictures were doctored, measured data were generated
by random number generator, coils were heated up with torch, ON4UN is wrong,
Cecil is on something.
I confess that Roy, Tom, Reg, Ian et al are my heroes. I will model the loaded
coil/antenna and stick it in my antenna connector and work the world.


73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


88's
Yuri Blanarovich, K3BU
still waiting for ONE PROPER MEASUREMENT, hellooooo????
otherwise you flat earth (er equal loading coil current) believers are the ones
flying in the la-la land.