Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
A pure inductance would have no current difference at each end. A good
compact inductor would have negligible current difference at each end,
only a long straight wire would act like the "missing antenna".

More BS, insisting on non-reality.

No, it is factual. No need to call names or get angry.

It is the stray capacitance from the inductor to the outside world that
allows any difference in current. Not the standing waves, not the
missing area of antenna.

I can have a fixed antenna and with no change other than the style of
coil have anything from nearly immeasurable differences to large
differences.

For example if the coil is a very large area single turn, it will
behave almost like the "missing degrees" you talk about. If it is a
compact inductor and has low capacitance to the outside world compared
to the antenna above the coil, it will have very little current
difference.

One way to prove the coil does not replace missing length is to simply
move the coil to a new location in a fixed height antenna. If the coil
looked like 40 degrees, it would resonate the antenna no matter where
it was installed.

WRONG, read below, it's the required inductance/impedance and fixed
"missing" degrees that need replacement.

As we go deeper into the discussion and "arguments" from "unbelievers" and
thanks to NM5K posting, about how fixed coil acts different, replaces
different amount of degrees, it hit me that the reason is the impedance
presented by the antenna (the straight part) radiator at the coil insertion
point. Using just as example, radiator having 90 degrees at the resonance,
with 50 degrees of whip and coil "replacing" 40 degrees in the said example
from the book.

What NM5K posting is that?

A coil is a coil. It doesn't know where you are using it. You teminate
it with a certain impedance, it operates the same way.

You can call it "40 degrees" or anything you like, but you better not
think it acts like that missing antenna area so far as phase shift or
current difference between ends. It doesn't act that way.

If it DID act the way you seem to be saying, a base loaded antenna
would be a terrible antenna. Yet over a good groundplane with a
reasonable inductor design, they can be very good.

You agree that impedance along the radiator changes, being low at the
bottom, around tens of ohms, to being high at the top, around thousands of
ohms.

I never said that. What do you mean by reactance? The X can be very
high but radiation resistance very low even near the open end.

Now you place the loading coil along the radiator, one extreme being
at the bottom, low impedance point - we know in order to maintain the
resonance of say 13 ft high (long) radiator (90 electrical degrees at
RESONANCE) the coil has a fewer turns, it's impedance is lower (as required
by the lower impedance at the bottom end of the antenna), and current drop
would relatively be small as W7EL proved and everybody knows.

So you admit your "my coil replaces 40 degrees" doesn't work? Or what
are you saying?

Now you move that coil say half way up the must, to higher impedance point
at the antenna, and that coil now, in order to maintain the "match" has to
have higher impedance, more turns and will exhibit MORE current drop across
it, while replacing THE SAME NUMBER OF "missing" DEGREES AT THE RADIATOR.

So the " 40 degrees" is just a meaningless number. It doesn't mean
anything so far as the coil goes. I'll go along with that.

Assuming that our goal is to stay with the same physical length of the whip
(which we do) and maintaining 90 degrees of resonant radiator. So the
radiator stays 50 degrees ()+50, 10+40, 20+30, 30+20, 40 + 10) long and coil
replaces the same "missing" 40 degrees.

As long as we both agree it does not have anywhere near the same amount
of current difference from start to finish the same length of antenna
would have, I agree.

If you are claiming the current difference at each end of the coil
relates to electrical degrees it "replaces" and not capacitance from
the coil to the outside world, I disagree.

Same if you move the coil higher, higher antenna impedance point, more turns
(inductance) required, more current drop exhibited, coil "replacing" THE
SAME NUMBER OF 40 DEGREES. It needs more turns, but again, the coil's
behavior is dictated by the impedance of the RADIATOR (standing waves) at
the insertion point, dictating the inductance, number of turns of the coil
in order to maintain the number of degrees, in order to maintain the
resonance (90 degrees) of the radiator.

The only reason why the inductor could have more "current drop" (what a
concept! current doesn't drop.) is because displacement current from
capacitance can be a larger portion of load impedance. The coil, in
effect, it acting a bit like a tiny "hat" and robbingh the whip above
the coil of current. Some displacement current branches off to the
world around the coil, leaving less to travel upwards.

In order to "overturn" this "Yuri's Theory" you would have to deny that
resonant antenna has varying current across its radiator (wire) - to deny
that current drops from the base to the tip.

I'm not sure what you are saying there.

You would have to deny that coil in the RF circuit has varying impedance
dependant on the number of turns and inductance and frequency.
Deny that in order to maintain the resonant frequency of shortened radiator
of the same physical length, you need to use coils of varying amount of
turns depending on its insertion point along the radiator (less on the
bottom, more closer to the top).
That behavior of the coil is "FORCED" by the remaining "wires" in the
radiator, in standing wave environment as Cecil is trying to get through
with help of Kraus and others.

You are free to think what you like, but I don't think Kraus is helping
Cecil. While a properly done use of standing waves would work, my
opinion is Cecil just has a fixation on it and is trying to change the
behavior of the system to match his misapplication of standing waves to
the coil.

I can take the VERY SAME radiator, make no change in coil location at
all, and change the current ratio at the start of the inductor and end
of the inductor ONLY by changing inductor design. This is with the
antenna operated on one frequency, with one coil location, and with the
feedpoint at X=0 (resonance).

If your theory about standing waves or the "40 degree replacement"
theory is correct, I sould not be able to do that. Yet I can.

I can build a loading coil that has almost no current difference across
the length, change nothing else but the coil, and wind up with almost
anything I like for current difference.

The reason that happens is displacement current and the fields around
the coil. It is not a function of standing waves or the "missing area"
the coil replaces.

It takes a lot less than three years of name calling and arguing to
measure it, assuming people can channel their energy into doing
something besides running around talking about people or arguing.

73 Tom