Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #311   Report Post  
Old November 10th 03, 09:13 PM
Roy Lewallen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim, it sounds like you're firmly in the camp that believes that a phase
and/or magnitude shift will occur from one terminal to the other of a
physically very small inductor. Your participation in the predictions
will be welcome. Perhaps you can also propose an inductor I can put at
the base of a short antenna that would guarantee a large phase shift
which would be large and easily seen in a measurement.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Jim Kelley wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...

I did read what you said. You said that it wouldn't exhibit a phase
shift if placed at a current maximum. The current at the base of a short
vertical antenna is at its maximum there. So now if you're saying that
it *won't* exhibit a phase shift if placed at the base of a short
antenna, let's try this.



Naturally, the inductance of the coil and the resistance of the circuit
determine how much of a phase shift there will be. But the amount of
resulting change in current magnitude will depend on where on the cosine
curve this shift occurs. A 10 degree phase shift from 40 to 50 degrees
generates almost an order of magnitude greater change in current that it
does shifting from 0 to 10 degrees. Obviously, the closer the center of
the coil is to zero (or 180) degrees, the smaller the resulting differential
in current across the coil.

73, Jim AC6XG




  #312   Report Post  
Old November 10th 03, 09:16 PM
Roy Lewallen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes, I did measure it. But how much difference in your prediction would,
say, +/- 10 ohms of reactance make -- I can't guarantee my measurements
any closer than that in any case. So why not make your predictions for
35 - j2 and 35 + j18, and let's see just how much difference it makes.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

So, you've retracted your prediction. What's your new one, then?



No, you misunderstood my prediction. I cannot make an accurate
prediction until you tell us the feedpoint impedance of the
antenna including the coil. Is it 34.6+j8 or what? You have
told us the feedpoint impedance of the antenna without the
coil and the impedance of the coil but we still don't have
an accurate measurement for the feedpoint impedance of the
antenna including the coil. Did you measure it? If not, any
estimate is not going to be very accurate.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP


  #313   Report Post  
Old November 10th 03, 09:59 PM
Art Unwin KB9MZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Roy Lewallen wrote:
I did read what you said. You said that it wouldn't exhibit a phase
shift if placed at a current maximum.


I'm sorry, there is a misunderstanding that is my fault. When I say
"current is the same.", I'm implying magnitude only. That's a
convention left over from my college days and may not be a
convention any longer. If I said anything at all about phase, I
used the word, "phase", in my posting. So I will stop omitting
the word, "magnitude", when I am talking about magnitude.

So do a system reset on what you think I said. There is always a
phase shift through a real-world inductor. Whether it can be
measured accurately is another matter. When I said: "If the
current maximum point is located in the middle of a coil, the
current (implied magnitude) in and out of a coil will be equal.",
I was implying current magnitude only. I didn't imply or say anything
about phase unless I used the word, "phase" in the sentence.

I also have not said anything about the phase of the currents into
and out of your toroidal inductance except to say it replaces
approximately 18 degrees of antenna.

The current at the base of a short
vertical antenna is at its maximum there. So now if you're saying that
it *won't* exhibit a phase shift if placed at the base of a short
antenna, let's try this.


As you can see above, I never said anything like that.

Suppose I remount my antenna to eliminate the
shunting effect of the mounting, and do my measurements at 3.8 MHz as
before. Suppose the base input Z is, say, 35 -j380. You choose any
inductor value you'd like, that will best illustrate your method, and
tell me what output to input current ratio to expect.


I am still leery about your ability to separate small phase shifts
from noise. We need to make the inductor large enough to ensure
the phase shift measurements are above the noise level.

I have no disagreement that a "bugcatcher" coil, or any coil of
physically significant size, will exhibit a phase shift and magnitude
change of current from one end to the other.


Huh?????? I thought that was what the argument was all about. What
triggered this whole discussion was W8JI's alleged assertion that
a loading coil like a bugcatcher doesn't affect the current at all.

Where we disagree is that
you believe that a physically very small inductor will also exhibit
this. I don't.


The effect of a very small inductor may be too small to measure in
the presence of strong fields and noise. Ask yourself, at exactly
what value of inductor does the phase shift completely disappear?
+j1? +j10? +j100? +j1000? What is the crossover point from some
phase shift to zero phase shift? Can you measure a phase shift of
0.1 degree at HF? Zero phase implies faster than light propagation
through the coil.


Cecil
Is not the group straying somewhat from the initial discussion
on E ham? That discussion that started all this was with regard to a
whip antenna and the coil on it. Why has the discussion been pulled
away from the original coil to a torroid of all things ? The basic
discussion was on a inductor of length which can be considered a major
part of the antennas length. It is this situation that Yuri stated
that he measured a current difference at the inductors end, to which
Tom replied that it was probably capacitive coupling to ground, so
even Tom did not dispute the possibility of a current drop per Yuri's
measurements !
Maneuvering to to a toroid style of inductance is placing darkness
over the original statement, probably to prevent the application of
light by others. Now the playing on words is intruding again ( phase )
so I suggest that in that atmosphere one should relate to a inductive
network to prevent
the accusation of a 'pure' inductance which is a whole different ball
game as conditions imposed in the solution of such a network is
certainly not the same.
Best regards and have fun.
Please do not pull into the discussion the root of minus one or all
the answers given by the application of a quadratic equation since
many will go crazy by taking them to the lab and measuring them. Grin
Art
  #314   Report Post  
Old November 10th 03, 10:37 PM
Cecil Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roy Lewallen wrote:
So what's your new, more precise prediction of the output:input current
ratio (magnitude and phase) for the system I did measure?


I don't see any way to make a precise prediction given that the
antenna doesn't exhibit the expected characteristics of a
33' vertical on 75m.

I don't see that your experiment makes a lot of difference now
that you have said that a 75m bugcatcher coil causes a current
magnitude change and a phase shift. That was the original argument.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

  #315   Report Post  
Old November 10th 03, 10:43 PM
Cecil Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Is not the group straying somewhat from the initial discussion
on E ham? That discussion that started all this was with regard to a
whip antenna and the coil on it. Why has the discussion been pulled
away from the original coil to a torroid of all things ?


Because someone can't stand to be wrong?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



  #316   Report Post  
Old November 11th 03, 12:38 AM
Roy Lewallen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So your math is good only for an ideal antenna? That's a sad state of
affairs.

Ok, let's suppose I build an ideal antenna that's about 33 feet high,
with a feedpoint impedance of 35 - j370 ohms at 3.8 MHz. Choose an
inductor value and let me know what the output:input current ratio would
be for that inductor at the base of the antenna. Assume that the
inductor is physically very small. You have such a clear understanding
of what's happening, it should be a simple calculation. Then I'll do my
best to build the antenna and make the measurement. Or you can.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

So what's your new, more precise prediction of the output:input
current ratio (magnitude and phase) for the system I did measure?



I don't see any way to make a precise prediction given that the
antenna doesn't exhibit the expected characteristics of a
33' vertical on 75m.

I don't see that your experiment makes a lot of difference now
that you have said that a 75m bugcatcher coil causes a current
magnitude change and a phase shift. That was the original argument.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP


  #317   Report Post  
Old November 11th 03, 12:58 AM
Roy Lewallen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chuckle.

I'm continually amazed at how different our backgrounds are. Whenever
I've encountered a complex system I don't understand, I try to begin
with a simple system, to make sure I understand it first. Only after I
know how a simple one will behave do I have a chance of understanding
the more complex one. This is the method adopted by virtually all the
capable engineers I've had the pleasure to work with over the years.

In contrast, complexity is embraced by people who have a need to conceal
a lack of understanding. By resisting simplification and constantly
pleading that the system is too complex to analyze, fundamental
understanding isn't required, and one can never be shown to be wrong. If
the best you can do in any case is to give vague answers and wave hands,
it doesn't really make any difference whether you understand it or not
-- it's impossible to tell. On the other hand, if it's necessary to
actually calculate values (as I've had to do for years as a design
engineer) and truly understand what's happening, there's no way I'll be
able to do it for a complex system if I can't even do it for a simple one.

As for standing to be wrong, I'm willing to post my measurements and my
predictions, and be wrong. So far, only Yuri has joined me.

And, Art, I'm surprised at your objecting to my bringing up the dreaded
complexity of -- gasp -- phase. You should rejoice, because it gives me
twice the opportunity to show just how wrong I am. If the small inductor
shows a measureable phase shift from input to output, I'll be just as
wrong as I'll be if it shows a magnitude change. So I've doubled the
odds I'll fall on my face. At the same time, it puts Cecil at no extra
risk at all, since he won't venture a prediction of either magnitude or
phase, and I feel confident in my assumption that you won't, either. I'm
the only one (except Yuri, who has bravely given a range of magnitude
values at least) who *can* be wrong, and including phase makes it all
the more likely. Surely, that should cheer you up a bit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:

Is not the group straying somewhat from the initial discussion
on E ham? That discussion that started all this was with regard to a
whip antenna and the coil on it. Why has the discussion been pulled
away from the original coil to a torroid of all things ?



Because someone can't stand to be wrong?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP


  #318   Report Post  
Old November 11th 03, 01:22 AM
Cecil Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roy Lewallen wrote:
So your math is good only for an ideal antenna? That's a sad state of
affairs.


Heck, I'll just supply you with ten dimensions and virtual photons and
see just how well your math works. :-) This discussion has very little
to do with math equations. The orbits of the planets got along just
fine before man ever walked the earth and came up with the math to
explain them. Reality rules! Here's what Einstein said:

"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured
against reality, is primitive and childlike ..."

