Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
Let's see - that's either sour grapes or sweet lemons -
I can't remember which.

See? Even you can't tell the difference.

It depends upon whether you ate the lemons or not. :-)
--
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! =-----

I can not believe what you are saying!

This thread is initiated by Wes not Yuri
I have not read anywhere that Wes, and Roy and Yuri supports your position
that Eznec can handle lumped loads in a real world situation. In fact I
seem to remember that Yuri in the past stated that computor programs
proffered by Tom who was using Eznec, did not reflect reality and was going
to prove same with a series of experiments in the near future. Not only that
Yuri has been off shore for most of this thread and has participated very
little, prior to that he was under the weather.
Now we come to the other person who you say supports you., Roy Roy has not
participated in this thread started by Wes so where is that statement that
his program Eznec
can handle all the requirements placed on it by lumped loads. After you
dissed him last week on another thread I can hardly believe he communicated
privately with you regarding his program?
Now we come to Wes...Wes is the originator of this thread which was a
debate based on his modelling submission
I do not recall him saying anything that supports your assertion. In fact
when I looked at what he proffered on this thread I seem to remember that it
reflected a radiating member of diameter equal to a real world coil into
which was inserted a point, lumped load that was dimensionaless.
I am sure he had good reason to do it that way but it certainly does not
reflect a real world situation that Yuri,
Cecil and I was looking for. Tho I must state firmly that
only Wes 'walked the walk' in an effort to resolve a problem and deserves
the thanks of all in trying to resolve it in one of many ways

So I do not believe what you are saying and you are playing around with the
word "truth"

So now you have exposed yourself again for what you are, unless you can
find in this thread or show that the associations with your statement
regarding Eznec is true per private conversation or otherwise.
I would be very curious if Roy supported your statement regarding Eznec and
lumped loads, as would many of those who purchased his program which
provided so many insights to antenna design. In fact I seem to remember a
very clear statement by Roy saying his programs had no variable abilities
which would be a requirement for real world analysis, however, I will leave
him to speak for himself as his knoweledge regarding antennas and modeling
is renown world wide.
I have also showed all the posts that you made on this thread
None of these provided facts , only opinions of yours that you have on other
people, sarcastic in the main.
Now I see that Cecil has brought up the subject directly with you and I urge
every body to read them to ascertain what facts you are offering in
return.or show how you avoid the issue as you have done many times in the
past.
My guess it will be the smear and run tactic that you off times use.
So Richard ,gather the supporters you have specifically quoted so they can
vouch for your assertions made with regard to Eznec and lumped loads to
prove you are not the liar that your posting appear to suggest.
Infact, if either Wes or Roy confirmes your "baloney" position statement I
will supply a public apology to you since both of them hold my respect with
regard to computor modeling. I still have vivid memories of where you argued
for ages regarding contact fidelity
where you pretty much said that contact pressure was everything and 'wipe'
was nothing which is just laughable in industry but not apparently in the
expert teaching of meterology in which you claim high education ..
Well this time all posters will see what you are unless you can show
otherwise.. You should never put people in a situation that they must accept
what you say without prior permission. You have forced a burden upon them.by
speaking for them knowing that they made no such statement.and have thus
caused embarasment to them.

Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG



"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
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

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:31:05 GMT, " Art Unwin KB9MZ"
wrote:
I have not read anywhere that Wes, and Roy and Yuri

That has been for your lack of reading. Thus I keep this to one line.

Then you are what you have shown your self to be

And all can now see what you really are
and can judge for themselves
And they can also see how you avoided all things true
when you refused to face the truth with Cecil
and found a way to run away.
Now show us how you can run away from yourself and your concience by hiding
behind your own shadow.
I am done with you because you represent nothing

Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG



"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:31:05 GMT, " Art Unwin KB9MZ"
wrote:
I have not read anywhere that Wes, and Roy and Yuri

That has been for your lack of reading. Thus I keep this to one line.

Wes Stewart wrote:
I downloaded a couple of them, but I have a question. I opened them
using MultiNEC, which reads all of the popular modeling program file
formats. The loads did not import, but when I opened the same files
in EZNEC 3 I saw them as R+jX loads with only an 'X' value.

You can put in any R and XL value, Wes. The phase of the current will
not change. The magnitude decreases and the phase stays the same.

I learned from Dan, AC6LA, the author of MultiNEC, that some early
EZNEC versions save all loads as Laplace and he doesn't read those
into MultiNEC. Opening the files in EZNEC 3 and then just resaving
them makes the import into MultiNEC work okay, but this makes me
suspect that using your earlier files in my later version might be a
problem. The documentaion says otherwise though, but to be sure, what
are the actual load parameters.

Well, your Laplace files won't run on my EZNEC version 2.0. They all
come up as zeros. So I don't know what loads you used either.

I don't want to comment further until I know exactly what you are
using.

