wrote:
Actually Gene if you look at:
http://www.w8ji.com/mobile_antenna_c...ts_at_w8ji.htm

your EZNEC model's current agrees with similar coils in antennas I
measured.

I still don't understand how you can continue to assert that there are
equal currents at each end of a loading coil when half of your own
measurements show a current at the top of the coil that is 73-79% lower
than the current at the bottom of the coil.

And I have shown that those currents depend upon where the coil is
placed in the standing wave system:

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm
http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/1WLDIP.GIF

I expect Cecil will ignore what you sent him, or announce it supports
his conclusions by editing the data.

Please see my posting answering Gene. The 8 degree delay value is
20% less than my lowest estimate. The 8 degree delay value for the
~70 uH coil is 100% higher than your measured value of 3 nS for
a 100 uH coil. The EZNEC value is also suspicious in the face of
pages and pages of segmentation violations errors reported by EZNEC.

Gene Fuller wrote:
The only "phase" remaining is the cos (kz) term, which is really
an amplitude description, not a phase.

The phase information in a standing wave is in its amplitude and can
be used to estimate the difference in phase angles between the
forward and reflected currents.

If the current at the top of the coil is 75% of the current at the
bottom of the coil, it means that the forward and reflected current
phasors are approximately 82 degrees out of phase with each other,
i.e. there is roughly a 41 degree phase shift through the coil. That
comes from your own measurements.

The latest EZNEC results are just one more data point on a plot
already containing many scattered data points.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp