|You are absolutely correct; this thread has drifted beyond recognition.

Actually, as threads go this one isn't all the bad. As the originator
of the thread I believe I know what the topic is.

Yuri can claim that this is away from the "original problem", however,
the original problem, as he calls it, wasn't the topic of the paper to
which my original posting pointed.

Wes, N7WS

Sorry again, must be the remnants of Bahama Mammas in me. I didn't realize the
precise name of the (new) thread, kinda assuming we are talking "old" stuff.
Looks like I have to be more sharper and precise. That Caribbean stuff sure
relaxes and blurs things :-)

Yuri, C6AYB

Richard, then please,please provide us all with
the facts that you are holding back and enlighten
Cecil and others how Eznec can be manipulated
into tackling the problem of replacing a non dimensional
inductance to one that has physical dimensions
so that all pertinent questions can be answered
If Roy has published a later version of Eznec
that can handle variables which is now the norm
for modern programs more power to him but I am
sure he would let us know So Richard you have
posted many times on this thread with your
normal aloofnes but now is the time surely that
you supply the facts. I and many others say
Eznec cannot handle it,you say baloney yet
your last stab at it proved fruitless
This time give us the real skinny on how Eznec
can handle it. Since you knocked Roy's socalled
poor attitude on one of your latest posts he
obviously is not going to return purely to save you.
So to prove that it is baloney step forward
with the facts which up to now you have not divulged.
Yup it is crunch time, we are all waiting for this
gottcha that you are poised to declare.
We are listening ,show us and especialy Cecil
what you are made of,
that with one single posting you can put us all to shame

Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG






Richard Clark wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:14:22 GMT, " Art Unwin KB9MZ"
wrote:

Nothing on that post

I dunno. When I read it, it looked like a reference to graphical
analysis or the projection of a point that represents a mean within a
surface area (which, again, harkens back to the "sinusoidal" current
distribution curve).

Art,

Write again when you do have something then.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
Richard, then please,please provide us all with
the facts that you are holding back and enlighten

Richard speak up.... You are on center stage what you have always wanted. We
can all see you standing their with your tights on and the ochestra has
given you more than one cue but still nothing.
We don't mind if you stutter or if your voice is high pitched we are all
interested in the facts that you are about to share with respect to Eznec
and lumped circuitry.
Cum on now, don't be shy, it is your moment on center stage... sieze the
opportunity. Let me get you started
Eznec can do it by....by... cum on
say it Sargent Friday surely told you what your audience is waiting for. No
we are not looking at that evr growing
pool at your feet we just want what Joe Friday wants
the facts,nothing but the facts.
I am not going to ignore you anymore, I have succumbed
to your need to show everybody your special skills so have at it I am
listening to the one who not only threw the first stone but also the second
and third stone so now you have my full attention. This thread has obviously
come to an end and you have the last word, the facts and only the facts
No don't say not enough facts have been given to you like you said on the
lightening thread, we will wait while you refresh your memory or put on a
clean pair of tights.n fact put on a cumber band at the same time incase you
go belly up when you come back. We will wait for you,
remember now Eznec can be used to solve the problem
to say otherwise is baloney because I...I
....I am now going to share with all the true facts that I have been holding
back which is, which is....er...er
which is...is....I know , you are trying to expose me
for what I am !!!!


Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
My point is that
understanding and agreement will only come when clarity is applied as to why
Eznec cannot solve the problem. and replace it.

The basic problem is that there is a phase shift through every real-world
coil. The lumped inductive reactance model that EZNEC uses doesn't account
for any phase shift. If one takes a look at the page of Diamond vhf/uhf
antennas in QST, one will observe phasing coils in every one of them.
The radiation patterns of these antennas cannot be modeled with EZNEC
using the simple lumped inductive reactances. I and others have demonstrated
a work-around for horizontal phased arrays by simply using multiple sources
or phase-reversing stubs. There exists a 1/2WL of wire with an undesirable
current phase. Folding it into a 1/4WL stub works to minimize radiation.
Mashing it into a coil works to a certain extent. Even fractal folding would
probably work to perform that radiation minimizing function while bringing
the radiating array elements into physical alignment.
--
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:

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Did you find something wrong with my suggestion above?

Nope, nothing "wrong". I just avoid making assertions when I'm
not 95% certain that I am correct. Thus, most of the time, I am
unresponsive. I am 95% certain that the average humongous mobile
loading coil is not "physically small" and is more like a
certain percentage of a helical antenna which indeed does
obviously demonstrate a net current gradient.

It's certainly true that such a coil is not 'electrically' small.

73, Jim AC6XG

On 1 Feb 2004 20:21:26 -0800, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

how Eznec can be manipulated
into tackling the problem of replacing a non dimensional
inductance to one that has physical dimensions
so that all pertinent questions can be answered

Art,

It is clear that you write far more than you read. I did this already
in a posting, in this thread:
This may be found at:
http://www.k3bu.us/loadingcoils.htm
to which you responded:
Obscure posting
So clearly, even with the information offered, you lack the capacity
to follow the rather simple instructions offered by
1.) Yuri,
2.) Roy,
3.) Myself
that must've occupied all of two sentences.

So to prove that it is baloney step forward
with the facts which up to now you have not divulged.

Art seeing it was YOUR claim, it is clearly baloney barring any
demonstration from you (we should live so long) of its accuracy,
irregardless of how
1.) Yuri,
2.) Roy,
3.) Myself
offer solutions.

What is more to the issue, is that it doesn't amount to 1dB
difference, a fact that is clearly upheld by work outside of EZNEC by
Wes.
www.qsl.net/n7ws
to which you responded:
Nothing on that post

So there you have it. Two sources, 4 individuals' work, and you have
nothing to offer - still.

You can at least let us know if you saw your shadow. If you cannot
muster the facts to answer this, I see no reason to respond to your
whining.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Nope, nothing "wrong". I just avoid making assertions when I'm
not 95% certain that I am correct. Thus, most of the time, I am
unresponsive. I am 95% certain that the average humongous mobile
loading coil is not "physically small" and is more like a
certain percentage of a helical antenna which indeed does
obviously demonstrate a net current gradient.

It's certainly true that such a coil is not 'electrically' small.

And it seems to me that most of the coil models assume "physically
small" coils which leads me to my next question. Are there no models
for "physically large" coils? The arguments involving "physically
small" coils are only valid for physically small coils. What about
all the other coils in the world that are not "physically small"?

Seems to me that a helical antenna functions approximately the same
above ground or in free space. Where is the virtual ground in free
space?
--
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! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:
What is more to the issue, is that it doesn't amount to 1dB
difference, a fact that is clearly upheld by work outside of EZNEC by
Wes. www.qsl.net/n7ws

Ahhhh, but the argument was *never* over the dB's of difference. The
argument was over whether a current taper exists in a mobile 75m
Bugcatcher coil. Wes's modeled distributed coils even possess a current
taper as does all but one of the coils measured by W7EL and W8JI.
Introducing dB's of difference is just a diversion. "What difference
does it make how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is one
more question that doesn't even come close to answering the original
question.
--
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! =-----

Jim What is electrically smal and compared to what ?.
If one can make a small loop containing a small variable inductance as one
would make a variable capacitive form
which is what, 1/10 of a wave length and is inserted in Cecils drawing which
is more than a wavelength long I would consider that relatively small. Since
the circuit generated is purely from the constituents of the original
inductance then the relatively small loop can be inserted.
Knowing that the radiating surface is the inductance before it was reduced
what is to stop inserting the small loop in a black box that has dimensions
such that ports can be directly compared.? Cecil has stated that he is is
confident that he is correctin his assertions ( and he may well be) he is
not interested in counter proposals.
Sort of reminds me that Bush also comes from Texas !
We therefore must accept what Cecil says as unreservidly correct.and there
is nothing more to be said regarding the technical underpinnings. Either
that or attack the man himself which cannot provide resolution.
Regards
Art



"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...


Cecil Moore wrote:

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Did you find something wrong with my suggestion above?

Nope, nothing "wrong". I just avoid making assertions when I'm
not 95% certain that I am correct. Thus, most of the time, I am
unresponsive. I am 95% certain that the average humongous mobile
loading coil is not "physically small" and is more like a
certain percentage of a helical antenna which indeed does
obviously demonstrate a net current gradient.

It's certainly true that such a coil is not 'electrically' small.

73, Jim AC6XG

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Nope, nothing "wrong". I just avoid making assertions when I'm
not 95% certain that I am correct. Thus, most of the time, I am
unresponsive. I am 95% certain that the average humongous mobile
loading coil is not "physically small" and is more like a
certain percentage of a helical antenna which indeed does
obviously demonstrate a net current gradient.

It's certainly true that such a coil is not 'electrically' small.

And it seems to me that most of the coil models assume "physically
small" coils which leads me to my next question. Are there no models
for "physically large" coils? The arguments involving "physically
small" coils are only valid for physically small coils. What about
all the other coils in the world that are not "physically small"?

Do you mean physically small coils that are, naturally, also
electrically small. Or do you mean physically small coils that are
somehow electrically large?

73, Jim AC6XG