![]() |
Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
Jim Kelley wrote:
Delays are typically measured using pulses. Please describe the pulse you intend to use on a 1/4WL long standing-wave antenna. If I thought that was true, I wouldn't have said what I did. If the delay through the loading coil in a standing- wave antenna could be measured in situ, then there would not be any argument. But maybe I am missing something. How would you propose to measure the delay through a loading coil during steady-state for a standing-wave antenna? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
Cecil Moore wrote: Please describe the pulse you intend to use on a 1/4WL long standing-wave antenna. Kind of a wispy brunette one, about 5'7". What difference would it make, Cecil? One that is short compared to the delay. If the delay through the loading coil in a standing- wave antenna could be measured in situ, then there would not be any argument. But maybe I am missing something. How would you propose to measure the delay through a loading coil during steady-state for a standing-wave antenna? When you post a question in that way I gotta wonder what you must think is going on inside an antenna. What's different about the 'situ' during steady state that causes electromagnetic fields to propagate differently than at other times? 73, ac6xg |
Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
Jim Kelley wrote:
What difference would it make, Cecil? One that is short compared to the delay. What difference would it make if the frequency of the pulse is far removed from the operating frequency? What difference would it make if the frequency is far above the self-resonant frequency? What difference would it make if the inductance is completely swamped by the capacitance? Shirley, you jest. What's different about the 'situ' during steady state that causes electromagnetic fields to propagate differently than at other times? They don't propagate differently but how does one separate the forward wave from the reflected wave on a standing-wave antenna? If you can do that, you will have solved the measurement problem. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
Cecil. W5DXP wrote:
"When 600 inches of wire is coiled into a helix, how can EM waves travel through that 600 inches of wire faster than it can travel through 600 inches in free space?" Good question. Maybe it figuratively travels from both ends of the coil toward the niddle. At one part of the cycle the wave is pushing excess electrons to one end of the coil while it supplies electron deficient atoms to the other end. Then the cycle reverses the charge situation at the ends of the coil. Or maybe the photons do blast off to leap across the length of the coil. My vision isn`t good enough to see what is going on inside of the coil`s conductor. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
Cecil, K5DXP wrote:
"I think we are talking about two different coils." Yes, that`s now obvious. I only worked with W8JI`s coil, and your numbers were for the bugcatcher coil. I showed my work, so if my method was wrong, my results are probably wrong too. Someone is likely to point out the error in my ways and I`ll learn something. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
|
Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:00:41 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: On Wed, 16 May 2007 09:37:17 -0700, Jim Kelley wrote: Why such criticism of a meager geometrical object with such useful purpose? It seems your expectations may be too high. Hi Jim, MY expectations are too high? "With such useful purpose" is overarching by half. Perception only. Utility in geometrical abstracts exists completely independently of ones appreciation of them. Hi Jim, Wouldn't it be clearer (as you are one who complains of the lack of clarity) to simply call this "useful purpose" as Zen? What has Phase Velocity got to do with anything, and what are its expectations either high or low? For the problem at hand (antennas) Kraus uses c = w/k, not dw/dk. Naturally, he was interested in the velocity with which field lines move across a point - the speed at which the wave propagates. VF = v sub p over c, not v sub g over c. The second part of your question is unintelligible to me. As is your response. Throwing equations over the transom doesn't make them explanations. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: What difference would it make, Cecil? One that is short compared to the delay. What difference would it make if the frequency of the pulse is far removed from the operating frequency? What difference would it make if the frequency is far above the self-resonant frequency? What difference would it make if the inductance is completely swamped by the capacitance? Shirley, you jest. The advantage to using pulses is that they are 'broadband' - they don't have "A" frequency. The inductance and capacitance of the system are unaffected by the small signals one impresses upon it. What's different about the 'situ' during steady state that causes electromagnetic fields to propagate differently than at other times? They don't propagate differently but how does one separate the forward wave from the reflected wave on a standing-wave antenna? If you can do that, you will have solved the measurement problem. The antenna behaves physically in exactly the same way whether or not it happens to be 'occupied' by waves, standing, sitting, or whatever during measurement. If you want to know how long it take an electromagnetic wave to traverse a conductor in any shape or configuration, you pulse it and measure how long it takes, either to get from one end to the other, or to be reflected back from the other end. There are of course dispersion effects, and by studying the change in the waveshape it is possible to deconvolve the frequency dependent components. This is a matter of routine for practicioners. 73, ac6xg |
Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
Jim Kelley wrote:
The advantage to using pulses is that they are 'broadband' - they don't have "A" frequency. The inductance and capacitance of the system are unaffected by the small signals one impresses upon it. But we are not interested in the phase delay for all those other frequencies. We are only interested in the phase delay at one particular frequency. And since we are talking about distributed networks and not lumped circuits, the inductance and capacitance of the coil does change with frequency. Whatever measurements we make need to be made at the frequency of operation. The antenna behaves physically in exactly the same way whether or not it happens to be 'occupied' by waves, standing, sitting, or whatever during measurement. If you want to know how long it take an electromagnetic wave to traverse a conductor in any shape or configuration, you pulse it and measure how long it takes, either to get from one end to the other, or to be reflected back from the other end. If the pulse is not at the frequency of operation, the results are hardly useful at all since the response of the loading coil is frequency dependent. So we are back to the original question. How can the delay through a mobile loading coil be measured at the frequency of operation in a standing-wave antenna? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
Richard Clark wrote:
Hi Jim, Wouldn't it be clearer (as you are one who complains of the lack of clarity) to simply call this "useful purpose" as Zen? Hi Richard, You don't like it much, do you. I suggest not dishing out so much of it then. I don't know about you, but I learned about the utility of 'points' in my geometry and mathematics classes. Data is, for example, often obtained by accumulating an array of them. For the problem at hand (antennas) Kraus uses c = w/k, not dw/dk. Naturally, he was interested in the velocity with which field lines move across a point - the speed at which the wave propagates. VF = v sub p over c, not v sub g over c. The second part of your question is unintelligible to me. As is your response. You probably intended that as a clever retort. Throwing equations over the transom doesn't make them explanations. Had I not 'thrown', you would likely have desired to know what I was talking about. It was as concise a presentation as I could conjure in 30 seconds. Equations do offer the advantage of illustrating the point without leaving much need for semantic interpretation. 73, ac6xg |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com