View Single Post
  #243   Report Post  
Old November 6th 03, 09:59 PM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 06 Nov 2003 19:38:27 GMT, oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

Hi Yuri,

What is the problem with going back to a post and responding to that?
Duplicated unnecessarily, but obviously needed:
100mA on an 8 Ampere full scale 3.5 inch meter is slightly more than
1% deflection (less than the width of the needle). The 100W
excitation current levels near and through the model's solenoid
exhibit values in the 1 Ampere region or at 12% deflection for an
instrument that is arguably as accurate as 10%. This does not bode
well for a compelling exhibition of any conclusive results.

NOW, if I were wrong to presume that 100W is going to be the
excitation - is that MY fault? If we jack up the power applied
(easily within the means of an amateur so empowered, so to speak) then
that region can certainly be forced into readings of vastly improved
accuracy relative to the available metering. HOWEVER, this now
inhibits doing the full length survey because the lower section would
clearly overload the metering. You can't win for losing.

Well, you can win if you are accomplished at the bench (a rare talent
in this ivory tower where merit is weighed by angel population counts)
by modifying your metering through shunts. I will warn you, however,
it is incumbent upon you to reveal how that was accomplished, how it
was confirmed and the data to support that too. You will also have to
measure the surface temperatures and conspire to replicate them to
your metering (something that you have not really responded to) to
observe the systematic error introduced by these ever growing power
applications. This, in a sense, is a turn of "you can't win for
losing, but you can get close, but you still might lose anyway."

Given your failure to respond/correct/aknowledge forced speculations,
I had to cover many angles "implicit" in your vague specifications.
You found an error, skipped the correct guess and still did not
actually offer a hard specification.

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


You haven't done what? I've asked how large the radiator, how large
the coil, what size the radial field. WAS not WILL BE. All of these
are fundamental questions for specifications that supposedly are part
and parcel to your evidence and you ask ME to confirm the details?

Why do you expect this to be compelling evidence that blows Tom out of
the water? I did far more with a simple model that anyone could
review for completeness' sake. You didn't responded to that! What's
the program here?

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.


GAD! Why do you bother to come here for support?
This all started with your avowed problem of
Significant impact on modeling software. If the stuff is not accomodated
properly, then results (mainly efficiency) are way off.

Which had already been answered before you started this thread. You
say so in your web page.

3 Days ago I offer my model that disputes Tom, supports you
inferentially and you ask "what model?" Boy how lazy.
OK, the plain vanilla radiator 93" tall (3/8" stock) in 93 segments
surrounded by 60 X 93" radials (#12 wire) ALL elevated 6" above a
real, medium ground.
SRC DATA @ 7.1MHz = 0.7995 - J 810.9 ohms
Current varies from 1A at drive point to 0 at tip

The adornment consists of this underspecified coil being decimated and
spread across 10 inches of space in the middle of the radiator with
lumped values of 30µH each. For the life of me, I don't know what
this exercise was to prove given the results:
SRC DATA @ 7.1MHz = 1.258 - J 1561 ohms
Current varies from 1A at the drive point to 0 at the tip
One variation on the first pass design is that when this current hits
the decimated inductor, the current drops to 0 a few inches before the
first inductor section and quickly develops an 180° shift over those
next few inches which persists on out to the tip. At the bottom of
the coil sections, the current again picks up to roughly 100mA
climbing to roughly 150mA at the top and then declining over the
remaining length of radiator. It would seem that anyone could craft
any assortment of conditions to support any of a dozen new theories
from this kind of legerdemain.

If there are ANY details that are wrong, I haven't seen one syllable
written by you to the matter. I would point out that nothing about
this model quoted above resonates in spite of your assertion that it
did for the hardware tested. You never read this did you?

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?


Have you actually read any of my posts?

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?

Huh? Can you elaborate?


Yuri, it is your statement that begs elaboration. Do you have data
that supports
nitpicking in the .01 area of significance

- obviously not.

What has bottom third of the coil heating up from the current (no meters) has
to do with caloric based measuring device?


You are now removing the frog's legs to prove it is deaf?

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?


Do you know how that ammeter works? You have here, and repeatedly,
offered a description of considerable heat. The RF Ammeter works on
the basis of heat (that's why it is called a thermocouple type). It
is in close proximity to a source of heat by simple observation of the
photos offered and undoubtedly what you anticipate in repeating at
elevated power levels (more heat). What more does it take to suggest
this heat is a source of error?

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.


Still waiting for you to
1.) provide a complete specification of the
a.) radiator
b.) solenoid
c.) ground
d.) drive applied (not readings)
2.) respond to the model offered;
3.) describe the errors possibly attending all this heat.

Do I get real technical specifications OR should I be applauding?
Please tell me what form of support you expect.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC