Jim Kelley wrote:
Honestly, Cecil, it's pretty hard to know what you mean considering the
reckless way you throw around the term 'phase'. I'll grant that you
might know what you mean, but I don't see how you can expect anyone else
to.

Jim, if you have trouble understanding the word "phase",
look it up in a technical dictionary. I don't have time
to waste my time teaching everyone the principles of AC
waves in EE201.

But assuming some others are having the same problem as
you: From the IEEE Dictionary:

"phase - The fractional part t/P of the period P through
which t has advanced relative to an arbitrary origin."

FYI: For a signal proportional to cos(x)*cos(wt), the
phase doesn't change with 'x'. That's why standing wave
current cannot be used to measure delay.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Not as noted as the lack of technical content in your post noting
the lack of technical content of my post noting the lack of technical
content in your original post.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:

The lack of technical content of your post is duly noted.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Hmmm, we are noting "duly noted" "technical minds" ok, duly noted here
.... thanks for the heads up, from this example--others will be easy to
recognize! Thanks! Now don't change on me ...

JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
Cecil, I posed two very specific examples for you to work out to show
us that you can actually correctly find the phase shift for travelling
waves, as you promised you could and would.

Sorry, Tom, when I came to the word "superconductor", I
stopped reading your posting. Please try to stick to
the real world of amateur radio next time. Anyone at
anytime can come up with some impossible esoteric
example that defies solution. Such examples are a
"vexations of the spirit" and I don't waste the
little time I have left on such nonsense. Please go
find another victim for your tarbaby.

In other words, you can't do it. Why don't you just say so?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Cecil Moore wrote:
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?

What diversion?

I was responding directly to a statement from Dan. This issue is at the
crux of the controversy. The entire question is whether waves can leap
tall buildings with a single bound or whether they must climb the
stairs. Have you forgotten everything????

The detailed technical content in "Why wouldn't" is noted. That debate
technique generally solves lots of issues.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Richard Clark wrote:
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

The calculator is at

http://hamwaves.com/antennas/inductance.html

I believe that Owen first mentioned that website, but I could be wrong.

I am looking at the calculation for beta, the axial propagation factor.
It appears to be unchanged for any length of coil from very short to
much longer than a quarter-wave resonant length. I cannot change the
frequency any more, since Cecil thinks that is a diversion. However, the
calculator does not seem to respond correctly in that case either.

The calculator notes state that it uses the "n=0 sheath helix waveguide
mode", which is what Corum's Telsiks paper was all about. In that paper
he indicated various conditions for validity, such as the fact that the
coil must be near a quarter wave resonance for some of the mathematical
approximations to be valid.

I am not arguing with the "n=0 sheath helix waveguide mode". I am merely
pointing out that the calculator web page seems to be a "one size fits
all" situation that may not be appropriate when required conditions that
are not met.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Actually, the context has been the loading coil measured by W8JI.
Perhaps that is why there is so much confusion.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

On Dec 3, 5:49 pm, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
Cecil, I posed two very specific examples for you to work out to show
us that you can actually correctly find the phase shift for travelling
waves, as you promised you could and would.

Sorry, Tom, when I came to the word "superconductor", I
stopped reading your posting. Please try to stick to
the real world of amateur radio next time. Anyone at
anytime can come up with some impossible esoteric
example that defies solution. Such examples are a
"vexations of the spirit" and I don't waste the
little time I have left on such nonsense. Please go
find another victim for your tarbaby.

In other words, you can't do it. Why don't you just say so?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

It's his tarbaby, not mine. My description was just for an
inductively loaded antenna, and a capacitively loaded antenna. I was
simply describing a method by which I could make a very small high-Q
coil; the small capacitor can be had from DigiKey. The obvious
question is, does the size of the reactive loading component matter?
Then, if so, why, and to what degree?

What is it that loads (tunes) the antenna? Is it primarily the
inductance of the coil, or is it parasitic effects such as the coil's
capacitance to the outside world? Would the antenna be properly
loaded with pure inductance, or does it _require_ the parasitic
capacitance of the coil to the outside world?

By the way, there's another way I can place an inductive reactance at
a point in the antenna, in a way that it's not coupled to the outside
world: I can make the antenna conductor be the outside of a piece of
coaxial cable, and use the coaxial inside as a shorted stub which
reflects a pretty good (fairly high Q) inductive reactance back to a
particular point such as a quarter of the antenna length back from
each end, where the stub connects across a gap in the outer
conductor. Can I use such an inductive reactance to tune the
antenna? Will there then be a difference in current at each end of
the gap across which that reactance connects? If there is not, and
we're dealing with a standing-wave antenna, how do we account for all
the "electrical degrees" we need to--or do we really even need to be
counting "electrical degrees"?

(Joseph Boyer's wonderful article, "The Antenna-Transmission Line
Analog," is highly recommended here...)

Others are welcome to ponder all that while Cecil tries to unstick
himself from his tarbaby.

Cheers,
Tom

"art" wrote in message
...
On 27 Nov, 06:18, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
1/2 wave monopoles
have little dependence of a full counterpoise or ground for, at least,
acceptable performance.

The Zepp antenna is a 1/2WL monopole with no
counterpoise.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

That makes sense. Physically it is half wave
but electrically it is a full wave antenna.
It is able to radiate on its surface and is unable to radiate
as it returns down the center of the wire.
(assuming the antenna is not tubular)
The path on the outside is helical which promotes a slow wave
so the physical wavelength has to be increased slightly to
compensate.When JS made his Vincent model the physical
length was slightly longer than a electrical half wave length
because of this so it still was not quite balanced.
To bring the antenna into balance there must be a contrawound
widing put into place such that the radiating current on the
return path is exposed and not enclosed. Doing this will not
correct the slow wave phenomina but will neutralise the
increased inductance created by the windings and at the same time
bring the radiator back to equilibrium where the correct LC ratio
is maintained and the radiator is a full electrical wavelength in
equilibrium and of variable shape and elevation.
Sound familiar?
Art Unwin.....KB9MZ...xg
Note the wire center contains no inductive or capacitive
properties, only resistive. Thus radiation will be slightly
over 50% of a full wave radiator.



To put it mildly:
The biggest crock of sheeeet yet!

bada BUm

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
...
Yuri K3BU.us



WOW! What a work of art, what did you title this one, "Yuri Sucks Again?"

JS