|
Tdonaly wrote:
If Kraus really believes that, he's as ignorant as you are. No chance that Kraus could be right and you be wrong? :-) Please read Kraus' book, Tom, and get back to us. Richard H. has the book and has verified what I have posted about it. A stub is not the same as a lumped-component tank circuit. An inductive stub can perform a similar function to an inductor. In some resonant applications, a 1/4WL shorted stub can perform a similar function to a tank circuit, trap, or self-resonant inductor. By the way, Cecil, I'm surprised at you. Have you tried *EVERY* value of inductive reactance in EZNEC? Enough values to see the trend. The lumped inductive reactances in EZNEC never reverse the phase of the current. As the lumped inductive reactance is increased on the phased array application, all that happens is the current is reduced in magnitude. That's not the way the real world works. Would you like a copy of those EZNEC files? -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
Reg Edwards wrote: What the whole damn lot of you have forgotten is the electromagnetic coupling which occurs between the antenna wire sections on either side of the phasing coils, especially when the adjacent wire sections are supposed to be in anti-phase with each other. Yes, but soon we'll all have forgotten more than you ever knew. ;-) 73 de ac6xg |
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:26:44 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: Einstein once said that all our models are flawed. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP Maybe because his browser couldn't open pages, and pdf wouldn't work for him. Or was that Galileo? Hi Wes, I am glad you aren't spinning this out like Roy used to. I got tired of those "I'm outta here" responses linked down the page like dominoes. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Cec sez Kraus . . . .
================== Still worshipping Kraus then Ces? ;o) |
Reg Edwards wrote:
Cec sez Kraus . . . . ================== Still worshipping Kraus then Ces? ;o) Not worshipping, Reg, just respecting. He's one of the few references I have for BBQ'ing those sacred cows. -- 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! =----- |
Reg wrote,
What the whole damn lot of you have forgotten is the electromagnetic coupling which occurs between the antenna wire sections on either side of the phasing coils, especially when the adjacent wire sections are supposed to be in anti-phase with each other. Absolutely correct. No analysis is complete without taking that into account. I was hoping no one would bring that up, however, since I've been having too much fun goring Cecil's rather fragile ox. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Cecil wrote,
Tdonaly wrote: Besides, it hasn't been proven, at least not by you, that Kraus' loading coils work the way you seem to think they do. Kraus' phase-reversing coils work the way he says they do. A high impedance trap blocks current if it is looking into a low impedance because it is a high impedance. But if it is looking into a high impedance, like a 1/2WL element, it simply reverses the phase of the current, like a quarter-wave shorted series stub. Would you like me to send you the EZNEC files that demonstrate the phase reversal using stubs or multiple sources? -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP Better yet, Cecil, show me a mathematical analysis. It doesn't have to be rigorous - you can wave your hands if you want to - but it does have to make sense. Ah, how wonderfully easy it would be if only your ideas were true. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Reg wrote,
Cec sez Kraus . . . . ================== Still worshipping Kraus then Ces? ;o) He can't work out the proofs himself so he has to appeal to a higher authority and hope it all comes out right. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Reg wrote, Tdonaly wrote: Adjust the model yourself, if you think that's what it will show, and put the results on your website. Unfortunately, I don't have the modeling software that Wes is using. And I have already demonstrated the effect using inductive loading stubs modeled with EZNEC. Reg has already said that real-world coils with Ls, Cs, & Rs, can be treated as transmission lines. Rhea's paper on a new solenoid model agrees with Reg. Have you ever seen a transmission line less than 1/2WL long where the current-in is equal to the current-out when there are standing waves present? Even in a transmission line without reflections, the current-in is never equal to the current-out in magnitude and phase except for lossless lines at the N*wavelength points. Most of this stuff is common sense for anyone who thinks that reality should dictate the model, not vice versa. Einstein once said that all our models are flawed. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP I know Reg has said that. He's not the first nor will he be the last. That's not the only way to look at it, however, and I doubt if it's the best under all circumstances. In order to show that an inductor can be treated as a transmission line, in the way you want to do it, you have to show that your inductor has an exponential current gradient along its length when it's terminated in a certain impedance. I don't think you've thought much about how that can be done. Yuri says he's going to try to show something of the sort using fish tank thermometers. At least he's making the attempt. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Tdonaly wrote:
