Richard Clark wrote:
So, what gets responded to, the efficiency or Cecil's goofball claims?

Install a one ohm resistor at a current loop. Observe the voltage across
it as a sine wave. Are you saying that the voltage across that one ohm
resistor is not proportional to the current in magnitude with the same
phase? The current is positive for 1/2 cycle and negative for 1/2 cycle.
The sign denotes the direction of current travel in the wire. Have you
used the DC model on AC circuits for so long that you have forgotten
that AC current reverses direction every 1/2 cycle?
--
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! =-----

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:18:26 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
So, what gets responded to, the efficiency or Cecil's goofball claims?

Classic example:
Install a one ohm resistor at a current loop.

On 07 Feb 2004 02:59:54 GMT, (Tdonaly) wrote:

[snip]
|
| This is an order of magnitude error. In the thirteenth century, the
|scholastics would tell their pupils that, since the earth is a ball,
|if you build two buildings side by side and use a plumb line to build
|each one, the buildings will be farther apart at the top than at the bottom.
|Also, if you have a swimming pool with a perfectly flat bottom, the
|center will be deeper than the sides because it's closer to the center
|of the earth.

When the Central Arizona Project canal was built they drilled a few
tunnels through mountains. They actually bored the holes with a
slight arch to follow the curvature of the Earth.

On the other hand near Apache Junction, AZ, they project the
subsidence that would occur during the 50 year engineered lifetime and
built the canal with higher banks so that when it sinks the correct
volume of water will still flow. If there is any in 50 years.


Sometimes the nits do count, but not in mobile antennas [g].

On 07 Feb 2004 03:46:51 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

[snip]
|
|I used the knowledge to design more efficient mobile antenna for 160.


So now it's 0.51% efficient instead of only 0.49% right? [g]

Cecil Moore wrote in message

I do think it's quite normal to have a slight taper, ....

Then you disagree with the guys who say it has no taper. Guess what,
Mark? That puts you on my and Yuri's side of the argument.

Maybe so, but I place much less importance on this than he does. To
me, it means very little, if anything. It surely will not effect how I
will design mobile antennas. After all, as Wes pointed out on his web
page, the change in radiation resistance is what really improves the
efficiency of a short loaded antenna. Not the current distribution in
itself. The improved current distibution is just a method used to
change the radiation resistance. Taper or no taper, in the usually
short 1 ft or so space a coil would occupy, "1/8 the length of a 8 ft
whip" the difference either way is not worth worrying about. And the
worrysome taper is only in the upper section of the coil, so really
it's less than 1/8 of the total antenna length. Most of the plots I
see are more bow shaped than a gradual taper due to the peak in
current. I'm glad Wes commented on the current peak...This was
something I had seen previously in modeling the antennas/coils a few
weeks ago, and had wondered about..
If we could do away with the high ground losses, we wouldn't need to
elevate the coils, or use hats. That's why often a base load 10-11m
vertical on a large car roof is about as good as a center load. Less
ground loss due to the better psuedo ground plane under the antenna.
MK

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:18:26 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
So, what gets responded to, the efficiency or Cecil's goofball claims?

Classic example:

Install a one ohm resistor at a current loop.

In many circuits, a one ohm resistor is a negligible amount of resistance
and allows one to view the current waveform on an o'scope. If you like,
use a toroidal pickup coil to view the current waveform. The current
waveform will look the same either way.
--
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! =-----

Mark Keith wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote in message
Then you disagree with the guys who say it has no taper. Guess what,
Mark? That puts you on my and Yuri's side of the argument.

Maybe so, but I place much less importance on this than he does.

You may also place less importance on strawberry ice cream than
he does.

To me, it means very little, if anything.

Yuri was accused of "Repeating misleading information". Here is
a typical response to one of Yuri's postings:

"You like to call names, insult people, and argue rather than take
the time to learn basic electronics. ... If you look at HOW an inductor
works, the current flowing in one terminal ALWAYS equals the current
flowing out the other terminal."

Note the word "ALWAYS". The ad hominem attacks upon Yuri is probably
one reason he considers the subject to be important.

Someone probably rejected relativity and said, "How much effect does
the orbit of Mercury have on the people of earth?"
--
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! =-----

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 09:46:57 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:18:26 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
So, what gets responded to, the efficiency or Cecil's goofball claims?

Classic example:

Install a one ohm resistor at a current loop.
Another Classic goofball example:
In many circuits

On 7 Feb 2004 01:23:13 -0800, (Mark Keith) wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote in message

I do think it's quite normal to have a slight taper, ....

Then you disagree with the guys who say it has no taper. Guess what,
Mark? That puts you on my and Yuri's side of the argument.

