Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Cecil Moore wrote in message
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. It's physically small enough that any error should be small. IE: 1 db or less. This has been shown a few times. Myself, I don't lose much sleep over the phasing coil dilemma. I don't think it will be much of an issue when modeling simple short loaded whips. Being there is a workaround for phasing antennas, IE: separate sources where you can define the phase angle, the antenna can still be modeled. There is something that keeps bothering me and my beady mind though... You say the current going "one way" will be fairly constant across the coil. Will the coil position effect this? If not, that creates a new problem. If the coil position does not effect the current taper going "one way", I don't see how it would coming back the other way. Regardless of coil position. If the current is constant going one way, seems to me it would also be constant the other way. So in effect, they would cancel each other out, and would still be fairly constant. I guess what I want to see is experiments to test your theory of coil position effecting the current taper. IE: You claim a center load would have constant current, but off center would not. Seems to me, if this is true, there should be a position that places maximum current at the top of the coil, not bottom. If you never see this, I would be suspect. Well, back to my 1 db or less rubber room... MK |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Keith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in message 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. It's physically small enough that any error should be small. IE: 1 db or less. A 13% error is small? The error is even larger than that for the current at the top of the coil. If the coil position does not effect the current taper going "one way", I don't see how it would coming back the other way. Regardless of coil position. The forward current and reflected current phasors rotate in opposite directions. Sometimes they are in phase and sometimes they are out of phase. In a lossless transmission line, the forward current and reflected current are absolutely constant with zero taper. Yet they still result in standing waves with minimum and maximum points. This is explained on my web page. Seems to me, if this is true, there should be a position that places maximum current at the top of the coil, not bottom. I have already said multiple times, depending upon where the coil is placed, the net current into the coil can be less than, equal to, or greater than the net current coming out. It all depends upon the phasor sum of the forward current and reflected current. It can be zero or maximum or anything in between depending upon where the coil is placed. For Kraus' phase-reversing coil, the net current is zero at both ends and maximum in the middle of the coil. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm -----= 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! =----- |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry about that, missed the period before co
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/g3ldo Art "Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message ... 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 |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Mark Keith wrote: Cecil Moore wrote in message 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. It's physically small enough that any error should be small. IE: 1 db or less. A 13% error is small? The error is even larger than that for the current at the top of the coil. I don't know where this 13% comes from, but how many db difference would it make in the modeling results? I bet it's about 1 or less. If you have an 8 ft antenna, with a 1 ft tall coil, no matter what the current taper is across the coil, it will not drastically effect the modeling results. At least 3 or 4 people have shown this. The coil is not a large enough portion of the overall antenna. And any taper of the current along that one foot section is not going to make a difference more than about 1 db. Usually less. Seems to me, if this is true, there should be a position that places maximum current at the top of the coil, not bottom. I have already said multiple times, depending upon where the coil is placed, the net current into the coil can be less than, equal to, or greater than the net current coming out. It all depends upon the phasor sum of the forward current and reflected current. It can be zero or maximum or anything in between depending upon where the coil is placed. For Kraus' phase-reversing coil, the net current is zero at both ends and maximum in the middle of the coil. I know you have said it multiple times, but so far I don't recollect anyone actually measuring a real world coil, and finding max current at the top of the coil. That is what is bothering me. MK |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Cecil Moore wrote: I have already said multiple times, depending upon where the coil is placed, the net current into the coil can be less than, equal to, or greater than the net current coming out. Which end of the coil is the input and which end is the output? 73, Jim AC6XG |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Keith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: A 13% error is small? The error is even larger than that for the current at the top of the coil. I don't know where this 13% comes from, but how many db difference would it make in the modeling results? Uh Mark, 1 dB error = 13% error 10^(0.1) = 1.26 2 dB error = 29% error 10^(0.2) = 1.58 3 dB error = 50% error 10^(0.3) = 2.00 I know you have said it multiple times, but so far I don't recollect anyone actually measuring a real world coil, and finding max current at the top of the coil. That is what is bothering me. MK Nobody builds an antenna that way but consider the following monopole. Ground is at the left, top is at the right. Each of the following 1/4WL sections are electrical 1/4WL's. 1/4WL coil Gnd-FP------1/4WL tubing------//////////------1/4WL stinger------ max--*-------------------------------*------------------------- * * * * * * Current min-------------------*----------------------------------* The current at the feedpoint will be high. The current at the bottom of the coil will be low. The current at the top of the coil will be high. The current at the tip of the antenna will be low. -- 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! =----- |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: I have already said multiple times, depending upon where the coil is placed, the net current into the coil can be less than, equal to, or greater than the net current coming out. Which end of the coil is the input and which end is the output? The DC model strikes again. For AC, current flows out of the coil input just as often as it flows in and into the coil output just as often as it flows out. :-) But by convention the 'input' of the coil is the end closest to the antenna feedpoint. -- 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! =----- |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Mark wrote in reply to Cecil, (snip) I have already said multiple times, depending upon where the coil is placed, the net current into the coil can be less than, equal to, or greater than the net current coming out. It all depends upon the phasor sum of the forward current and reflected current. It can be zero or maximum or anything in between depending upon where the coil is placed. For Kraus' phase-reversing coil, the net current is zero at both ends and maximum in the middle of the coil. I know you have said it multiple times, but so far I don't recollect anyone actually measuring a real world coil, and finding max current at the top of the coil. That is what is bothering me. MK Hi Mark, Cecil doesn't actually have to measure anything, since he's already convinced he's right because his arguments agree with the theory he made up in his head. Yuri is supposed to measure loading coils using fish tank thermometers and such. The real test will be when someone tries to make a new, improved antenna based on the belief that the current taper on the loading coil of a physically short antenna makes a tinker's damn worth of difference in the far field radiation of said antenna. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: I have already said multiple times, depending upon where the coil is placed, the net current into the coil can be less than, equal to, or greater than the net current coming out. Which end of the coil is the input and which end is the output? The DC model strikes again. A poor craftsman always blames his tools. But by convention the 'input' of the coil is the end closest to the antenna feedpoint. And so what you're saying is that by convention RF current flows "in" to one end, and then "out" of the other? I must admit I don't like the sound of that one bit. Sounds like you're describing the direction a "wave" is "traveling", when we know that the "wave" is really just "standing" there. :-) 73, Jim AC6XG |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Tdonaly wrote:
Mark wrote in reply to Cecil, I know you have said it multiple times, but so far I don't recollect anyone actually measuring a real world coil, and finding max current at the top of the coil. That is what is bothering me. MK Cecil doesn't actually have to measure anything, since he's already convinced he's right because his arguments agree with the theory he made up in his head. Well, just so you guys can understand what I am talking about, here is an EZNEC file that clearly demonstrates low current at the bottom of the coil and high current at the top of the coil. http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/sqcoil.ez The real test will be when someone tries to make a new, improved antenna based on the belief that the current taper on the loading coil of a physically short antenna makes a tinker's damn worth of difference in the far field radiation of said antenna. Nice try, but that's just a copout diversion because the far field radiation is irrelevant to the argument over current through a loading coil. -- 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! =----- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
current/inductance discusion | Antenna | |||
A Subtle Detail of Reflection Coefficients (but important to know) | Antenna | |||
Eznec modeling loading coils? | Antenna |