Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:34:32 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

Adding photons into the discussion of HF radiation adds absolutely
nothing but confusion.

Hi Gene,

I seriously doubt that, the confusion is already super-saturated.
Perhaps you meant it might add more precipitate.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
On May 10, 11:25 am, Chuck wrote:
Thank you for nicely elucidating the
distinctions in emphasis between
"science" and engineering, Keith.

I believe a perfect (just to keep this
at an abstract level) SA reveals the
underlying reality of the modulated AM
carrier.

Let me offer two examples.

I turn on my RF signal generator. I turn up the RF Level,
then I turn it down, then up, then down, ....
I can see this varying RF level on my oscilloscope (slow
sweep), and even on my RF voltmeter.
I know I am varying the level of the RF.
But I also know that I could produce exactly the same
output by adding 3 signals of slightly different frequency
together. I am not at all comfortable with saying the latter
is 'real' while the former isn't. I know I was varying the RF
Level.

Or,
I turn on my RF signal generator with some level for 1
minute. I turn it off for a week. I turn it on for one minute.
I turn it off. I compute the Fourier transform. I can create
exactly the same signal by adding all the Fourier terms,
extending forward and backwards in time, forever.
But is this more real than: I turn it on, then off, then
on, then off?

Using these examples, I can find no reason why the
multiple signal explanation is more real than the
varying amplitude explanation. And I suggest, that for
these two cases, the varying amplitude explanation
is probably more useful.

...Keith


Well, if I understand, and I often
don't, you are saying that the spectrum
produced by method 1 is
indistinguishable from the spectrum
produced by method 2 and THEREFORE,
neither spectrum alone can be considered
true reality.

I grant immediately that it doesn't
matter how you produce the spectrum.

What is at issue, if I am not mistaken,
is whether the reality is that which is
observed on the scope, vs. that which is
observed on the SA (in the case of an
amplitude modulated carrier, of course).

Abstracting, there are three (by
assumption) coherent sinusoids in the AM
modulation case. Each can be directly
measured and characterized.

A composite of these sinusoids can be
displayed on a scope. Any number of
mathematical or electronic operations
can be performed on the sinusoids, and
the results displayed on a scope.

Usefulness, like convenience, may share
a bed with veracity, but its intentions
should be suspect.

I guess I can continue to assert that
mathematical equivalence between
frequency and time domains is not
evidence to me of an underlying duality
in reality, and you can continue to
assert that to you, it is. And I guess
we could still be friends. ;-)

73,

Chuck





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
There seems to be a pretty fundamental disconnect here. Waves don't
create radiation; photons don't create radiation; accelerating charges
do create radiation.

Who cares? Photons can form standing waves in free space.
Where are your accelerating charges in a vacuum? Everything
that happens to EM waves in a wire, or a waveguide, also
happen to EM waves in free space.

You want to talk about the ocean and ignore the Tsunami.

What difference does it make if the wave on the antenna and the radiated
wave in space can be defined as photons?

Answer: None whatsoever, ...

That's your agenda and you're sticking to it. Like
I said, some people apparently enjoy hoodwinking the
uninitiated. What else do you have to gain by ignoring
the photonic nature of EM waves?

Accelerating charges do not morph into EM waves.
Accelerating charges release photons that are the
wave. Ignoring the photonic nature of EM waves is
the cause of the present mass confusion about
standing waves. Why on earth would you want that
mass confusion to continue?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

2*Pi*radius


Sorry, I'm a little handicapped since I have never seen
"Figure 7-19" and it has been removed from the web site.

I have the file. It's 7.5 megabytes. Do you have a broadband connection?

73 jk

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On 9 May 2007 23:29:28 -0700, Jim Kelley wrote:

Ok. But what I was asking is what does any of that have to do with a
bolt?


The travel of one turn of a point at the radius (helical distance) in
relation to the travel of the same point in the depth (the linear
displacement after 360 degrees of the turn) is related to pitch. A
simple mechanical relationship. This is the bolt.

Thanks so much, Richard. I'm going to keep this on file somewhere in
case I ever forget what a bolt is. :-)

73, ac6xg

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Sorry, I'm a little handicapped since I have never seen
"Figure 7-19" and it has been removed from the web site.

I have the file. It's 7.5 megabytes. Do you have a broadband connection?

