Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

All the questions you ask other people are rooted in your own
misconceptions. In other words, the questions are rigged so that they
cannot be answered except by agreeing with you.


Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
No, Ian, my questions are rigged so they cannot be answered except
by agreeing with the laws of physics and gurus cannot afford to show
their ignorance of the laws of physics. That leaves them between a
rock and a hard place as far as answering my questions are concerned.
That's the only reason for the "Silence of the Gurus".
--


Esteemed gentlemen:

I am more of an engineer, inventor rather than scientist, analytic, cosine
kind of guy. But I will elevate myself on an occasion to find the root of
the problem and proof if needed. Let me try to put the things in
perspective, from real life facts, to this "scientwific" debate about the
"problem".

1. First I was smacked by the fact that on my 80m Hustler resonator, I
re-shrinked, (burned) the insulation on the coil from the bottom up, while
operating contest, mobile from Toronto, while spending few last days with my
dear mother. I was running about 600W to regular (200W) 80m coil with
heavier duty transmitting, during the contest, it was no surprise that it
melted the heat shrink tubing covering the turns.
Most people make occasional transmission and do not fry the coil even with
more that what it is rated for. On 40m and up I rewound other coils with
heavy wire or tubing and extended whips. I would not see the problem there.
I appeared to me strange that the bottom of the coil was fried. Normally I
would have expected either "uniform frying" , or perhaps more on the top due
to the raising, accumulating heat.
It kind of bothered me, because it was against the conventional "wisdom" or
what I knew.

2. When the topic came up, Barry, W9UCW, knew about the effect and done some
real life, real antennas, real RF ammeters measurements and found out that
indeed, the RF current at both ends of a typical loading coil (quarter wave
resonant, coil loaded vertical antenna) is different. He described it,
offered some photos and data about the measurements.
Please see http://www.k3bu.us/loadingcoils.htm
In his example he showed that 40m typical, loaded vertical, had about 40%
less current at the top than at the bottom. That made me happy, it made
sense and explained what was happening with my Hustler. So I got some
insight into the workings of the loaded, shortened radiator or element.
Reality agreed with engineering measurements, experiment, that anyone can
reproduce and verify.
The conclusion was:
"There IS a drop, difference in RF current across the antenna loading coil."
The significance (to me anyway): Efficiency of the radiator, antenna is
proportional to the area under the (cosine) curve of the current
distribution across the radiator. The loading coil, as it turned out, had
significant contribution to that current distribution that it got my
attention. Knowing the effect, we can play with different position of the
loading coil within the radiator and experiment with various ways of top
loading, to maximize the current flow within the desired portion of the
radiator, to maximize the area under the cosine current curve - to maximize
the efficiency under given restriction for the particular antenna design.
Here comes the compromise between loading inductance (coil, stub) vs.
capacitive hat (T, L, disk) loading.
So in the typical loaded (mobile or shortened) vertical we are trying to
maximize the efficiency and it is important to know what is the current
distribution across the radiator. If the coil has a drop in order of 40 -
60% as it appears to be, than that is significant to me to take it into the
account. Knowing how to apply this effect will allow me to optimize,
maximize the antenna performance.
So far with me? If not, ask the questions or tell me where I am wrong.

3. Then Tom, W8JI and his followers, with some "backing" from literature
(plenty are wrong), some experiments, modeling, came to "prove" that it
can't be so. His conclusion: "The current in the antenna loading coil is the
same at both ends". Then the "fight" and controversy started.
It appears to me that JI camp is coming from the theoretical end of it,
applying laws of physics and theories that do not apply to the case in
question.

4. Cecil, W5DXP came to the rescue by explaining and modeling the case and
supporting K3BU/W9UCW case and reality. We were happy to have that support,
shining more light on the scientific side of the effect and effort to
correlate the crude observations, real life measurements with theory,
modeling and analytical end of it.

5. Not so fast. JI camp vehemently defended their "equal current" case,
using examples, modeling, tailored to support their claims, for some reason
ignoring the reality, measurements, experiments done to set the coil in the
spot where current can be, and is the same (no argument with that).

6. Cecil, W5DXP started to dig deeper into the effect, showed that if we
model the coil as a loading stub, EZNEC shows the difference in the current.
When modeled as a solenoid, it also shows the difference. When the loading
is inserted as a simple L (zero physical size) inductance, then EZNEC
"proves" that current is the same. So for the same inductance, of different
physical model (same electrical) properties EZNEC "proves" that each camp is
"right". The only problem is, which case represents the reality and should
be taken seriously.
To prove the point further, Cecil showed that positioning the coil in
various position within the radiator, one can aggravate the difference in
current at the ends from one extreme of being equal, to the other extreme of
being max at one end and zero at the other, depending on the size of
inductor, position within the antenna and frequency applied. To me it makes
sense, explains the "workings" of the effect, puts some numbers on it and
shows how to model it, apply it and UNDERSTAND it. That's the way IT IS -
the reality. Anyone can verify it, do the experiment (otherwise, please
prove us wrong and where) and now - even model it in EZNEC when using proper
definition of the model coil (solenoid or loading stub of equivalent
inductance).

7. No, Cecil, didn't do the stupid mobile antenna trick with quarter wave
extension. He used it as an example to show how one can play with the model
to see the different situations and show that current can be from equal to
extreme (max to zero) across the loading coil. In the EZNEC you can vary the
position of the coil (solenoid or stub), length of the radiator and
frequency to see the current value and distribution across the
coil/radiator. Thanks to Cecil (and "solenoid" Roy), we have now improved
way of modeling the effect, understanding it and better way of applying to
antenna design. Thanks Cecil, you have golden patience, persistency and are
a great defender of the TRUTH!