Maybe so, but I place much less importance on this than he does. To
me, it means very little, if anything. It surely will not effect how I
will design mobile antennas. After all, as Wes pointed out on his web
page, the change in radiation resistance is what really improves the
efficiency of a short loaded antenna. Not the current distribution in
itself. The improved current distibution is just a method used to
change the radiation resistance. Taper or no taper, in the usually
short 1 ft or so space a coil would occupy, "1/8 the length of a 8 ft
whip" the difference either way is not worth worrying about. And the
worrysome taper is only in the upper section of the coil, so really
it's less than 1/8 of the total antenna length. Most of the plots I
see are more bow shaped than a gradual taper due to the peak in
current. I'm glad Wes commented on the current peak...This was
something I had seen previously in modeling the antennas/coils a few
weeks ago, and had wondered about..
If we could do away with the high ground losses, we wouldn't need to
elevate the coils, or use hats. That's why often a base load 10-11m
vertical on a large car roof is about as good as a center load. Less
ground loss due to the better psuedo ground plane under the antenna.
MK

You show that nothing has changed in three months:

Hi Mark,

I offered an EZNEC analysis that supported (circumspectly) Yuri's
position, but he blew it off chasing rainbows. Using the protocol
(already published by Yuri) for emulating a solenoid (and not just the
contentious one point load), that solenoid is found residing on
segments 50 to 59 (spanning 10 inches):
1 W2E1 1 0.00
2 .95623 0.00
3 .9205 0.00
4 .88976 0.00
5 .86122 0.00
6 .83415 0.00
7 .80815 0.00
8 .78296 0.00
9 .75843 0.00
10 .73443 0.00
11 .71088 0.00
12 .68771 0.00
13 .66486 -0.01
14 .64229 -0.01
15 .61997 -0.01
16 .59787 -0.01
17 .57596 -0.01
18 .55421 -0.01
19 .53261 -0.02
20 .51115 -0.02
21 .48979 -0.02
22 .46853 -0.02
23 .44736 -0.02
24 .42627 -0.02
25 .40523 -0.02
26 .38424 -0.02
27 .36329 -0.02
28 .34238 -0.03
29 .32148 -0.03
30 .30059 -0.03
31 .27969 -0.03
32 .25878 -0.03
33 .23785 -0.03
34 .21688 -0.04
35 .19585 -0.04
36 .17477 -0.04
37 .1536 -0.05
38 .13234 -0.05
39 .11095 -0.06
40 .08941 -0.07
41 .06769 -0.08
42 .04576 -0.12
43 .02355 -0.21
44 .001 -4.38
45 .02202 -179.8
46 .04579 180.00
47 .0707 180.00
48 .09404 180.00
49 .11529 180.00
50 .13404 180.00
51 .14984 180.00
52 .16235 180.00
53 .17155 180.00
54 .17718 180.00
55 .17057 180.00
56 .15943 180.00
57 .15069 180.00
58 .1433 180.00
59 .13668 180.00
60 .1306 180.00
61 .12495 180.00
62 .11962 180.00
63 .11457 180.00
64 .10975 180.00
65 .10512 180.00
66 .10066 180.00
67 .09634 180.00
68 .09216 180.00
69 .08809 180.00
70 .08413 180.00
71 .08025 180.00
72 .07646 180.00
73 .07274 180.00
74 .06908 180.00
75 .06549 180.00
76 .06194 180.00
77 .05845 180.00
78 .05499 180.00
79 .05158 180.00
80 .04819 180.00
81 .04484 180.00
82 .0415 180.00
83 .03819 180.00
84 .03488 180.00
85 .03159 180.00
86 .02829 180.00
87 .02499 180.00
88 .02167 180.00
89 .01831 180.00
90 .01491 180.00
91 .01141 180.00
92 .00777 180.00
93 Open .00363 180.00


I will not hesitate to point out that the variation in signal strength
between the point load and the distributed load varied by
one-quarter dB
Which represents ALL the steam in the claim of outrageous losses due
to EZNEC's (pilot error) inability to model correctly.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

K3BU:
[snip]
|
|I used the knowledge to design more efficient mobile antenna for 160.


KB7QHC:
What design did you start with and at what efficiency?
What design did you end up with and at what efficiency?
What was the improvement in efficiency?

N7WS:

So now it's 0.51% efficient instead of only 0.49% right? [g]


Nope, more like going from not getting answers to my calls or CQ (S0 or less
:-) to getting reports from W6, through P4 to Eu of S6 to S9. Even getting hell
from W8JI for wiping out - QRMing the DX window.
You learned heads figure out the efficiency improvement in dBm, uV or dB or S
units. It may not jive with your decimal points, but is OK with me.

In the past Cecil showed some results from mobile antenna shootouts, where
simple change in position of the loading coil can mean dBs or tens of dBs
difference. Might not be reflected in your modeling results, but reality
speaks. Those who built and used the stuff know it. Those who calculate it
"know better"?

This is getting amusing and eye opening how many flat earth society members are
out there. Keep on harping!

KB7QHC:
Marketing claims are cheap and I need only pick up a copy of People Magazine
off the newsstand to read them for free.


I am not marketing nothing (yet), just defending the truth and reality. YMMV

Yuri, K3BU