I really begrudge the necessity of posting once more on this newsgroup,
and particularly on this thread. However, I'm dismayed and disgusted by
postings being made by Yuri and Cecil in other forums in which they're
claiming that measurements I made agree with theories and predictions
they allegedly made, and that my measurements therefore validate their
theories. (A quick scan of this thread shows that they even made the
false claims here, after I had quit posting.)

One of the postings is the following, made by Yuri on the eHam TowerTalk
group, Nov. 21, topic "Trap Resonance":

"Why don't you mention what W5DXP came up as explanation for Tom's
errors, why don't you mention what W7EL measured and that it was what I
predicted based on available information and was right on - the 5%
difference for the base loading coil?"

and this one, posted by Yuri on the EHam.net forum topic " Current in
Antenna Loading Coils" on Jan. 7:

"I will leave it here, as the rest of it. W7EL, author of EZNEC measured
toroid coil and found that it HAS different current at its ends, roughly
proportional to the part of antenna that it replaces."

and this one, posted by Cecil on that same group on Jan. 12:

"Roy's data clearly illustrates the phase shift through the coil.
ARCCOS(Iout/Iin) gives an estimate of the phase shift (assuming
forward current and reflected current are of equal magnitude).
In Roy's experiment, Iout/Iin was about 0.95. ARCCOS(0.95) equals
18 degrees, an approximation for the phase shift through the
coil."

As you'll see below (or by looking up the original thread), the first of
my two measurements, for an antenna shortened an equivalent of about 18
degrees, resulted in 3% current attenuation across the coil (not 5%),
and zero phase shift (not 18 degrees). The second test, where the
antenna was shortened more than 33 degrees, measured 5% current
reduction and no phase shift. The method used in the above quote
predicts more than 16% amplitude reduction and 33 degrees of phase shift
for the second test. There's no way my data "clearly illustrates"
Cecil's explanation. To say that it does is a pure fabrication.

I feel compelled to respond to these fabrications, and put the record
straight. I'll do it here, since this is where my measurements were
originally posted.

I made two sets of measurements of the current into and out of a
toroidal inductor at the base of a vertical antenna. The details of the
measurement method and the measurement results were posted here, on this
newsgroup, on this thread. Pictures of the setup were posted on my web
site, with a link posted here.

Before I posted each set of measurements, I asked for predictions of the
results, so that alternate theories could be tested. (I was criticized
for doing this -- it seems that the preferred method of testing a theory
is to look at the results first, then adjust the theory to fit.) Yuri
made a prediction (actually, two different ones) for the first set of
measurements that didn't accurately predict the results. When I
calculated the predicted result for the second set of measurements using
the same method he had used for the first prediction, he retracted any
claim that the method would be valid. (Exact quotes are below.) He
didn't make any prediction at all for the second set of measurements.

Cecil made a number of vague predictions which he later contradicted or
retracted. At the time the second set of measurements were posted, he
had made no prediction at all.

Perhaps Yuri and Cecil have, after the measurements were posted,
developed theories to explain the results. As of the time the
measurements were posted, they hadn't. I highly recommend that anyone
considering their alternative theories to find where they have
calculated the results which agree with my measurements (particularly
the second one, which was designed to produce a testable difference),
and how they derived the equations used for the calculation.

Following is a summary of some of the exchanges between Yuri and me on
this thread last November. The entire thread, " Current in antenna
loading coils controversy" and variants, is available for viewing at
groups.google.com.

------ Summary ------

Here's what really happened. The following quotes are directly from the
google archives of the rraa thread.

I made two sets of measurements. The first had the inductor connected at
the base of a 33 foot vertical. But the vertical was mounted about 1/4"
from a four foot pipe, which reduced the base reactance.

Here, I was asking for predictions for my FIRST measurement -- the one
with the vertical mounted on the pipe.

Yuri posted on Nov. 9:

"In that case,
If the feedpoint current was at 0 deg of the radiator length, and coil
replaces 18 deg of wire, the cos 18 deg = 0.951 which should make
difference, drop in the coil current 5% (or half, 2.5 deg?)
Providing current maximum is exactly at the bottom end of the coil."

and later on Nov. 9:

"Incidentally, I take it that your prediction for the setup I did measure
includes an 18 degree phase shift of current from input to output of the
inductor?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Yes, I used Cecil estimate/calculation and taking
cos 18 = 0.951056516 which is 4.8943483%"

So now we have his prediction, using the "cosine rule". The measurement
I made showed about 3% current reduction from input to output, but with
about 2% (the same amount within measurement error) also occurring when
the antenna was replaced by a series resistor and capacitor -- that is,
no antenna at all. So the 5% prediction was wrong. His prediction of 18
degrees phase shift, which wasn't present, was also wrong. When asked
for the justification for the "cosine rule", he never offered any, so
its origin remains obscure.

However, I saw that the value was too small to be convincing, which is
why I devised the second test. The second test used a more ideal
antenna, with more of the antenna being "replaced" by the inductor. The
"cosine rule" would predict more than 16% reduction, and more than 33
degrees of phase shift.

Before I gave the results from the second measurement, I posted the
predictions which had been made, as I understood them. Since Yuri had
invoked the "cosine rule" for the first test, I naturally assumed it
would also apply to the second. (This is simply applying the equation
Yuri used in his Nov. 9 posting to the second antenna setup. It's also
the equation now being used by Cecil, as shown in his quote from the
eHam group.) So in my posting I said:

(Quote from my posting on Nov. 11):

"**Yuri's method predicts a reduction of output current magnitude of
16.5% and a phase shift of 33 degrees."

to which Yuri responded, also on Nov. 11:

"It is not my theory. My argument with W8JI and his followers: is the
current in typical loading coil in quarter wave radiator same at both
ends or does it drop with distance from the feedpoint. I have made
temperature observations, W9UCW measured the difference, W5DXP provided
some explanation. Based on Cecils analysis of data you provided, and on
my understanding of the phenomena I guestimated drop in current in your
setup. No theory, no mathematical procedure (yet) just attempt (using
degrees replaced by coil in a radiator) at explanation of what is
happening. I will measure things myself, try to verify previous
measurements and then come up with conclusions and "theory". So far
Cecils (and ON4UN book) theory seems to be closest to the truth. . . "

So now, Yuri has disclaimed the "cosine rule". /He made no other
prediction of the results of the second test./

In summary, Yuri first stated that the "cosine rule" can be used to
calculate the current drop. That would have predicted over 16% current
reduction in the second test. Then he retracted his claim that that
theory would work, before the results from the second test were posted,
and never made any other prediction. He never predicted the 5% result
which was measured, as he's now claiming.

And if you can find a numerical prediction anywhere in the thread which
Cecil made and stayed with, my hat's off to you. $100 goes to the first
person who can point to any prediction made by either Yuri or Cecil
before the second measurement results were posted that predicted second
measurement results of 5% magnitude and zero phase shift. (In the case
of Cecil, this would have to be a prediction that wasn't later modified
or retracted before the second set of results were posted.)

My measurement results are consistent with the fact that the currents
into and out of a physically small inductor are equal. The small
magnitude difference I measured can be explained by stray capacitance on
the order of 7 pF from the output to ground and/or the probe -- not an
unreasonable amount to expect. In no way do my measurements support the
odd theories being proposed by Cecil and Yuri, and any statement that
they do is completely false.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
The second test, where the
antenna was shortened more than 33 degrees, measured 5% current
reduction and no phase shift. There's no way my data "clearly
illustrates" Cecil's explanation.

Roy, you obviously don't understand what that phase shift is all about.
It is NOT a phase shift in the net current. It is a calculated phase shift
in the forward current and reflected current components through the coil
based on the net current ratios. And your data indeed does "clearly
illustrate" my explanation. Please stop making false statements about what
I said. You did NOT measure the phase angle about which I was talking.
You apparently don't even know what I was talking about.

The forward current into the coil and the reflected current out of the
coil can be assumed to be in phase at resonance. So we have Ifwd at 0 deg
superposed with Iref at 0 deg to obtain the net current into the coil.
The forward current out of the coil lags the forward current into the
coil by some phase angle (PA). The reflected current out of the coil
lags the reflected current into the coil by the same phase angle (PA).
PA is the phase angle I was talking about. You did NOT measure it!

The net current into the coil is Ifwd at 0 deg plus Iref at 0 deg.

The net current out of the coil is Ifwd at -PA plus Iref at +PA

Assuming the net current distribution is a cosine, the phase angle
by which the forward current and reflected current is shifted is
ArcCos(Iout/Iin). For a 5% current reduction that would be ArcCos(0.95)
= ~18 degrees. You did NOT even attempt to measure that phase angle.
There is almost no phase shift in the net current through the coil
which is exactly what you measured.

