RadioBanter - View Single Post - Current in antenna loading coils controversy

November 13th 03, 05:23 AM

On 13 Nov 2003 04:21:58 GMT, oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:
I want to see how well can we track modeling, and what is the proper way to
model the inductors and "force" the Eznec et al to tell the truth?

Hi Yuri,

This is the problem of framing the question. The choice of a lumped
component in EZNEC (as I understand it) is entirely your choice, just
as is the choice in the number of radials to put under an antenna. If
the lumped component is inappropriate (just as would be a non
representative ground system or incorrect choice of ground models)
that is the consequence of your bad choice. Your page already offers
the solution for a solenoid, a simple protocol that fits the situation
you presented and to which you identified and presented Tom as
performing inappropriately. In other words, he did not practice the
protocol, and so it seems, neither have you.

This returns us to the adequacy of actually framing the specification
(instead of the question). Can you present a format for testing BOTH
the physical model and the software model that allows the software
model to be accurate? To this point, no. Not knowing the particulars
that lead to the data offered, and then comparing to a poor model was
in fact no proof at all. That data, and even my model barely
reconcile to any of but one possible fact: a current differential
across a long solenoid (something that Roy has not dismissed even if
that answer has been projected upon him by theory spinners). It
conforms to your thesis, but it hardly proves it (simply because it
inverts your expectations shown in this so-called data).

Take the simple question I offered you some time ago: "What is the
value of this inductor?" You have never responded to this, nor
offered an anticipated value for your own, future work. You condemned
Tom for his poor work, and yet he is the only one to offer a working
value; and if the lack of resonance in my model is any indication, it
is an entirely wrong value, but to this point it is the ONLY specific
value offered by ANYONE. What value is this data, your proof, if you
cannot provide such a fundamental characteristic?

OK, so you are going to abandon it as anecdotal and replace it with
your own effort. Do you have an estimated value for such fundamental
issues as the size of the radiator, the solenoid, its value, its
placement, the ground system? It took me less effort to spin up a
model than write this missive. What overwhelming problems do you
dwell on such that this discussion goes mute?

I am puzzled how you can demand that others perform the benchwork when
you cannot present the problem for them to examine. Roy opened a new
thread doing just that, and the sneer review pointed out it was not
the same (as what?). Of course it wasn't, no one has any but the
barest of details. His inductor was too small and in the wrong place
to accept as a valid representation of the issue goes the rebuttal;
but it proved you right by conforming to all the particulars. Now if
that doesn't hold the record for self-contradiction, I am sure it will
be eclipsed tomorrow. That was an exercise in framing the answer, a
practice of the cut-and-paste theorists that speed read through their
bibles looking for a passage in greek that corresponds to their view
of the world.

When these threads turn to examining "the truth," it is more than
obvious that such a pursuit is bogged down from the beginning and not
necessarily due to an artifact of any tool as it is of the mind.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC