Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Which requires a lossless, non-radiating coil with zero capacitance.

Just out of curiosity, to which of those characteristics do you
attribute the phase delay?

Speed of light? :-)

The finite speed of light though a finite length of wire, yes.

Seems the primary cause of the phase delay would
be the capacitance.

With regard to coils, I think inductance is probably the more relevant
parameter. It's proportional to the number of turns and the length of
each turn of wire, and inversely proportional to the length of the
bobbin.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
With regard to coils, I think inductance is probably the more relevant
parameter. It's proportional to the number of turns and the length of
each turn of wire, and inversely proportional to the length of the
bobbin.

Is that "bobbin" a part of a coil winding machine? Coil form?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
With regard to coils, I think inductance is probably the more relevant
parameter. It's proportional to the number of turns and the length of
each turn of wire, and inversely proportional to the length of the
bobbin.

Is that "bobbin" a part of a coil winding machine? Coil form?

It's a spool-like object used to constrain the length and diameter of a
coil of wire to prescribed values.

73, Jim AC6XG

Esteemed Antenna Gentlemen.

I am sorry I could not participate in the heated discussions and do experiments
and measurements in the past few weeks. I was QRL, weather was lousy and I
caught the nasty flu that I hope to shake off in the South next few days.

It looks to me like some made statements (contrary to facts) and now are
defending them or going all out to prove they are right. Rather than
concentrating on the original question, is the current in the antenna loading
coil in typical mobile quarter wave whip same or different on its ends, we are
drifting to side shows like how precisely you measured it, what is your guess,
theory, toroids etc.

To recap, W9UCW measured, I witnessed and new that bottom of the coils get
hotter than top ergo, more current at the bottom. W8JI attacked that it can't
be, he stated it HAS to be equal, Kirchoff, bla, bla. (Now it is maybe not so
equal, length of coil, stray capacitance, phase of moon, but it is the same,
even when it isn't. Go figure.)

W8JI also proved that he lied when stated that he measured thousands of (what?)
coils and they all had equal current. Now he posted some measurements and
proved that he was wrong, he measured differences. He doesn't describe his
setup, and as Cecil explained, one can rig the coils to have the same current,
but in a center loaded resonant quarter wave vertical - no way.

Now we drifted to ferrites, we guessed Roy's difference and he measured it,
THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE 5% at the base. Is difference not a difference?

The first experiment I will do is the "thermal test" - I will take Hustler 80m
coil, I have two fishing tank LCD strip thermometers ($2.50 in any pet store) I
will stick them on the coil at the bottom, at the top, or in between. I will
fire TX to it and video tape the change in temperature with timer running.
Really smart gurus should be able to calculate the power and currents from
that. If gurus object that thermometers are disturbing the coil. Then the
thermal test No2 will be done. I will put higher power to it and see the coil
unshrink the tubing from the bottom up. I have done it before and it made me
true believer in the phenomena.

Next test will be with thermocouple ammeters and next with current probe
similar (but better) as W8JI used on his tests and showed on the web page.

Then we will try to correlate it with our "obscure theories", then we will
write the nice, detailed article that hopefully will help to understand the
thing for the other side of the fence gurus.

The proof is in reality, W9UCW done it, but that CAN'T BE?

Thanks Cecil and others for Herculean task and effort in digging out references
and trying to 'splain it. Looks like Krause and others are wrong, but old
Belrose error perpetuated in ARRL Antenna Book is right, oh and EZNEC modeling
0 size coil and loading stub differently is right too. W8JI used it as a proof
that current can be increasing from the base up to the coil. How come that
straight piece of wire (as antenna) can exhibit different current along its
length (where is Kirchoff) but when you insert the coil and retune it, that
coil "refuses" for current to taper?
Take the coaxial wound chokes, coil wound of coax at the antenna terminals can
reduce the current flowing in the shield. We know that, or are we going to deny
that? How is that COIL different that it has different RF current at its ends?
That you can check even with MFJ current meter.

I hope that weather gets better, flu goes away and life gives me more time. In
the mean time, if you are contemplating to get TenTec Orion, read my first part
of review on my web www.K3BU.us

73 Yuri

On 14 Jan 2004 03:13:25 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

Now we drifted to ferrites, we guessed Roy's difference and he measured it,
THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE 5% at the base. Is difference not a difference?

Sheesh,

For RF work you can get a difference of that much measuring the same
thing twice! (But only if you are extremely careful.)

What does that prove except you are having either a rough time, or
delusions of accuracy - take your pick as it seems both side of this
argument are looking through the bottom of the same glass.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
What does that prove except you are having either a rough time, or
delusions of accuracy - take your pick as it seems both side of this
argument are looking through the bottom of the same glass.

When measuring only current magnitude, to detect a 5 degree phase
shift through a base loading coil requires differentiation between
1 amp of RF on one end and 0.996 amps of RF on the other end. Are
you saying that the measured 1 amp at both ends might be suspect? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On 14 Jan 2004 03:13:25 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

How come that
straight piece of wire (as antenna) can exhibit different current along its
length (where is Kirchoff)

Sheesh²,

Kirchhoff is explicitly violated by employing his laws at wavelength
scales. Kirchhoff NEVER said anything about current into/out-of a
device (which by necessity is of some obvious dimension). Rather, his
current law speaks of a POINT (which is dimensionless). In failing to
have come to terms with this simple issue, the entire course of, what,
600 postings yields little more than white noise.

If you want to talk Kirchhoff and nets, get your definitions right.
It is his voltage law that describes in terms of devices (across a
resistor, between two points, what have you).

Pretense to scholastic work begins with observing the first principles
of those you quote.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote in message . ..
On 14 Jan 2004 03:13:25 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

How come that
straight piece of wire (as antenna) can exhibit different current along its
length (where is Kirchoff)

Sheesh²,

Kirchhoff is explicitly violated by employing his laws at wavelength
scales. Kirchhoff NEVER said anything about current into/out-of a
device (which by necessity is of some obvious dimension). Rather, his
current law speaks of a POINT (which is dimensionless). In failing to
have come to terms with this simple issue, the entire course of, what,
600 postings yields little more than white noise.

If you want to talk Kirchhoff and nets, get your definitions right.
It is his voltage law that describes in terms of devices (across a
resistor, between two points, what have you).


73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Check out this gentlemen:

http://www.scientia.org/cadonline/Ph.../kirchoffq.ASP

Yeah, it's very simple, isn't it? But if you consider that
dQ/dt=I AT A SPECIFIC POINT, then it's all about conserving Coulombs,
it seems to me.

Kirchoff's current law applies when you have a junction between
multiple current-carrying paths, and it applies more to a DC current
situation.

The law isn't violated when you consider the AC current running
through
a capacitor, otherwise you would demand that there be a current
running through the dielectric, which there is clearly not (the
coulombs never travel across it). Likewise, an antenna can store
coulombs, more at the ends of the radials, and can therefore have a
different AC current distribution at the different
points on the antenna.

So Kirchoff's law stands the test of conserving coulombs, but is
easier
to understand in a DC situation.


Slick