Ok, let's suppose I build an ideal antenna that's about 33 feet high,
with a feedpoint impedance of 35 - j370 ohms at 3.8 MHz. Choose an
inductor value and let me know what the output:input current ratio would
be for that inductor at the base of the antenna. Assume that the
inductor is physically very small.


Why? The argument is/was about bugcatcher coils which are NOT small.
Who uses a physically small toroid in his center-loaded mobile antenna?
Not that it wouldn't be an interesting experiment.

Roy, it appears to me that you are trying to win the last battle after
the war is over, like the South did weeks after Lee surrendered. Please
feel free to proceed with whatever mission that you are trying to complete.
Whatever it is, it is a diversion from the original argument based on W8JI's
alleged assertion that the current magnitude and phase doesn't change
through an HF mobile antenna's loading coil. That argument has been lost.

It appeared that you jumped in and defended W8JI and called everyone
who disagreed, "ignorant engineers", or something to that effect. The issue
between you and me was settled when you posted that you had no argument with
current magnitude and phase changes through HF mobile antenna loading coils.
(Now if we can just get W8JI to agree with you.)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
  #319   Report Post  
Old November 11th 03, 03:41 AM
Art Unwin KB9MZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...
Chuckle.

I'm continually amazed at how different our backgrounds are. Whenever
I've encountered a complex system I don't understand, I try to begin
with a simple system, to make sure I understand it first. Only after I
know how a simple one will behave do I have a chance of understanding
the more complex one. This is the method adopted by virtually all the
capable engineers I've had the pleasure to work with over the years.

In contrast, complexity is embraced by people who have a need to conceal
a lack of understanding. By resisting simplification and constantly
pleading that the system is too complex to analyze, fundamental
understanding isn't required, and one can never be shown to be wrong. If
the best you can do in any case is to give vague answers and wave hands,
it doesn't really make any difference whether you understand it or not
-- it's impossible to tell. On the other hand, if it's necessary to
actually calculate values (as I've had to do for years as a design
engineer) and truly understand what's happening, there's no way I'll be
able to do it for a complex system if I can't even do it for a simple one.

As for standing to be wrong, I'm willing to post my measurements and my
predictions, and be wrong. So far, only Yuri has joined me.

And, Art, I'm surprised at your objecting to my bringing up the dreaded
complexity of -- gasp -- phase. You should rejoice, because it gives me
twice the opportunity to show just how wrong I am.


From my point of view you are rarely wrong and should be admired on
how knoweledgable you have become despite insurmountable hardships
that
make mine a a Sunday morning walk despite the war.
I agreed with your posting regarding an inductance but then realised
that Yuri was talking about what is really a network and thus he could
take measurements.
Now I am hoping that Yuri will get a true explanation of what he has
observed
which in the real world is a circuit containing capacitance,resistance
and inductance and where he is unable to separate the parts as you are
doing on
paper.
From an engineering stand point I am not willing to discard
fundamentals as you would suggest as their use provides solutions even
to one such as I who wasted my younger year by not going to school. My
point is that you are playing with Yuri because he used the term
inductance instead of a circuit which would then
prevented your present tack.
For some reason you take offense at that suggestion given in the
starting
post nd I really do not know why until you come up with an explosive
point..
Regards
Art



If the small inductor
shows a measureable phase shift from input to output, I'll be just as
wrong as I'll be if it shows a magnitude change. So I've doubled the
odds I'll fall on my face. At the same time, it puts Cecil at no extra
risk at all, since he won't venture a prediction of either magnitude or
phase, and I feel confident in my assumption that you won't, either. I'm
the only one (except Yuri, who has bravely given a range of magnitude
values at least) who *can* be wrong, and including phase makes it all
the more likely. Surely, that should cheer you up a bit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:

Is not the group straying somewhat from the initial discussion
on E ham? That discussion that started all this was with regard to a
whip antenna and the coil on it. Why has the discussion been pulled
away from the original coil to a torroid of all things ?



Because someone can't stand to be wrong?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

  #320   Report Post  
Old November 11th 03, 05:39 AM
Cecil Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roy Lewallen wrote:
If the small inductor
shows a measureable phase shift from input to output, I'll be just as
wrong as I'll be if it shows a magnitude change.


And if the small inductor shows a phase shift too small to be
measured, you will have invented faster than light transmission
because inches per nanosecond is easy to measure nowadays. Heck,
my old bench scope will display two nanoseconds per division.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 8 February 24th 11 11:22 PM
Smith Chart Quiz Radio913 Antenna 315 October 21st 03 05:31 AM
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 12 October 16th 03 07:44 PM
Eznec modeling loading coils? Roy Lewallen Antenna 11 August 18th 03 02:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017