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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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