8. But Noooo! W8JI camp and non-believers can not accept that (reality).
They cling to the "explanations" why it can't be so, because of "purple
electrons, phasor eating extremists" would not allow it to be so. They are
dancing around the facts and examples of why it is not so, not answering
latest W5DXP questions, but the main thing - not verifying the reality with
proper experiment or measurement (not important?). They are trying to prove
that reality isn't, Tesla and others are fools, because of what??? Pride?
Can't be wrong? Emperor has equal current clothes?

9. If anyone is trying to argue the case that (eventually) current is (or
close to) equal, by arguing that sticking the coil at the base or where
there is virtually no difference because of the position of the coil and
current distribution in the radiator, forget it. We are not arguing that
(and we agree with THAT special case). We are arguing with general
statement, as displayed on W8JI pages and argued by the "guru followers"
that the "RF current across the antenna loading coil IS (always) the same"
(or close, losses, bla, bla) in the TYPICAL loaded or mobile antenna. NOT in
the special case where it indeed can be. THAT WAS the subject of the
discussion and problem that started all of this. Not current in ANY coil, in
ANY circuit. We are not arguing minute diffrences due to radiation,
resistance, capacitance surface effect, etc., we are arguing the difference
of a 40 - 60 % of current drop across a typical loading coil in a typical
mobile or loaded antenna.

10. According W8JI camp, looking at the quarter wave loaded whip, the
current goes up the radiator according to cosine curve, then is the same
across the coil, then tapers to zero at the tip in the triangular shape
(should be the rest of the cosine curve, but close enough approximation). We
are talking about typical loaded resonant quarter wave ant, (not any coil in
any circuit).

11. According to K3BU camp, the same happens as above, except the current
across the coil drops at the top of the coil to typical 60 - 40 % (for 80 -
40m) and then tapers to zero at the tip. Again, (I hope no dispute over
this) efficiency of the antenna is proportional to the area under the
current distribution curve across the radiator with the loading coil. So
according to W8JI camp, the loaded radiator would have better efficiency
than it really has, by about 60 - 40 % of the above the coil current curve
area.

12. To me this is significant and worth exploring, because knowing the
effect will allow me to better design, model and optimize antenna systems
with loaded elements. The difference in the amount of current in the
remaining portion of the antenna is not negligible and the effect will
magnify itself when designing multielement loaded antennas. If the model
shows wrong amounts and distribution of the current, the results will be off
and real antenna will not perform as modeled. Those ARE the currents we
consider in modeling, show their distribution off and calculate the antenna
parameters with (right Roy?) So, to some the whole argument may be
insignificant, to me it is, it should be known, properly considered and
applied in the antenna modeling and design, otherwise it could cause
inaccuracies and wrong results.

13. So where are we now? We have the effect, we have the measurements, we
have explanation, we have the recipe how to model it properly, we have some
results. Others can duplicate and verify it. (And answer the frickin Cecil's
questions!!!!)
Then we have W8JI camp that insists that it ain't so, twisting and dancing
trying to "prove" that it just can't be so. Using "arguments" of their own,
often contradicting themselves (ooops) that it just couldn't be, because,
because, because....
Well, IT IS, if your egos like it or not. It is almost amusing to read the
thread and arguments trying to defy the reality by "scinetwific proof".
Cecil's arguments and question are selectively ignored and not argued, while
new twists and detours are brought in.

14. So if the W8JI camp can not swallow reality, so be it, eventually live
with giant egg on the face. I am extremely grateful to W9UCW, W5DXP and
others in "our" camp for their contribution to the discussion, explanations,
shedding their light and wisdom on the subject (and patience, and
persistence). I have learned more about the loaded antennas and will use it
especially in the design of receiving arrays for the new Tesla Radioclub
salt water marsh 175 acre antenna farm (www.TeslaRadio.org)

15. One more time, friendly advise to Tom, W8JI: If you strongly defend
posting the truth on Internet, live by it. It takes big guy to admit being
wrong, learn and give credit where it is due! Ridiculing someone being
wrong, especially when he is right is not in the spirit of ham radio and
decency. Playing guru, engineer and pontificating might go well on TV show
but in real life there are consequences. Arguing on a wrong side, then after
realizing being wrong, going QRT for a while and then emerging as a guru and
portraying the subject as own invention, without giving credit to "arguer"
smells with plagiarism. I am saying this here, because I was few times
publicly ridiculed by Tom while being right, as he later confirmed by
eventually propagating "my gospel" as his own. We should be engaging in
civil discussions and arguing about the topics, so we can all learn and be
better. If this whole exercise will contribute to that, then it was worth
it. If not, then keep on truckin'.

16. To the rest of the readers, I though that by now we all would be on the
same "camp reality", but looks like there is still a rocky road ahead. I
think we will get better results and go to radio heaven for sticking to the
"current in loading coils" truth. I promised comprehensive article on the
subject, but life keeps throwing more important problems in my path, but I
will try hard to do it soon. We shall summarize our camp's wisdom and hope
for convincing case for the unbelievers.

I tried to portray the picture of reality and significance of the subject in
hope of bringing the refusniks aboard. You all can be the judges of what
good it was.

We could look at some other "gospels" at Tom's web site, but that is another
story when subject comes up. (All in the name of dispelling the myths and
old waives tales as Tom likes to do.) I don't like to pick a fight, but I
don't stand by when there is a significant myth or wrongo being propagated,
I will defend the truth with my last breath (if it is worth it :-)

I think 'nuf said, we all did our best to conway the reality, the readers
can draw their own conclusions and if important, verify this and that to see
who is RIGHT and if they can benefit from the findings. Good luck and I rest
my "piece of coil".

73 Yuri Blanarovich, www.K3BU.us