Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
A 10TPI, 2" dia., 100T coil used on 4 MHz is NOT an extreme
example. Why don't you just admit that you and W8JI have been
wrong for years and get it over with?

I never said that condition was extreme. Try the calculator at 40 kHz
and see what you get.

Uhhhhh Gene, changing the test frequency is an obvious
diversion of the issue, but knowing you, something that
is completely predictable.

Cecil,

Are you so blinded by the battle that you cannot see anything else? I
was not talking about 80 meter loading coils. I was talking about the
overly broad application of the Corum model on that web page.

Go ahead, try any configuration you want. See if you agree with that web
calculator.

You are pretty clever, I must say. The king of the diversion accusing me
of diversion. I guess that any uncomfortable question is regarded by you
as a diversion, "something that is completely predictable."

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
So you think an EM wave cannot travel 10 inches in 3 ns? Try again.

Nice attempt at a diversion, Gene. What I said is that a
4 MHz EM wave cannot travel 10 inches in 3 ns through a
2" dia, 100 turn loading coil. If you disagree, please
feel free to prove me wrong.

Cecil insists that an 80 meter loading coil behaves nearly the same as
one of Corum's quarter-wave resonators. Others believe the coil behavior
is closer to a lumped circuit model.

The entire rest of the antenna is ten degrees. Why wouldn't
a 75m loading coil operate nearly the same as Corum's 1/4WL
resonators??? Are Maxwell's laws different for loaded mobile
antennas or for Corum's coils?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:11:13 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

Simply name one other than Cecil (which would make it two, a minimum
"few") who finds the measurement INVALID!

So "Typically Richard."

OK, we've narrowed it down to both you and Cecil who cannot rummage up
a name in the list. And given you don't have a Chihuahua in this
fight, you can't even offer your own name - literally! :-0

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:08:42 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

Go ahead, try any configuration you want. See if you agree with that web
calculator.

C'mon Gene,

Drop the shoe. What is the result? I've lost track of the URL and
would like to hear the punchline. Cecil won't understand it anyway,
so what difference would it make?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 3 Dec, 13:36, Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I don't believe anyone has actually challenged what Corum *says*. What
*has* been challenged is your misreading of the paper, especially the
required conditions for the validity of the analysis.

I very carefully applied the required conditions.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil,
The bottom line of all this postulating is that YOU and only YOU were
visciferious about something being wrong with Tom and Roy's
experiment.
Whether you gave the correction in its propper fashion is of no
matter.
Thus a new old wifes tail was beaten down at the beginning, so
kudo's
to you while the others sulk.
Same thing happened to me with respect to adding time to both sides
of
the Gaussian equation where all ignored the fact that Dr Davis
provided the
mathematical proof. In both cases the group admitted no wrong but rest
assured
the flames will go on as if they were right and you were wrong.
This has happened many times before over the last decade with many
other gurus
who left rather than to descend to the level of the flame throwers.
W8TI left
for the same reasons but fortunately not away from the hobby itself.
One thing that does come out from this is that all is NOT known about
antennas despite the i9nsinuations of those who view themselves as
experts.
Every one of the pseudo experts on this group have been proved wrong
one
time or anather and yet they still flaunt themselves as experts.
It used to be that one should not just ask one expert but more than
one,
to which I add but none from this group.
Now every body, take a seat and watch Richard quote from McBeth
in a lovely white gown bought especially for the occasion.
Curtain up..Your cue Richerd/Lady Mc Beth....oh dear your
slip is showing once again.
Cecil move to the top of the table because YOU are worth the salt
while the present occupants can slink away while all observe
their embarisment
As I said ,
CURTAIN UP.....Lady McBeth, stage left,spotlight.
Mc Beth starts her weeping....
Art Unwin kb9mz....xg (UK)

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I'm not reclassifying anything. The differences between traveling-wave
antennas and standing-wave antennas have been known for many decades.

Oh good! Exactly where do *you* draw the line between them; and why?
Please justify this by giving examples of two antennas that are very
close to your chosen line, but on opposite sides.

Glad to oblige. The two classical examples are a 1/2WL dipole
vs a terminated rhombic. The differences are obvious. The ends
of the standing-wave 1/2WL dipole are open-circuited so forward
waves undergo a total reflection. Ideally, the traveling-wave
rhombic is terminated in its characteristic impedance so
reflections are eliminated.

The equation for the current in a 1/2WL dipole is roughly
proportional to cos(x)*cos(wt). The equation for the current in
an ideal rhombic is proportional to cos(x+wt) where w=2*Pi*F.
For anyone with a math background, those differences are more
than obvious and I pointed that out years ago.

Then please justify the difference between your two different
classifications of current.

I don't have to justify that, Ian. Mathematics automatically
justifies it for me. If you would simply take the time to understand
the difference between cos(x)*cos(wt) and cos(x+wt), you would
understand it also.

The current in an ideal rhombic is 100% forward current proportional
to cos(x+wt). The current in a 1/2WL dipole is the sum of two
currents. The forward current is roughly proportional to cos(x+wt)
just as it is in the rhombic. The reflected current is roughly
proportional to cos(x-wt) and when those two traveling-wave currents
are added the resultant standing-wave current is proportional to
cos(x)*cos(wt), a completely different kind of current as is obvious
from their different equations.

The purists may take me to task for using a cosine function instead
of a sine function or using '+' for forward waves and '-' for
reflected waves but it doesn't change the conceptual conclusion.
Unfortunately, there is a difference in sign conventions between
optics and RF. Such mundane differences do not change the concepts
involved.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

K7ITM wrote:
I thought you said you can
calculate the phase change in a particular situation, and were willing
to do it. Is the description of the system lacking in some way?

I have no idea what "system" you are talking about.

It's not a rocket science concept, Tom. One degree of
an antenna causes a one degree shift in the phase of the
traveling waves. If you disagree, please enlighten us.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:
Not valid is quite different from invalid.

What is your native language? :-) From Webster's:
"in - a prefix ... having a negative force"

Seeing that
Cecil wholeheartedly has yet to reveal the how (or data to the same
precision) of his own counter experiment (which I have also gone on
record in asking for details) - I don't expect anything there either.

Good grief, Richard, I posted a detailed description of those
measurements more than a year ago before I moved to my new QTH.
In words, with a 50 ohm source, set up an autotransformer to
deliver a signal to a 3600 ohm Z0 environment. Put the 75m Texas
Bugcatcher coil in series with a 3600 ohm non-inductive load.
Measure the phase shift through the coil at 4 MHz. I eyeballed
it at ~25 degrees on a dual-trace 100 MHz O'scope.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Tom Donaly wrote:
The lack of technical content of your post is duly noted.

The lack of technical content of your post is duly noted.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Gene Fuller wrote:
Are you so blinded by the battle that you cannot see anything else? I
was not talking about 80 meter loading coils. I was talking about the
overly broad application of the Corum model on that web page.

Well, since the context is 80 meter bugcatcher loading coils,
I guess that's why I was confused.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com