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