Absolutely correct. No analysis is complete without taking that into account. I was hoping no one would bring that up, however, since I've been having too much fun goring Cecil's rather fragile ox. Don't you mean Kraus' "rather fragile ox"? -- 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! =----- |
Tdonaly wrote:
Cecil wrote, Better yet, Cecil, show me a mathematical analysis. It doesn't have to be rigorous - you can wave your hands if you want to - but it does have to make sense. Ah, how wonderfully easy it would be if only your ideas were true. They are not my ideas, Tom. They come directly from page 824 of _Antennas_ For_All_Applications_, by Kraus and Marhefka, 3rd edition. Rather than me wasting my time proving to you that Kraus is correct, how about you proving that Kraus is wrong? Or better yet - take the Diamond NR72B and prove that the phase-reversing coil doesn't work on 70 cm. Maybe you can sue Diamond for fraud. -- 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! =----- |
Tdonaly wrote:
He can't work out the proofs himself so he has to appeal to a higher authority and hope it all comes out right. I hope that Kraus is right. You hope that Kraus is wrong. Guess which hope has the highest probability of being true? I have presented a reference with which I agree. Now it is your turn to present a reference that disagrees with Kraus. Good luck on that one. -- 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! =----- |
Tdonaly wrote:
In order to show that an inductor can be treated as a transmission line, in the way you want to do it, you have to show that your inductor has an exponential current gradient along its length when it's terminated in a certain impedance. All I have to do is point to W7EL's and W8JI's measurements that show a current gradient along a real world loading coil in a standing- wave antenna. The current gradient is illustrated by Kraus on page 824 of _Antennas_For_All_Applications_, 3rd edition. You are failing to take into account that the net current in a standing- wave antenna is the phasor sum of the forward current and reflected current, i.e. the earth is not flat. -- 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:
Tdonaly wrote: In order to show that an inductor can be treated as a transmission line, in the way you want to do it, you have to show that your inductor has an exponential current gradient along its length when it's terminated in a certain impedance. All I have to do is point to W7EL's and W8JI's measurements that show a current gradient along a real world loading coil in a standing- wave antenna. The current gradient is illustrated by Kraus on page 824 of _Antennas_For_All_Applications_, 3rd edition. You are failing to take into account that the net current in a standing- wave antenna is the phasor sum of the forward current and reflected current, i.e. the earth is not flat. Right, Cecil. But you need to make it clear that you're not talking about a traveling wave gradient. It's a simple matter to measure the phase delay across a coil. The gradient is simply the result of the phase differential across the inductor and its effect on the two superposed waves traveling through it in opposite directions. But the resultant is a STANDING WAVE, with magnitude a direction at all points along the antenna, transmission line, whatever. But the standing wave itself does not move or 'flow'. This idea that more current is flowing into one end than flows out of the other is really not particularly illustrative of anything. It's just creating misunderstandings, and a reluctance to accept an otherwise valid argument. 73, Jim AC6XG |
Cecil wrote,
Tdonaly wrote: He can't work out the proofs himself so he has to appeal to a higher authority and hope it all comes out right. I hope that Kraus is right. You hope that Kraus is wrong. Guess which hope has the highest probability of being true? I have presented a reference with which I agree. Now it is your turn to present a reference that disagrees with Kraus. Good luck on that one. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp EZNEC, although I expect EZNEC to have its limitations, just as Kraus has his. Last night I pretended that dipoles were transmission lines, as you and Reg and a lot of others suggest, and I wrote some network equations and solved them. After doing that, I've come to have more respect for EZNEC. I don't consider my little exercise to be definitive, though. The only way to resolve this is to make an antenna and see if it will work the way you say Kraus, and you, say it will. Then you can ask the question of why it does or does not work. If I remember correctly, Tom Rauch tried this and couldn't get it to work as it was supposed to. Tom is a careful experimenter, so his experience should carry some weight. Why don't you try it, Cecil? As Reg has repeatedly pointed out, relying on authority only for your proofs is a procedure fraught with danger. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:26:44 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: |Tdonaly wrote: | Adjust the model yourself, | if you think that's what it will show, and put the results on | your website. Yeah. | |Unfortunately, I don't have the modeling software that Wes |is using. Yes you do. If you would actually read the paper *before* beginning to argue, you would see that all of the modeling can be done in EZNEC and I also supplied the .ez files so you don't have to create the coil models yourself. http://www.qsl.net/n7ws/AntennaModels.zip Now, I showed you mine why don't you show us yours. Stop asking whether we would like to see your model files and just put them on your web pape where we can take them or leave them. |
Tdonaly wrote:
The only way to resolve this is to make an antenna and see if it will work the way you say Kraus, and you, say it will. No need to build one, Tom. Diamond has already built one for me. It's the model NR72B. On 2m, the coil acts as a normal loading coil. On 70cm, the coil is a phase-reversing coil with 1/4WL on the bottom and 1/2WL on the top. Kraus describes that exact antenna on page 824 in Figure 23-21(c) of _Antennas_For_All_ Applications_, 3rd edition. Richard H. can verify that. Kraus describes the antenna. Diamond builds and markets the antenna. Do you believe that Kraus is wrong AND Diamond is engaging in fraudulent marketing practices? You might get rich and famous by suing them. (Then again, they might just laugh at your ignorance.) My Comet 2x4MAX also has phase-reversing coils in it. This is the 21st century, Tom. It's past time to BBQ your sacred cow. It is well known that a 3/2WL center fed antenna, like the G5RV on 20m, undergoes some current phase reversals. That's what gives it the cloverleaf pattern on 20m. If we make a helical G5RV and use it on 20m, do you think those phase reversals will go away simply because we are now dealing with a coil? Please rethink your position. If I remember correctly, Tom Rauch tried this and couldn't get it to work as it was supposed to. When an experimenter believes something is not going to work, it usually doesn't work. Any number of reasons come to mind. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
Jim Kelley wrote:
This idea that more current is flowing into one end than flows out of the other is really not particularly illustrative of anything. It's just creating misunderstandings, and a reluctance to accept an otherwise valid argument. It's all explained on my web page, Jim, where the forward current is assumed to be a constant magnitude through the coil and so is the reflected current. It is the net current that is changing magnitude because of the superposition of the forward current and reflected current. Net current is much easier to measure than are the component currents. We can deduce what the component currents look like from the net standing wave current. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Cecil Moore wrote: It is the net current that is changing magnitude because of the superposition of the forward current and reflected current. Net current is much easier to measure than are the component currents. We can deduce what the component currents look like from the net standing wave current. My point is that statements like "more current goes in one end than comes out the other" are not helpful or illustrative of the phenomenon. Were you to avoid such statements, you would likely receive less resistance to the idea you're trying to convey. Understand? 73, Jim AC6XG |
Wes Stewart wrote:
If you would actually read the paper *before* beginning to argue, you would see that all of the modeling can be done in EZNEC and I also supplied the .ez files so you don't have to create the coil models yourself. I just looked at the paper again and I don't see any files to download. Where are the files? I only have DOS-based EZNEC. Will it still work? Now, I showed you mine why don't you show us yours. Stop asking whether we would like to see your model files and just put them on your web pape where we can take them or leave them. Don't know how. But assuming I can learn how to do that in HTML, I'll try to post those files tomorrow. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
Jim Kelley wrote:
My point is that statements like "more current goes in one end than comes out the other" are not helpful or illustrative of the phenomenon. Were you to avoid such statements, you would likely receive less resistance to the idea you're trying to convey. Understand? Why would it make any difference to say the magnitude of net current in is greater than the magnitude of net current out? "Greater than" and "more" mean the same thing. -- 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:
I just looked at the paper again and I don't see any files to download. Where are the files? I only have DOS-based EZNEC. Will it still work? Sorry Wes, the combination of a small screen, color-blindness, and cataracts causes me to miss a lot of things. I have successfully downloaded your zip files now. -- 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:
Why would it make any difference to say the magnitude of net current in is greater than the magnitude of net current out? It's meaningless to characterize it that way in the case of a standing wave. 73, Jim AC6XG |
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Jim Kelley wrote: This idea that more current is flowing into one end than flows out of the other is really not particularly illustrative of anything. It's just creating misunderstandings, and a reluctance to accept an otherwise valid argument. Cecil, You stated below that the assumption is that forward current is "assumed" to be a constant magnitude. I am not sure what that assumption entails because of the following: In a 1/2 wave dipole the current is not uniform but sinosoidal, if the current was uniform then the same energy on the assumption that the maximum current in the center of the dipole is maintained would be dispenced by a radiator not of wavelength over two but a radiator of wavelength over 'Pi" So when you refer to constant current with respect to an inductance, is the free length of such related to a half wave length or the same over Pi.? I am trying to look at the problem thru your eyes with respect to phase change, wavelength and all that stuff to get a better understanding of your view point. Regards Art snip ", where the forward current is assumed to be a constant magnitude through the coil snip -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Jim Kelley wrote: This idea that more current is flowing into one end than flows out of the other is really not particularly illustrative of anything. It's just creating misunderstandings, and a reluctance to accept an otherwise valid argument. Cecil, You stated below that the assumption is that forward current is "assumed" to be a constant magnitude. I am not sure what that assumption entails because of the following: In a 1/2 wave dipole the current is not uniform but sinosoidal, if the current was uniform then the same energy on the assumption that the maximum current in the center of the dipole is maintained would be dispenced by a radiator not of wavelength over two but a radiator of wavelength over 'Pi" So when you refer to constant current with respect to an inductance, is the free length of such related to a half wave length or the same over Pi.? I am trying to look at the problem thru your eyes with respect to phase change, wavelength and all that stuff to get a better understanding of your view point. Regards Art Hi Art, He's talking about it from the perspective of net current as a function of position. It's not current like we would normally express it; as a function of time. It's a peculiar kind of bird. 73, Jim AC6XG |
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:54:46 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote: It's a peculiar kind of bird. Like the asian chicken-flu. |
Tdonaly wrote:
How fast does light travel in copper, Cecil? Slower than air so the current into and out of a coil cannot possibly be identical. It takes ~1 nS for light to travel one foot through air. How on earth can it possibly travel faster than that through a one foot long copper coil? You guys are worshiping a religion completely divorced from scientific fact. -- 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 Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Why would it make any difference to say the magnitude of net current in is greater than the magnitude of net current out? It's meaningless to characterize it that way in the case of a standing wave. That's *exactly* what Roy and Tom are measuring. How can it possibly be characterized any other way? -- 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! =----- |
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
In a 1/2 wave dipole the current is not uniform but sinosoidal, ... You are talking about the *net* standing wave current, Art, which is the phasor sum of the forward current and reflected current. Both the forward current and reflected current are *traveling* waves, not standing waves. There's a lot of good information on this web page: http://webphysics.davidson.edu/physl...semester2.html -- 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 Kelley wrote:
He's talking about it from the perspective of net current as a function of position. Because that's exactly what Roy and Tom are measuring. I have tried to talk to them about the currents that they are not measuring and it didn't work. -- 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:
That's *exactly* what Roy and Tom are measuring. So if Roy and Tom jump off a bridge, are you going to jump off a bridge too, Cecil? :-) 73, Jim AC6XG |
Tdonaly wrote: The only way to resolve this is to make an antenna and see if it will work the way you say Kraus, and you, say it will. No need to build one, Tom. Diamond has already built one for me. It's the model NR72B. On 2m, the coil acts as a normal loading coil. On 70cm, the coil is a phase-reversing coil with 1/4WL on the bottom and 1/2WL on the top. Kraus describes that exact antenna on page 824 in Figure 23-21(c) of _Antennas_For_All_ Applications_, 3rd edition. Richard H. can verify that. Cecil wrote, Kraus describes the antenna. Diamond builds and markets the antenna. Do you believe that Kraus is wrong AND Diamond is engaging in fraudulent marketing practices? You might get rich and famous by suing them. (Then again, they might just laugh at your ignorance.) My Comet 2x4MAX also has phase-reversing coils in it. This is the 21st century, Tom. It's past time to BBQ your sacred cow. It is well known that a 3/2WL center fed antenna, like the G5RV on 20m, undergoes some current phase reversals. That's what gives it the cloverleaf pattern on 20m. If we make a helical G5RV and use it on 20m, do you think those phase reversals will go away simply because we are now dealing with a coil? Please rethink your position. If I remember correctly, Tom Rauch tried this and couldn't get it to work as it was supposed to. When an experimenter believes something is not going to work, it usually doesn't work. Any number of reasons come to mind. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP Cecil, coils work fine as long as everything is taken into account, including the capacitance between the two radiators. Tank circuits don't. I once thought up the same scheme, myself, and felt pretty proud of myself until I found out it was ancient history. By the way, capacitors work, too. Would you like to show me how to make a half-wave capacitor? If your theory is correct, you should be able to model a capacitor as a transmission line, also. The theory of coupled oscillators of all sorts is moderately interesting, but you can't learn it by quoting Aristotle. The methods of 13th century scholasticism have their limits. You can argue as much as you want about "phase reversing coils" and such, but unless you've done some math and tried to get the results of your math to ape reality through experimentation, the probability of your understanding the subject matter is very small. Actually, Tom thought it was going to work, if I remember correctly. That was a pretty dumb cheap-shot on your part, Cecil. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Cecil wrote,
Tdonaly wrote: How fast does light travel in copper, Cecil? Slower than air so the current into and out of a coil cannot possibly be identical. It takes ~1 nS for light to travel one foot through air. How on earth can it possibly travel faster than that through a one foot long copper coil? You guys are worshiping a religion completely divorced from scientific fact. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp O.k., Cecil, let's suppose you're right. Since there's more current going into a coil than coming out, then the coil must be storing charge, somewhere. Charge is conserved, Cecil. You can't create it or destroy it. If the coil is storing charge somewhere it must be acting like a capacitor, which is famous for doing just that. Where does the coil store its charge? 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Tdonaly wrote:
If your theory is correct, you should be able to model a capacitor as a transmission line, also. Yeah. A really short transmission line. You do understand what the words 'propagation delay' mean, right? You can argue as much as you want about "phase reversing coils" and such, but unless you've done some math and tried to get the results of your math to ape reality through experimentation, the probability of your understanding the subject matter is very small. I assume you know how to use a dual trace oscilloscope. Try running a signal through a coil of wire and see if you can get it to go through without exhibiting a phase delay. 73, Jim AC6XG |
Tdonaly wrote:
SNIP O.k., Cecil, let's suppose you're right. Since there's more current going into a coil than coming out, then the coil must be storing charge, somewhere. Charge is conserved, Cecil. You can't create it or destroy it. If the coil is storing charge somewhere it must be acting like a capacitor, which is famous for doing just that. Where does the coil store its charge? 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Two possibilities exist: 1) Charge is stored in the interwinding capacitance; or, 2) EM radiation is occurring in the coil i.e. the winding length is a significant portion of a wavelength!! What's your Physics say? |
Tdonaly wrote:
Cecil, coils work fine as long as everything is taken into account, including the capacitance between the two radiators. Tank circuits don't. Tank circuits don't "work fine as long as everything is taken into account"? That's a really, really strange assertion. Would you like to show me how to make a half-wave capacitor? If your theory is correct, you should be able to model a capacitor as a transmission line, also. Please show me how to build a physical capacitor with distributed inductance and I indeed will show you how to make a half-wave capacitor. I suspect it is possible but to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever tried to maximize the inductance in a capacitor. You can argue as much as you want about "phase reversing coils" and such, but unless you've done some math and tried to get the results of your math to ape reality through experimentation, the probability of your understanding the subject matter is very small. I am amazed that you disagree with Kraus. If your math disagrees with reality, it is simply wrong and has turned into a religious belief. You are free to worship at the alter of mathematics but please don't expect the rest of us scientists to join you there. A transmission line in a distributed network can reverse the phase of the signals. A coil in a distributed network can reverse the phase of the signals. Do you really expect anyone to believe that a one wavelength long helical antenna can exist without phase reversals? If so, you have just re-written the laws of physics. The Catholic priests 500 years ago believed their religion was superior to reality. Today, you believe your sacred cow math models are superior to reality. I don't see an iota of difference between those two positions. Math models cannot be used to verify reality. It is supposed to be the opposite situation. I guess I should expect you to put me under house arrest as the next step in shutting me 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! =----- |
Tdonaly wrote:
O.k., Cecil, let's suppose you're right. Since there's more current going into a coil than coming out, then the coil must be storing charge, somewhere. Tom, Tom, Tom, we are talking about *net* current. The net current in an unterminated transmission line can be zero while 1/4WL away, it is 100 amps. Are you asserting that transmission lines don't conserve charge? Would you please put your brain in gear? -- 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! =----- |
Dave Shrader wrote:
Two possibilities exist: 1) Charge is stored in the interwinding capacitance; or, 2) EM radiation is occurring in the coil i.e. the winding length is a significant portion of a wavelength!! What's your Physics say? Don't know about Tom's physics, but mine says the net current in an unterminated transmission line can be zero at one point and 100 amps 1/4 WL away. Tom (apparently) thinks that is a violation of the conservation of charge principle. -- 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 wrote,
Tdonaly wrote: If your theory is correct, you should be able to model a capacitor as a transmission line, also. Yeah. A really short transmission line. You do understand what the words 'propagation delay' mean, right? You can argue as much as you want about "phase reversing coils" and such, but unless you've done some math and tried to get the results of your math to ape reality through experimentation, the probability of your understanding the subject matter is very small. I assume you know how to use a dual trace oscilloscope. Try running a signal through a coil of wire and see if you can get it to go through without exhibiting a phase delay. 73, Jim AC6XG You missed the point, as usual. I guess I've done it now, I've resurrected the Jim and Cecil show. It's time to bow out and let you two congratulate each other on your misunderstandings to your heart's content. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Cecil wrote,
(snip) I am amazed that you disagree with Kraus. If your math disagrees with reality, it is simply wrong and has turned into a religious belief. You are free to worship at the alter of mathematics but please don't expect the rest of us scientists to join you there. A transmission line in a distributed network can reverse the phase of the signals. A coil in a distributed network can reverse the phase of the signals. Do you really expect anyone to believe that a one wavelength long helical antenna can exist without phase reversals? If so, you have just re-written the laws of physics. The Catholic priests 500 years ago believed their religion was superior to reality. Today, you believe your sacred cow math models are superior to reality. I don't see an iota of difference between those two positions. Math models cannot be used to verify reality. It is supposed to be the opposite situation. I guess I should expect you to put me under house arrest as the next step in shutting me up. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp This is vintage Moore. I know you're never going to admit that you don't understand this stuff. That's fine. I'm going to leave the field to you and your pal, Jim, until the next time you start trying to pawn off your simple ideas as The Truth. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com