Cecil wrote,

Tdonaly wrote:
It won't work, Cecil. I quit arguing when you quit understanding.

And you would rather leave me ignorant than contribute anything
to my understanding. I certainly understand that. I have an
engineering degree and my IQ, according to MENSA, is in the
upper 1/2 of one percent. That you cannot post anything that
I can understand seems to be your problem, not mine. But don't
feel alone. My Southern Baptist Preacher has the identical
problem. His religion interferes with my understanding. Your
math model religion interferes with my understanding in exactly
the same way. Hint: If your math model doesn't predict reality,
it ain't worth much. The original assertion was that the current
into a coil is identical to the current out of a coil. Never mind
that the current has to travel faster than the speed of light to
make that true. Every measurement has proven that there is a
current taper through the coil. Yet, you maintain the original
assertion. There's something seriously wrong with a mind that
maintains concepts that have been proven wrong by measurements.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Boy, you sure have accused me of a lot of things I never knew I
did. I don't maintain any of that stuff. I don't even care. Furthermore,
I don't have any better idea than you do what the current distribution in
any individual coil is. I suppose it depends on its environment and its
physical description, but beyond that it means nothing to me. What I
was railing at you about was something entirely different: I simply don't
believe your theories explain what you say they do, and unless you
can give better evidence than you have, I don't see why anyone else
should believe them either. Period. That's it. The end. Kaput. Finis.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
(P.S. You euchred me into responding this time but it won't happen again.)

Tdonaly wrote:
I simply don't
believe your theories explain what you say they do, and unless you
can give better evidence than you have, I don't see why anyone else
should believe them either.

I don't recall stating any theories except quotes from Kraus's book.
Would you be so kind as to re-state one of them for me so we can discuss
it intelligently? I don't recall you offering anything except personal
opinions and ad hominem attacks.

I have stated that there is a current taper in every real world mobile
loading coil and measurements by the very people who disagreed proved
that I was right.
--
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:
"---I don`t have any better idea than you do what the current
distribution in any individual coil is. I suppose it depends on its
environment and its physical description."

Kraus` story of his discovery of the axial mode helical antenna starts
on page 222 of "Antennas". Kraus was a new Ohio State University faculty
member in 1946 when a famous scientist told him a helix wouldn`t work as
an an antenna as he had already tried it with no success.

The expert`s statement challenged Kraus to try for himself, and the rest
is history.

The first coil he wound was one wavelength in circumference and had 7
turns.. Kraus was pleased with the sharp end-fire beam of
circularly-polarized energy from the open end of the coil. Kraus found
the helical beam antenna had a resistive input and a wide frequency
bandwidth.

At low frequencies, outgoing and reflected waves along the helix were
almost equal in magnitude but as frequency increased, current
distribution changed dramatically in the helix.

At a circumference of one wavelength, there were 3 regions. Near the
antenna input, current decayed exponentially. Near the open end of the
helix, there was a standing wave for a short distance. In the middle
region, there was a relatively uniform current (small VSWR) which
extended over most of the helix. Kraus gives the plots of the currents
along the helix in Figure 8 on page 224.

Certainly, Tdonaly is correct. Different coils have different current
distributions, but Kraus` contribution interests me.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI