Richard Clark wrote:
Abandon your Xerox ethic and actually read your reference. This
advice would work for other citations you copy off too.

Here's what it says:
"Case 3 uses a model similar to the other two cases, except the
three-segment load wire is replaced by a wire coil ("distributed load")
consisting of sixteen turns of 12 AWG wire, spaced 0.5 inch between
adjacent turns, for a total height (length) of eight inches. The coil is
centered on the length of the monopole and the monopole is brought to
resonance by using the resonating function of MultiNEC to adjust the
radius of the coil. Eight, single segment wires arranged in octagonal
form approximate each turn of the circular coil, for a total of 128
single-segment wires."

Exactly what did I miss?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sun, 13 May 2007 18:17:29 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Tedious Xerography snipped as being obviously unread by Xerographer.

Exactly what did I miss?

If you have to be taken by the hand to have it pointed out to you, you
shouldn't be doing these kind of things without adult supervision.

A
I have taken Wes's helical coil from:
http://www.k6mhe.com/n7ws/Loaded%20antennas.htm
B
and modeled it with EZNEC. ...
That coil512.EZ file can be downloaded from:

is distinctly false.

A B
Does a symbolic reply nail it down?

Cecil doesnt seem to worry about this error, but just saying it
doesn't actually mean anything without differences. What is different
about his claim and Wests'?

On May 13, 3:52 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 18:17:29 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Tedious Xerography snipped as being obviously unread by Xerographer.

Exactly what did I miss?

If you have to be taken by the hand to have it pointed out to you, you
shouldn't be doing these kind of things without adult supervision.

A

I have taken Wes's helical coil from:
http://www.k6mhe.com/n7ws/Loaded%20antennas.htm
B
and modeled it with EZNEC. ...
That coil512.EZ file can be downloaded from:

is distinctly false.

A B
Does a symbolic reply nail it down?

wrote:
Cecil doesnt seem to worry about this error, but just saying it
doesn't actually mean anything without differences.

Don, I worry about any error but I don't know
what the error is and Richard C. won't tell me.
But that's just his style. Upon closer reading,
Wes's coil is closer to 7 inch diameter but
that doesn't make much difference.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

dos'nt make much difference? then none of this has any point then?

On May 15, 10:32 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil doesnt seem to worry about this error, but just saying it
doesn't actually mean anything without differences.

Don, I worry about any error but I don't know
what the error is and Richard C. won't tell me.
But that's just his style. Upon closer reading,
Wes's coil is closer to 7 inch diameter but
that doesn't make much difference.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:

dos'nt make much difference? then none of this has any point then?


You've begun to get it.

tom
K0TAR

On May 15, 10:32 am, Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

Cecil doesnt seem to worry about this error, but just saying it
doesn't actually mean anything without differences.

Don, I worry about any error but I don't know
what the error is and Richard C. won't tell me.
But that's just his style. Upon closer reading,
Wes's coil is closer to 7 inch diameter but
that doesn't make much difference.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 15 May 2007 10:27:19 -0700, wrote:

Cecil doesnt seem to worry about this error, but just saying it
doesn't actually mean anything without differences. What is different
about his claim and Wests'?

Hi Herbert,

Yeah, I've noticed he's sloughed off your tough questions. The
differences are in the claim of having modeled Wes' helix, he did not,
it is a helix of Cecil's own invention. This is the problem of
leverage sources' credibility: use their name and discard their work
where it conflicts with your own. The differences (as I understand
your desire for actual data content) consist in the wrong pitch and
the wrong diameter. Aside from that, they are identical.

Now, how far can Cecil take a proof using this identity? All the way
within ±CSE (Cecil Standard Error, which as a numeric is 67%). The
world of theory is wide open when you cut yourself that much slack.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I still dont see differences
just saying it doesmn't make it so. Does it?

ok different coil size, but no one seems to be able to say what this
abour (sure delay, all coils have delay and none nows how much except
that it isnt much different from another coil).

coke = pepsi woohoo!

On May 15, 11:40 am, Richard Clark wrote:
On 15 May 2007 10:27:19 -0700, wrote:

Cecil doesnt seem to worry about this error, but just saying it
doesn't actually mean anything without differences. What is different
about his claim and Wests'?

Hi Herbert,

Yeah, I've noticed he's sloughed off your tough questions. The
differences are in the claim of having modeled Wes' helix, he did not,
it is a helix of Cecil's own invention. This is the problem of
leverage sources' credibility: use their name and discard their work
where it conflicts with your own. The differences (as I understand
your desire for actual data content) consist in the wrong pitch and
the wrong diameter. Aside from that, they are identical.

Now, how far can Cecil take a proof using this identity? All the way
within ±CSE (Cecil Standard Error, which as a numeric is 67%). The
world of theory is wide open when you cut yourself that much slack.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

herbert.don wrote:
"coke = pepsi woohoo!"

A loading coil is important to tune out the capacitive reactance of a
too-short whip so that maximum current can be put into the antenna to
get the most RF radiation out.

A loading coil usually has some loss that takes the form of heat
converted from some of the energy pumped into it.

One of the debates here may have been triggered by reference to John
Devoldere, ON4UN`s treatment of "short verticals" in "Low-Band DXing".
He discussed several ways to resonate the too-short vertical antenna.
His Fig. 9-22 on page 9-15 of his 1994 edition became notorious.

ON4UN occasionly characterizes coils as having "degrees" in the space
occupied in the antenna. No one argues that a 1/4-wave vertical does not
have 90 degrees, or that at a given frequency, you could not properly
say a certain linear measure was not equal to a degree. So, if you are
trying to resonate the antenna as a 1/4-wavelength, why not assign the
missing length of antenna, in degrees, to the coil or coils which
replace the missing length of antenna?

The number of turns required of the coil or coils depends on where it or
they are placed in the antenna. A certain number of turns are not
predetermined to represent so many degrees independent of placement.

More than just resonating the antenna, placement of the coil or coils
affects current distribution which affects radiation and loss. Several
problems need simultaneous solution to get the best performance.

I have mostly thought of the velocity of light as being a universal
speed limit. I read long ago that energy is transferred by passing an
impetus along a group of extremely short gap distances through a file of
charges. The individual charges are migrating slowly, if at all, and
going nowhere fast. Speeds greater than the speed of light seemed
inconceivable to me. Researching the loading coil brought me to Kraus
and his helical antenna. On page 253 of the 3rd edition of "Antennas" is
Figure 8-32. For certain coils it shows velocities exceeding the speed
of light. I guess I`m not too old to learn after all.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Tue, 15 May 2007 22:02:56 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

On page 253 of the 3rd edition of "Antennas" is
Figure 8-32. For certain coils it shows velocities exceeding the speed
of light.

Hi Richard,

The velocities of what?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC