Tdonaly wrote:
That's a neat picture, Cecil. How did you make the picture of the coil?

It is modeled in EZNEC. 'VA' shows a picture.

Of course, you can do the same thing with a coil, *or a capacitor* and a
couple of identical tank circuits.

Then why have you been arguing loud and long against such a possibility?
--
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:

wrote:
the far field radiation is irrelevant to the argument over current
through a loading coil

[a ****-ant argument]

The original question was: Is there a current taper through a real-world
loading coil. The far-field was not even introduced into the argument
until the guru side realized they had lost the argument. Changing the
subject of an argument is the oldest logical diversion known to man.

Did you eat the lemons, Richard?
--
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:
So you disagree that 1 amp at 180 degrees is flowing in the opposite
direction to 1 amp at zero degrees? If not, why do you disagree that
1 amp at 170 degrees is flowing in the opposite direction of 1 amp
at 10 degrees? The direction of current flow is the cosine of the
phase angle.

wow. I thought just a minor tweek was all that was required. I was
wrong.

Like I said, Cecil. Never mind.

jk

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Seems like the model is lacking in all the details
and frankly I feel I am looking at an intentianal sham for some reason

Sorry you feel that way, Art. That is the output graphic from EZNEC.

For instance you do not show coupling to ground which is why I am suspicious
since resonance is unavoidably affected by nearby objects as well as ground

If there's something wrong, blame EZNEC. I am just reporting what
EZNEC sez.

You also have not specified a frequency of use ...

Of course I have, Art, it's in the .ez file. Since antennas are scalable,
the frequency is irrelevant to the diagram. Please download the .ez file.
--
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 Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:13:22 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
the far field radiation is irrelevant to
[renders]
the argument over current through a
loading coil
[a ****-ant argument]

The original question was: Is there a current taper through a real-world
loading coil.
a ****-ant question

From: Yuri Blanarovich )
Subject: Current in antenna loading coils controversy
Date: 2003-10-29 20:03:10 PST
"efficiency is greatly affected"
...
Date: 2003-10-29 20:07:09 PST
"Significant impact on modeling software. If the stuff is not
accomodated properly, then results (mainly efficiency) are way
off."
Date: 2003-10-30 15:36:22 PST
"the stronger the field and louder signal."

The far-field was not even introduced into the argument

All claims have been shown to be hyper-ventilation:
a ****-ant argument.

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
So you disagree that 1 amp at 180 degrees is flowing in the opposite
direction to 1 amp at zero degrees? If not, why do you disagree that
1 amp at 170 degrees is flowing in the opposite direction of 1 amp
at 10 degrees? The direction of current flow is the cosine of the
phase angle.

wow. I thought just a minor tweek was all that was required. I was
wrong.

Like I said, Cecil. Never mind.

This keeps happening over and over. Can you at least answer the following
questions? In what direction is current at 170 degrees flowing relative
to the source (assumed to be at zero degrees)? In what direction is current
at 10 degrees flowing with respect to the source. If those are not opposite
directions, would you please explain otherwise?
--
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:
a ****-ant question

Well, you are entitled to your own opinion. The argument has been
going on for months. Some people obviously don't share your opinion.
--
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:
This keeps happening over and over. Can you at least answer the following
questions? In what direction is current at 170 degrees flowing relative
to the source (assumed to be at zero degrees)? In what direction is current
at 10 degrees flowing with respect to the source.

At what instant in time, and, relative to what??!! They're really
stupid questions, Cecil.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
This keeps happening over and over. Can you at least answer the following
questions? In what direction is current at 170 degrees flowing relative
to the source (assumed to be at zero degrees)? In what direction is current
at 10 degrees flowing with respect to the source.

At what instant in time, and, relative to what??!! They're really
stupid questions, Cecil.

Relative to a snapshot of the source at zero degrees, of course. And they
are really important questions for comprehending what's happening in reality.
--
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! =-----

O.K. I have downloaded the file
Since the dipole is resonant the current magnitudes
on either side of the center must be symetrical.
If you had a half wave length of wire between the end half waves you would
have a half wave ofcurrent with a negative phase which reflects a phase
change at half wave intervals. every thing so far appears O.K.
Now you aparently changed the wire length so that half is represented by an
inductance and the remaining portion
stays in linear form to where a phase change occurs again.
Now the problem part. In another drawing reflecting a vertical the insertion
of an inductance was inserted
suddenly created an immmediate phase change even tho its wire make up only
consisted of something less than a half wave length on a predetermined basis
that any inductance initiates a phase change at both the beginning and the
end which I read as false.The phase change is predicated in a way by the
wire length that was crunched up to form an inductance.but without
capacitive coupling of any sort which is impossible.
When looking at Moxons book he shows two dipoles in linear form with a
parallel circuit at the center which can
represent a loop of a half wave dimension. He also shows the cureent flow in
the system from the left to the right
until it intersects the parallel loop circuit where it receives current that
is flowing counter clockwise within the loop.
At the end of the loop the current changes to one that symetry demands i.e
current is zero following a sinosoidal shape such that it reaches zero
current at the end as symetry requires for a resonant array...
Fron Moxons drawing the loop is simulating a mechanical pump operated by the
direction of current flow at any particular time where the input and output
current are one and the same value so that symetry required for resonance is
obtained.
Now when I come to your drawing of a vertical I become confused because the
top end is clearly zero current flow
which presumably is a requirement for resonance
but the inductance suddenly becomes dimension less
even tho it must have dimensions to reflect phase change
thus the current flow assigned to your vertical is clearly flawed.
Now Cecil I am not skilled in the art of antennas or modeling as you are but
I probably reflect the thinking
of the average ham. Thus I would not treat it personaly
if you viewed my reasoning as one that reflects a novice.
So why not correct the above reasoning in order given
so that the average novice can advance in the art
because of an enlightning rebuttal..
If we are beyond education such that we cannot be helped without duplication
of your own experiences then so be it and we must agree to disagree.
As I said earlier nothing personal but I would like the benefit of your
enlitenment so I can rebuild on a firmer foundation.
Regards
Art