Yes, I have DSL but I also have the 3rd edition of "Antennas".
I think "Figure 8-32: Relative phase velocity p for different
pitch angles as a function of the helix circumference, C(lamda),
for the condition of in-phase fields in the axial direction",
is probably the same graph as Figure 7-19 in the 1st edition.
I'm assuming that the "relative phase velocity" is the same
thing as the VF of the coil.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Chuck wrote:

Keith Dysart wrote:
Using these examples, I can find no reason why the
multiple signal explanation is more real than the
varying amplitude explanation. And I suggest, that for
these two cases, the varying amplitude explanation
is probably more useful.

...Keith


Well, if I understand, and I often don't, you are saying that the
spectrum produced by method 1 is indistinguishable from the spectrum
produced by method 2 and THEREFORE, neither spectrum alone can be
considered true reality.

What he said is neither case is less real than the other. It's simply
two different ways of describing the same thing. Have a look at a
table of trigonometric identities. It is a list of different ways of
saying the same thing, mathematically. Each is real in one way or
another, but not necessarily in the same way.

I guess I can continue to assert that mathematical equivalence between
frequency and time domains is not evidence to me of an underlying
duality in reality, and you can continue to assert that to you, it is.

I guess that would depend on what underlying duality you are inferring
from the mathematical equivalence. Not that it necessarily applies
here, but one of the problems we frequently face here on the newsgroup
is a direct result of incorrect inference.

And I guess we could still be friends. ;-)

One of the great contributors to the ham radio newsgroups used to
remind us that "a gentleman is a man who can disagree without being
disagreeable". The challenge then is to remain agreeable amidst a
barrage of disagreeable comments.

73, Jim AC6XG

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

do you now how to explain this so normal people can understand?
On May 6, 6:27 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
If a Texas Bugcatcher Coil could be turned into a
traveling wave device instead of a standing wave
device, the inherent phase shift through the coil
would become obvious. I used the Helix option in
EZNEC to generate a reasonably close model of a
75m Texas Bugcatcher coil and loaded it with a
resistance equal to the coil's characteristic impedance
which essentially eliminated the reflected current,
leaving the forward current intact and visible. All
of the data points on the following web page came from
EZNEC. All of the files are available for downloading.
Please take a look at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/current2.htm
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"I`m assuming that the "relative phase velocity" is the same thing as
the VF of the coil."

Back a couple of pages on 251, Kraus defines v/c as equal to "relative
phase velocity of the wave propagating along the helical conductor, v
being the phase velocity along the helical conductor and c being the
velocity of light in free space."

Repetition of "along the helical conductor" implies to me, thal like
Terman, Kraus says the signal follows the actual wire, not sprinting
across the coil as if it were a straight rod.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
There seems to be a pretty fundamental disconnect here. Waves don't
create radiation; photons don't create radiation; accelerating charges
do create radiation.

Who cares? Photons can form standing waves in free space.
Where are your accelerating charges in a vacuum? Everything
that happens to EM waves in a wire, or a waveguide, also
happen to EM waves in free space.

You want to talk about the ocean and ignore the Tsunami.

What difference does it make if the wave on the antenna and the
radiated wave in space can be defined as photons?

Answer: None whatsoever, ...

That's your agenda and you're sticking to it. Like
I said, some people apparently enjoy hoodwinking the
uninitiated. What else do you have to gain by ignoring
the photonic nature of EM waves?

Accelerating charges do not morph into EM waves.
Accelerating charges release photons that are the
wave. Ignoring the photonic nature of EM waves is
the cause of the present mass confusion about
standing waves. Why on earth would you want that
mass confusion to continue?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


Cecil,

So sorry. I thought that your 75m Bugcatcher Coil was a real, metallic
object. If it is really nothing but free space, then I will agree with
your assertions. The waves on your free space coil therefore have no
connection to charges on a wire.

I also forgot that all standing waves are identical, whether in free
space or on a wire.

I particularly love the wording you used, "Accelerating charges do not
morph into EM waves. Accelerating charges release photons that are the
wave."

Did you ever hear of wave-particle duality? Did you ever read a serious
treatment of radiation from antennas. Did you find lots of references to
photon release, say, in Kraus or Balanis?

Reversing the question you posed above, what do you gain by including
the photonic nature of EM waves?

I will try harder to follow the change of topic in the future.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
Repetition of "along the helical conductor" implies to me, thal like
Terman, Kraus says the signal follows the actual wire, not sprinting
across the coil as if it were a straight rod.

Yes, I believe you are right about that.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
I also forgot that all standing waves are identical, whether in free
space or on a wire.

The same laws of physics apply to both. There are not, as you are
trying to imply, a separate set of laws for EM waves on a wire
and EM waves in free space.

Reversing the question you posed above, what do you gain by including
the photonic nature of EM waves?

It keeps some people from sweeping the photonic nature of EM waves
under the old standing wave rug. I won't mention any names.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

On 10 May, 13:38, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard,
Some time ago I stated that a yagi antenna operated under a
mathematical binomial function. This was termed as junk science in
this group which raises the question again as where does the energy
that is not reradiated go ?

" A perfectly matched antenna only reradiates 50 % of the energy that
it receives"

This also suggests that an array without parasitics required for
reradiation is a lot more efficient than an antenna with parasitics.
Seems like this group is going around in circles unless this 50% finds
a way to radiate in some alternative way !
Is the 'perfectly matched' statement of any importance that demands
it's inclusion with respect to re-radiation efficiency of an antenna?
Regards
Art

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Richard,

That is a well-known factoid. Do you think it differs from something I
said? You note that current is involved in the reradiation.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Richard Harrison wrote:

Repetition of "along the helical conductor" implies to me, thal like
Terman, Kraus says the signal follows the actual wire, not sprinting
across the coil as if it were a straight rod.

It seems to me there is more than just one way to use a wire to convey
a signal. In fact it can be difficult to prevent a wire from using
more than just one, especially when there are other wires nearby.

73, Jim AC6XG

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

That is a well-known factoid. Do you think it differs from something I
said? You note that current is involved in the reradiation.

Hint: If waves cause currents that in turn, cause
re-radiation, then Richard has proved your, "waves
don't cause radiation", assertion to be false.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
It seems to me there is more than just one way to use a wire to convey a
signal. In fact it can be difficult to prevent a wire from using more
than just one, especially when there are other wires nearby.

Yep, I'm afraid that Kraus was wrong to a certain degree.
Of course, he didn't have NEC in 1950. If we double Kraus'
calculated relative phase velocity for loading coils, we
will be closer to the results predicted by EZNEC.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I also forgot that all standing waves are identical, whether in free
space or on a wire.

The same laws of physics apply to both. There are not, as you are
trying to imply, a separate set of laws for EM waves on a wire
and EM waves in free space.

Reversing the question you posed above, what do you gain by including
the photonic nature of EM waves?

It keeps some people from sweeping the photonic nature of EM waves
under the old standing wave rug. I won't mention any names.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

What rug? What are you talking about? How does the (unnecessary) use of
photons change anything?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
"Waves don`t cause radiation."

Waves induce current into an antenna. Any mismatched antenna reradiates
most of the energy induced into it. A perfectly matched antnna only
reradiates 50% of the energy it receives.

That is a well-known factoid. Do you think it differs from something I
said? You note that current is involved in the reradiation.

Hint: If waves cause currents that in turn, cause
re-radiation, then Richard has proved your, "waves
don't cause radiation", assertion to be false.

Cecil,

Back to playing the moron role? If you no longer want to discuss
anything in technical terms, then I will go away again for a while.

Is there a lot of current in your free space world?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
What rug? What are you talking about?

Oh yeah, when all else fails, feign ignorance.
Old diversion, doesn't work.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Hint: If waves cause currents that in turn, cause
re-radiation, then Richard has proved your, "waves
don't cause radiation", assertion to be false.

Back to playing the moron role?

Nope, just back to quoting the classical rules of logic.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Back to playing the moron role?

I forgot to recommend, "Logic, an Introduction", by Ruby.

Is there a lot of current in your free space world?

No, and that is exactly the point. How do your rules-
of-thumb current short-cuts work when there is no
current? Hint: Maybe Maxwell's equations?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Yep, I'm afraid that Kraus was wrong to a certain degree.

Ordinarily I'd be inclined to call it the other way to be honest,
Cecil. What equations are you using for both cases? Perhaps you
wouldn't mind showing your work.

73, Jim AC6XG

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Ordinarily I'd be inclined to call it the other way to be honest,
Cecil. What equations are you using for both cases? Perhaps you
wouldn't mind showing your work.

I have explained it multiple times before, Jim, over the
past few years. Please forgive me for getting tired of
explaining the basics of physics to people with less than
average IQs. Maybe I will be in a better mood tomorrow.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

On 10 May 2007 14:13:15 -0700, art wrote:

where does the energy
that is not reradiated go ?

Hi Art,

Into the load.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:55:47 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:



Richard Clark wrote:
On 9 May 2007 23:29:28 -0700, Jim Kelley wrote:

Ok. But what I was asking is what does any of that have to do with a
bolt?


The travel of one turn of a point at the radius (helical distance) in
relation to the travel of the same point in the depth (the linear
displacement after 360 degrees of the turn) is related to pitch. A
simple mechanical relationship. This is the bolt.

Thanks so much, Richard. I'm going to keep this on file somewhere in
case I ever forget what a bolt is. :-)

Hi Jim,

So it's the only thing in this thread that makes sense....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

On 10 May 2007 12:32:53 -0700, wrote:

do you now how to explain this so normal people can understand?

Ah! The triumph of hope over experience.

Sorry Herbert,

Your questions are just too hard for this crew. Stick with asking
about squiggly lines and they will flock to answer.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Perhaps you wouldn't mind showing your work.

I have added some new material to my web page
concerning this subject.

http://www.w5dxp.com/current2.htm
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

On May 11, 6:33 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Perhaps you wouldn't mind showing your work.

I have added some new material to my web page
concerning this subject.

http://www.w5dxp.com/current2.htm
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

You'll forgive me if I'm not in a mood to be generous. You might
consider adding some ordinates to your phase plots. Also, some credit
to Roy for making all of the calculations for you might be appropriate
as well. (You might ask him how he does it.) We still haven't seen
any of your work. By work I mean calculations, not typing i.e.
assumptions, deductions, inferences, and proclamations. Assuming
there are actual values, it would be good to know, for example, what
calculations were made in order to arrive at the phase angles in the
plots. The only equations you provide are for instantaneous amplitude
as a function of phase angle for a standing wave. Obviously that
isn't suffiencient for obtaining the data in your plots. It's very
poorly done. D+

ac6xg

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
You'll forgive me if I'm not in a mood to be generous. You might
consider adding some ordinates to your phase plots.

Here's the definition of "ordinate":
"The y-coordinate on an (x,y) graph"

I'm not sure what you are asking for. The graphs were
generated by Excel. What exactly are you saying? Do
you want me to add the dots for the data points?

Also, some credit
to Roy for making all of the calculations for you might be appropriate
as well. (You might ask him how he does it.)

How he interfaces to NEC? I'm not sure what you are asking
for. EZNEC is a great piece of software but the calculating
engine is NEC. I doubt that even Roy knows the NEC equations.

We still haven't seen
any of your work. By work I mean calculations, not typing i.e.
assumptions, deductions, inferences, and proclamations. Assuming
there are actual values, it would be good to know, for example, what
calculations were made in order to arrive at the phase angles in the
plots.

I don't know what "work" you are asking for. All I did
was run EZNEC simulations and report the results.

The phase angles are calculated and reported by the NEC
calculating engine. I don't know what equations they use,
but probably the method of moments equations. I believe
Balanis has a chapter on MOM equations.

The only equations you provide are for instantaneous amplitude
as a function of phase angle for a standing wave. Obviously that
isn't suffiencient for obtaining the data in your plots. It's very
poorly done. D+

All the data is directly from EZNEC, Jim. Download coil505.EZ
and run it yourself. It is NEC that is doing the calculations.
The data reported by EZNEC was entered into coil505.xls and
Excel produced the graphs. Your objections seem really
strange and petty.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

You'll forgive me if I'm not in a mood to be generous. You might
consider adding some ordinates to your phase plots.


Here's the definition of "ordinate":
"The y-coordinate on an (x,y) graph"
I'm not sure what you are asking for. The graphs were
generated by Excel. What exactly are you saying? Do
you want me to add the dots for the data points?

Let me apologize in advance to the group for being forced,
reluctantly, into the pedantic exercise which follows.

Dear Cecil -
As of this moment there are no numbers on your y-axes to indicate how
many degrees your plots represent. You will need to tell Excel that
you want to have numbers there - and not just any numbers. You want
numbers that represent the value of the y coordinants for points on
your plotted curve. You must program your Excel spreadsheet to do
this because it is no more omniscient than the people who would view
your webpage.

I'm not sure what you are asking
for. EZNEC is a great piece of software but the calculating
engine is NEC. I doubt that even Roy knows the NEC equations.

Well, it's become apparent that you don't know them. Even still, you
claim be wiser than Kraus on this subject. Certainly bold, if not
altogether ludicrous. And all this is for no reason other than the
fact that you can run a program that you didn't write (the author of
which you relentlessly berate) to perform calculations that you can't
explain.

ac6xg

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"I believe Balanis has a chapter on MOM equations."

So does Kraus. See page 461 in the 3rd edition of "Antennas".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
...
Dear Cecil -
As of this moment there are no numbers on your y-axes to indicate how
many degrees your plots represent. You will need to tell Excel that
you want to have numbers there - and not just any numbers. You want
numbers that represent the value of the y coordinants for points on
your plotted curve. You must program your Excel spreadsheet to do
this because it is no more omniscient than the people who would view
your webpage.
...

Well, you damn idiot, at least you no longer dispute it, you just
dispute how much you have been in error. My gawd, we are actually
making progress! 8-)

JS

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

You'll forgive me if I'm not in a mood to be generous. You might
consider adding some ordinates to your phase plots. Also, some credit
to Roy for making all of the calculations for you might be appropriate
as well. (You might ask him how he does it.) We still haven't seen
any of your work. By work I mean calculations, not typing i.e.
assumptions, deductions, inferences, and proclamations. Assuming
there are actual values, it would be good to know, for example, what
calculations were made in order to arrive at the phase angles in the
plots. The only equations you provide are for instantaneous amplitude
as a function of phase angle for a standing wave. Obviously that
isn't suffiencient for obtaining the data in your plots. It's very
poorly done. D+

EZNEC uses NEC-2 for calculations and produces results essentially
identical to those from NEC-2. The method is well documented in the
NEC-2 manual, available on the web. Like NEC-2, EZNEC reports the
magnitude and phase of current at each segment of the model. It
calculates these from fundamental electromagnetic principles. No attempt
is made by NEC-2 or EZNEC to consider the antenna as a transmission line
or calculate any supposed traveling waves. Decomposition of the
verifiable NEC/EZNEC results into traveling waves or anything else is
strictly Cecil's doing, and any conclusions he reaches from it are also
his only.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"I believe Balanis has a chapter on MOM equations."

So does Kraus. See page 461 in the 3rd edition of "Antennas".

I don't have the third edition, but the explanation of MOM first
appeared in the second edition which I do have. It's a very clear and
concise explanation of the method. I highly recommend it for anyone
wanting a basic understanding of how NEC and MININEC based modeling
programs work but not needing the very detailed mathematical treatment
of the NEC or MININEC manual.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
As of this moment there are no numbers on your y-axes to indicate how
many degrees your plots represent.

This is simply a false statement, Jim. I see the numbers on my
y-axes when I click on coil505.xls and open it with Excel. I
see the numbers on my web page using Firefox and Explorer. But
whatever problem you are having, I'm willing to help you solve
it. How have you managed to make the y-axis numbers disappear
so you can give me a hard time about it?

Well, it's become apparent that you don't know them. Even still, you
claim be wiser than Kraus on this subject.

Well, Kraus has a problem that I don't yet have - he cannot
learn anything new. Dr. Corum's calculated VF's for coils
seem to be more accurate than Kraus's based on my EZNEC
simulations. Where Kraus gets 0.006 for the VF of a 75m
Texas Bugcatcher coil, Corum gets something closer to
the 0.016 reported by EZNEC.

P.S. I'm deliberately ignoring the ad hominem attacks in
your posting. Why can't you just state the technical
facts without waxing so extremely nasty?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Phase Shift through a 75m Texas Bugcatcher Coil
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Decomposition of the
verifiable NEC/EZNEC results into traveling waves or anything else is
strictly Cecil's doing, and any conclusions he reaches from it are also
his only.

Typical guru response. EZNEC validly reports the standing
wave current in standing wave antennas and traveling wave
current in traveling wave antennas. It also validly reports
the traveling wave current in loading coils when they are
loaded with their Z0 impedance in order to eliminate
reflected current. I have been telling Roy for years that
his and w8ji's standing-wave current measurements were bogus
so he cannot possibly plead ignorance. Now EZNEC agrees with
me. Poetic justice?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com