You can vary R and XL values from zero to infinity. The phase of the
current never changes. I tried values from 1+j300 to 1000+j300000
and it only affected the magnitude, not the phase.
--
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, 03 Feb 2004 03:39:42 GMT, " Art Unwin KB9MZ"
wrote:

Then you are what you have shown your self to be

And all can now see what you really are
and can judge for themselves
And they can also see how you avoided all things true
when you refused to face the truth with Cecil
and found a way to run away.
Now show us how you can run away from yourself and your concience by hiding
behind your own shadow.
I am done with you because you represent nothing

Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG

Ah! Art,

You are a po8 and don't know8 :-)

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:28:55 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

|Wes Stewart wrote:
| I downloaded a couple of them, but I have a question. I opened them
| using MultiNEC, which reads all of the popular modeling program file
| formats. The loads did not import, but when I opened the same files
| in EZNEC 3 I saw them as R+jX loads with only an 'X' value.
|
|You can put in any R and XL value, Wes. The phase of the current will
|not change. The magnitude decreases and the phase stays the same.

Okay, I guess that means the answer is: you used R+jX loads.
|
| I learned from Dan, AC6LA, the author of MultiNEC, that some early
| EZNEC versions save all loads as Laplace and he doesn't read those
| into MultiNEC. Opening the files in EZNEC 3 and then just resaving
| them makes the import into MultiNEC work okay, but this makes me
| suspect that using your earlier files in my later version might be a
| problem. The documentaion says otherwise though, but to be sure, what
| are the actual load parameters.
|
|Well, your Laplace files won't run on my EZNEC version 2.0. They all
|come up as zeros. So I don't know what loads you used either.

Mine aren't Laplace loads. There are straight RLC with C=0.

|
| I don't want to comment further until I know exactly what you are
| using.
|
|You can vary R and XL values from zero to infinity. The phase of the
|current never changes. I tried values from 1+j300 to 1000+j300000
|and it only affected the magnitude, not the phase.

It remains to be seen in my mind whether you are correct in your
assertions; however, I believe that you have stated that in your Kraus
reference that he used the self-resonance of the inductors to do the
magic.

How on Earth can you expect a load consisting of only R and Xl to be
self-resonant?

Wes Stewart wrote:
Mine aren't Laplace loads. There are straight RLC with C=0.

The 'LO' display says "Laplace Coefficients", "Select to show
values", and the values are all zero. The feedpoint impedance
of the antenna is infinite.

I believe that you have stated that in your Kraus
reference that he used the self-resonance of the inductors to do the
magic.

No magic - just relatively simple experiments. 1/2WL of a helical
antenna reverses the phase of the current just like a 1/2WL wire
does, over ground or in free space.

How on Earth can you expect a load consisting of only R and Xl to be
self-resonant?

I *don't* expect such a coil to simulate reality. That's the whole problem.
The artificial lumped load software doesn't match reality. It only
approaches reality for "physically small" coils. Once again, a 75m Texas
Bugcatcher coil is not physically small.
--
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! =-----

Yuri, You might want to look at
http://web.ukonlineco.uk/g3ldo
as there is quite a bit of interchange between various hams
on measuring coils.
It may give you some ideas for when the snow melts
Regards
Art

"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...
The reality is that current is different, Eznec can't model it, ...

Yuri, have you read Wes's article? Using wire segments, he modeled a
loading
coil in EZNEC. His segmented wire model of a coil shows a current taper
through the coil. It's on his web page at: http://www.qsl.net/n7ws
You can also download Wes's zipped EZNEC files.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



Sorry!
OK, I will be more precise:
Eznec can't model current through zero physical size, but certain value
inductance inserted in the antenna element. (As W8JI shows on his web page
modeling his mobile antenna, "proving" that current is the same :-)
If the inductance is modeled as coiled wire with numerous segments and
proper
physical dimensions, then the current is modeled and reflects the reality.
(Tough to do modeling typical loading coils.)
How's that?
Sorry I got pulled into the simplificity :-)
LB Cebik on his web site also has an example of coil modeled using
segments and
it shows current drop.

I hope it warms up, so I can get out, dig the car from the snow and do
some
experimenting.

First experiment will be with 80m Hustler coil in order to use "standard"
(lousy) typical coil. I will paste LCD strip thermometers on the coil to
measure temperature changes at various positions, ends, middle.

Experiment #1:
I will drive DC current through the coil in order to generate heat and
observe
the temperatures across the coil. I predict that thermometers will be
tracking
each other very closely or be identical (ideal case).

Experiment #2:
I will insert the same coil in the Hustler mobile antenna, tune to
resonance
and fire 100W to it. I will observe temperatures between the end and
center and
between two ends. I expect difference indicating difference in current at
various points.

This will be the least disturbing measurement setup, no conductive nothing
disturbing the coil or antenna. I am assuming LCD thermometer is RF
transparent
and I will verify that it does not detune the antenna/coil. Perhaps not
very
accurate, but sufficient to demonstrate the debated differences.
The next measurements will be with current probes and RF ammeters. This
will
give more accurate values.

Any problems with that?

Yuri, K3BU.us

Yuri, You might want to look at
http://web.ukonlineco.uk/g3ldo
as there is quite a bit of interchange between various hams
on measuring coils.
It may give you some ideas for when the snow melts
Regards
Art


that link don't worky