I feel compelled to respond to these fabrications, and put the record
straight. I'll do it here, since this is where my measurements were
originally posted.

How can you possibly set the record straight when you didn't even
comprehend what I was saying? Here's what I have said:

The net current is the sum of the forward current and reflected current.
Both the forward current and reflected current undergo a phase shift
through the coil. Assuming the forward current and reflected current
are in phase on one side of the coil, that phase shift can be calculated
using ArcCos(Iout/Iin) where those currents are the measured net currents.

A 5% reduction in current is equivalent to an 18 degree phase shift.

A 3% reduction in current is equivalent to a 14 degree phase shift.

Your data matches my explanation exactly! The only data that doesn't
match my explanation is Tom's toroidal coil which he asserts doesn't
have any delay through it at all. I suspect his currents are of equal
magnitude and opposite phase thus indicating a delay but confusing
his magnitude data.
--
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! =-----

Roy Lewallen wrote:
$100 goes to the first
person who can point to any prediction made by either Yuri or Cecil
before the second measurement results were posted that predicted second
measurement results of 5% magnitude and zero phase shift.

Send it to my QSL.NET address. Yuri predicted the 18 degree phase shift
which is calculated from the 5% magnitude, ArcCos(Iout/Iin). The phase
shift measurement that you made is irrelevant and not the phase shift
that was being discussed at the time. The net current phase shift that
you measured can always be assumed to be close to zero since the forward
current and reflected current are approximately equal and rotating in
opposite phase directions. I explained all this and posted the information
to my web page many weeks ago yet you still don't understand it.
--
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,

I've learned that there is no point in arguing with you.

When confronted, you dodge, reverse your position, twist words,
misquote, and, if all fails, insult. (An experienced reader of this
group will recognize that this statement isn't itself an insult, but a
statement of fact.)

My statements stand. Let the readers review what you and I have written
and decide.

Your claim that my measurements support your odd theory is entirely
false, and you are irresponsible if not delusional in claiming they do.

I meant the $100 offer. I'll have a crisp bill in the mail to the first
person that shows that you correctly predicted the results of my tests.

Now, I'm finished wasting my time and energy on you.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Your claim that my measurements support your odd theory is entirely
false, and you are irresponsible if not delusional in claiming they do.

Can Gurus just lie and get away with it? Your measurements support my "odd
theory" 100%. With a current ratio of 0.95 to 1.0, ArcCos(0.95) = ~18
degrees of phase shift through the coil which is what I predicted.
You didn't measure the correct phase shift. The one I asked you to
measure was the phase shift through the coil *WITH NO REFLECTIONS
PRESENT*. My "odd theory", residing on my web page for weeks now, clearly
predicts that the net current will have the same phase angle at both
ends of the coil. Your measurements of that phase angle proves that
I was right. Based on my "odd theory", I predicted a 5% reduction in
the current. Your measurements proves that I was right given the
accuracy of your measurements.

My "odd theory" is nothing but standard accepted physics. The net current
equals the superposed sum of the forward current and reflected current
according to Kraus and Balanis. It's hard to believe that you disagree.

I meant the $100 offer. I'll have a crisp bill in the mail to the first
person that shows that you correctly predicted the results of my tests.

I predicted the 0.95 to 1.0 ratio. Yuri posted it. The calculated phase
shift through the coil is 18 degrees. Pay up.
--
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! =-----

No, Cecil, I'll give the money to anyone who _shows_ that Yuri made the
correct prediction, not someone who just says he did.

The result of the first test (about 18 degrees equivalent antenna
"replacement") was 3.1% reduction, with no phase shift, output to input.
For that test, Yuri predicted 5% or 2.5% with 18 degrees of phase shift.
See the direct quotes I just posted for evidence. For the second test,
with 33 degrees of a more ideal antenna "replaced", Yuri made no
prediction, and the result was 5.4% and no phase shift. The "theory" you
and Yuri are fond of, and which you thoughtfully again show in your
posting, predicts 16+%.

Do you really think we're dumb enough not to notice you're using the
"replacement" length from the first test to calculate the result from
the second test, then crying "Aha!"? That you're completely ignoring the
results from the second test and what your favorite equation would predict?

Only a fool or an idiot would try to engage in a rational discussion
with you, with your creative distortion and juggling of figures to suit
your purposes. So I'm afraid I'm a bit of both -- but I'm trying to improve.

Present evidence (you do understand the concept, don't you?) that Yuri
-- or you -- correctly predicted the result of either test before the
test result was posted, by giving the date and quote, and the money's yours.

I'll be out of here unless the evidence is presented. I'm not holding my
breath.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

$100 goes to the first person who can point to any prediction made by
either Yuri or Cecil before the second measurement results were posted
that predicted second measurement results of 5% magnitude and zero
phase shift.


Send it to my QSL.NET address. Yuri predicted the 18 degree phase shift
which is calculated from the 5% magnitude, ArcCos(Iout/Iin). The phase
shift measurement that you made is irrelevant and not the phase shift
that was being discussed at the time. The net current phase shift that
you measured can always be assumed to be close to zero since the forward
current and reflected current are approximately equal and rotating in
opposite phase directions. I explained all this and posted the information
to my web page many weeks ago yet you still don't understand it.

Roy Lewallen wrote:

No, Cecil, I'll give the money to anyone who _shows_ that Yuri made the
correct prediction, not someone who just says he did.

That 5% prediction was within your measurement accuracy which you
quoted earlier.

The result of the first test (about 18 degrees equivalent antenna
"replacement") was 3.1% reduction, with no phase shift, output to input.

You keep talking about the phase shift of the NET current. That is
NOT what was being discussed. The phase shift that Yuri and I were
talking about is the phase shift of the component forward and reflected
waves. Because of your lack of comprehension, YOU MEASURED THE WRONG
FRIGGIN' CURRENT!!! You cannot be allowed to make a stupid mistake like
that and then try to turn it into an advantage for you. It is a no-
brainer to predict that there's no phase shift in the NET current since
the forward and reflected currents are approximately the same magnitude
and rotating in opposite directions. My web page explains it all.

For that test, Yuri predicted 5% or 2.5% with 18 degrees of phase shift.
See the direct quotes I just posted for evidence. For the second test,
with 33 degrees of a more ideal antenna "replaced", Yuri made no
prediction, and the result was 5.4% and no phase shift. The "theory" you
and Yuri are fond of, and which you thoughtfully again show in your
posting, predicts 16+%.

5% equals a phase shift of 18 degrees. 3% equals a phase shift of 14 degrees.
Why can't you get that through your head? Our predictions were, no doubt,
within your measurement accuracy.

ArcCos(0.95) = 18 degrees ArcCos(0.97) = 14 degrees

Do you really think we're dumb enough not to notice you're using the
"replacement" length from the first test to calculate the result from
the second test, then crying "Aha!"? That you're completely ignoring the
results from the second test and what your favorite equation would predict?

You obviously still don't comprehend. The phase shift is a *calculated*
value based on the current ratio. If you had bothered to read my web page,
you wouldn't be so ignorant of what I have been saying. "Replacement"
length does not appear anywhere in my equations and is irrelevant to
those equations. You remind me of the guy who got extremely angry when
he thought someone had stolen his expensive sunglasses only to discover
them on his own head. When (and if) you comprehend the error of your ways,
I expect an apology.

A predicted current difference of 5% equals a phase shift of 18 degrees
in both the forward and reflected currents. According to the laws of
physics, it cannot be anything else, given the assumptions. You cannot
have a current difference of 5% and zero phase shift in the forward
current. That's technically impossible but you didn't even recognize it.

A predicted current difference of 3% equals a phase shift of 14 degrees
in both the forward and reflected currents.

Present evidence (you do understand the concept, don't you?) that Yuri
-- or you -- correctly predicted the result of either test before the
test result was posted, by giving the date and quote, and the money's
yours.

You have already admitted the estimate was close. A 5% prediction
corresponds to a phase shift of 18 degrees. A 3% prediction corresponds
to a phase shift of 14 degrees. Your lack of comprehension is no excuse
for you welching on your bet.
--
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 Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:23:33 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Do you really think we're dumb enough not to notice
snip
Your lack of comprehension is no excuse

(*sigh*) indeed.

You boys need to get a room and do this in private.

Richard Clark wrote:
You boys need to get a room and do this in private.

Bottom line - The original question was:

Is the current at the bottom of a real-world mobile bugcatcher
coil equal to the current into the stinger. The answer is NO!
--
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! =-----

Why would that be? I find it fascinating.

Do you mean you can understand the tripe?