RadioBanter - View Single Post - Dual-Z0 Stubs

Tom Donaly · May 9th 09, 07:06 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

wrote:
Hi Tom,

Well I don't know as much about antennas as I would like

I take your response to mean that you think only MoM can model a
"bugcatcher" coil accurately, and that you are dismissing the apparent
accuracy with which the Corum model predicts some coil performance
parameters?

I don't subscribe to the Corum-Moore "label". The genesis of the
transmission-line approach to coil analysis seems to go back a long
way from what I've read, and I don't think Cecil deserves or claims
any recognition for it. Besides the method might suddenly begin to
appear in all the text books - think how you'd feel then if it
included his name

Steve G3TXQ

On May 8, 10:44 pm, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
You know quite a bit about antennas, Steve, so you should know the
answer to the following:
1. Mathematically, what does MoM do?
2. Why would anyone use MoM if there were a set of symbolic equations
that would work just as well?
3. When are we going to see the Corum-Moore method in the textbooks?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Nothing would please me more than to see Cecil get his name as a
reference in some textbook. It would mean that there was a high
probability that he finally got it right, and that someone confirmed
his ideas experimentally. It would also give me a good laugh.

You know, you haven't shown that the Corum model accurately measures
the bugcatcher coil. You have stated - and I have no reason to
disbelieve you - that the Corum model agrees with EZNEC. If that's the
case, it's just as easy to use EZNEC, right or wrong. MoM is a method of
obtaining numerical solutions to integral equations. The only reason to
do that is if symbolic solutions are either too difficult or impossible
to puzzle out of those same integral equations. In other words, some
very deep thinkers decided that MoM would give results superior to
algebraic approximations and hand waving, so they applied it to antenna
analysis. I don't think it's perfect. It's certainly useful. If you
think Corum is good enough for your purposes, though, go for it.

You didn't answer my first two questions, above. That's o.k., they're
just something you should think about anyway. Besides, I didn't answer
yours concerning why we keep tearing the Corum-as-developed-by-Cecil
method down without offering an alternative. Perhaps there is no
alternative. Perhaps the best anyone can do is a numerical
approximation. Think about that.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH