steveeh131047 wrote:
Cecil: that's a VERY significant result. If I feed the dimensions of
W8JI's coil into Equation 32 in the Corum Bros paper it predicts an
axial Velocity Factor of 0.033. That would equate to a time delay of
24.7nS across the 10" long coil !!!!

One of the problems with this newsgroup is that one cannot
edit one's posting like one can over on QRZ.com. I see you
have corrected your earlier typo.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

steveeh131047 wrote:
I've read
various web pages and postings which argue qualitatively that things
like "distributed capacitance" might explain some of the observations,
but as yet I've seen no quantitative analysis which attempts to
predict the numbers.

Hi Steve,

For a more quantitative illustration of how distributed reactance in
transmission lines causes delay see
http://www.rhombus-ind.com/dlcat/app1_pas.pdf

73, ac6xg

On Apr 23, 9:21*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
The problem *in this debate is that others are concentrating on
resonance
where as you are thinking in terms of anti resonance which portends to
a higher impedance and also the condition of equilibrium.

I apologize if I gave you that idea, Art. I am talking
about a physically short (38 degrees), electrically 1/4WL
(90 degrees) *resonant* antenna over mininec ground. The
feedpoint impedance is low and resistive.

In the example given, the stinger supplies 19 degrees
of phase shift, the base-loading coil supplies 19 degrees
of phase shift, and the impedance discontinuity between
the coil and the stinger provides a point phase shift that
makes up the difference between 38 degrees and 90 degrees.

As I hammer away at this concept, I am wondering if a
loaded mobile antenna can be optimized if only the correct
model is adopted. Is a high-Q loading-coil always better
than a loading-coil with a lower Q? Are fat/short loading-
coils always better than skinny/long loading-coils? Some
field measurements have cast doubt on some long-held
concepts.

But obviously the question cannot be answered as long as
some people insist on using the lumped circuit model for
the loading coil, e.g. virtually zero delay through the
coil.

I have measured the delay through a 75m bugcatcher coil.
It was approximately 25 nS, a magnitude greater than
w8ji's "measurements". It doesn't matter if my measurements
were off by 20%. The magnitude difference between my
measurements and w8ji's "measurements" is too significant
to be ignored.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Exactly. !/4WL is not in equilibrium,a full wave length is and that is
where you are argueing past each other. Radiation is the accelleration
of a charge or a particle of energy. A half wave accelerates a charge
and the second half replaces the static particle that created the
facilities for the next radiation or application of charge.
If you only use a portion of the period then you are messing with the
speed of light.
The speed of light is the time it takes for a magnetic field to be
produced and the time
it takes for a magnetic field to decay which also equals the time that
it takes for an electric field to be formed and decay the sum time of
both being a period or the speed of time. Thus a WL is equal to
equilibrium and less than that is not. Maxwells laws are valid ONLY
when equilibrium is present, thus the quarrelling between the two
parties.
Embroiled in the middle of that is the misconception of standing
waves.
A charged particle changes direction and then returns to the starting
point to constitute
a full period. If you have a 1/4 wave the charge continues its
direction until half a period has passed and only then can particles
be collected for sunsequent acceleration and radiation. So for half
the time or 1/4 of the time for a 1/4 WL is the radiating at an angle
i.e the addition of two vectors,forward and displacement current,
the rest of the time the remaining charge is the accelleration of the
charge continuing
off of the end of the radiator ( not bouncing back) where the energy
is seen as a spark
or straight line radiation. So Cecil the debate in fact is over a
series of misconceptions resulting from the omission of equilibrium
which makes both sides of the debate invalid.
Regards
Art

steveeh131047 wrote:

Cecil: that's a VERY significant result. If I feed the dimensions of
W8JI's coil into Equation 32 in the Corum Bros paper it predicts an
axial Velocity Factor of 0.033. That would equate to a time delay of
24.7nS across the 10" long coil !!!!

Regards,
Steve G3TXQ

Hi Steve,

You're right. The numbers are amazingly close - almost as if his
'experimental apparatus' had calculated the result rather than measure it.

73, ac6xg

On Apr 23, 10:07*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
steveeh131047 wrote:
I'm inclined to try to understand it better, because it's this derived
Characteristic Impedance, along with the axial Velocity Factor, that
generates the reactance values which seem such a good match to
experimental and modeled results.

Steve, you will find some old-fashioned concepts here
based on the lumped-circuit model rather than the
distributed network EM wave reflection model. One can
easily disprove the assertion that a single wire
in free space doesn't have a characteristic impedance
by asking the question: Does a single electromagnetic
wave traveling through free space (without a wire)
encounter a characteristic impedance? If so, why doesn't
a single wave traveling through a wire in free space
encounter a characteristic impedance? Of course, the
ratio of the electric field to the magnetic field,
whatever that turns out to be, is the characteristic
impedance of a single wire in free space. It, like
the characteristic impedance of free space, seems
to be a few hundred ohms.

There are lots of old wives tales asserted by the gurus
on this newsgroup. One must be careful what one accepts
as technical fact.

"A single conductor doesn't have a characteristic impedance."
is a preposterous assertion. If free space itself has a
characteristic impedance, what are the chances that a
single wire in free space would not have a characteristic
impedance??? Zero, at best??? :-)

Some will say: "Where is the return path for the current?"
I will respond: Where is the return path for the "current"
arriving from the Sun that can be captured by a solar
panel? Good Grief!
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, reference you comment that a straight wire does NOT have a
characteristic impedance, this is one place where you misunderstanding
things. A charge rests on the surface and when it is radiating it
instantly is removed from the surface by the displacement current in
coordination with the applied current. If the radiator is not a full
wave length there is no surface for a displacement current to exist
thus the direction of charge is not elevated away from the surface but
continuing the parallel to the surface direction which is the observed
as "end effect"
If the concept of a bounce back of charge was maintained then the
amount of charge
must also change as time revolves around a full period where
eventually the charge
totally reaches the scource when the bouncing around coincided with a
period.
Thus if the charge is in "standing wave" form the impedance changes
during every circuit of the charge back to the source and that can
never be. Characteristic impedance is that seen only with a closed
anti resonant point or in other words at the point of equilibrium
which is represented by a period.
Looking at things from a different angle, when the time varying field
becomes a constant which is then the application of DC then you have a
tesla coil where the spark or energy and thus radiation is parallel to
the conductor and where the period covered by over shoot, a one time
event, where radio radiation is shown by the area of the curve during
the time of that event.
Best regards
Art

On Apr 23, 4:42*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:

For a more quantitative illustration of how distributed reactance in
transmission lines causes delay seehttp://www.rhombus-ind.com/dlcat/app1_pas.pdf

73, ac6xg

Jim, thanks for the reference.

Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly. What I've not
seen, for example, is a lumped-element analysis which takes just the
coil dimensions as input, and predicts theoretically - without a lot
of empirical "tweaking" - the reactance at a particular frequency;
particularly a frequency close to self-resonance. There may be one out
there, but I've not yet found it!

In contrast, the ON4AA calculator - based on Corums' transmission-line
analysis - does just that, and produces results which seem to match
well the EZNEC modelling results.

Regards,
Steve G3TXQ

On Apr 23, 11:16*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Apr 23, 10:07*am, Cecil Moore wrote:



steveeh131047 wrote:
I'm inclined to try to understand it better, because it's this derived
Characteristic Impedance, along with the axial Velocity Factor, that
generates the reactance values which seem such a good match to
experimental and modeled results.

Steve, you will find some old-fashioned concepts here
based on the lumped-circuit model rather than the
distributed network EM wave reflection model. One can
easily disprove the assertion that a single wire
in free space doesn't have a characteristic impedance
by asking the question: Does a single electromagnetic
wave traveling through free space (without a wire)
encounter a characteristic impedance? If so, why doesn't
a single wave traveling through a wire in free space
encounter a characteristic impedance? Of course, the
ratio of the electric field to the magnetic field,
whatever that turns out to be, is the characteristic
impedance of a single wire in free space. It, like
the characteristic impedance of free space, seems
to be a few hundred ohms.

There are lots of old wives tales asserted by the gurus
on this newsgroup. One must be careful what one accepts
as technical fact.

"A single conductor doesn't have a characteristic impedance."
is a preposterous assertion. If free space itself has a
characteristic impedance, what are the chances that a
single wire in free space would not have a characteristic
impedance??? Zero, at best??? :-)

Some will say: "Where is the return path for the current?"
I will respond: Where is the return path for the "current"
arriving from the Sun that can be captured by a solar
panel? Good Grief!
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, reference you comment that a straight wire does NOT have a
characteristic impedance, this is one place where you misunderstanding
things. A charge rests on the surface and when it is radiating it
instantly is removed from the surface by the displacement current in
coordination with the applied current. If the radiator is not a full
wave length there is no surface for a displacement current to exist
thus the direction of charge is not elevated away from the surface but
continuing the parallel to the surface direction which is the observed
as "end effect"
If the concept of a bounce back of charge was maintained then the
amount of charge
must also change as time revolves around a full period where
eventually the charge
totally reaches the scource when the bouncing around coincided with a
period.
Thus if the charge is in "standing wave" form the impedance changes
during every circuit of the charge back to the source and that can
never be. Characteristic impedance is that seen only with a closed
anti resonant point or in other words at the point of equilibrium
which is represented by a period.
Looking at things from a different angle, when the time varying field
becomes a constant which is then the application of DC then you have a
tesla coil where the spark or energy and thus radiation is parallel to
the conductor and where the period covered by over shoot, a one time
event, where radio radiation is shown by the area of the curve during
the time of that event.
Best regards
Art

Cecil,
You based your proof of a magnetic wave in a vacuum but it is an
accelerating charge
which obviously must have mass, that is radiation ala the particle.
If you have a Tesla set up in a vacuum the speed of the particle/spark/
light is the approximation of the speed of light.( I say approximation
since I am using the metric
of Earth's vacuum and not that of the Universe) The velocity factor is
the true ratio of the mismatch with the travel of a electric current
on Earth with all its relavent factors and comparing it to the speed
of light in the average metric of vacuum of the Universe.
Bottom line is particles are part of radiation as is light, "waves"
are not involved other than a bevy of particles separated by a
fraction of a period.
Art

On Apr 23, 11:26*am, steveeh131047 wrote:
On Apr 23, 4:42*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:



For a more quantitative illustration of how distributed reactance in
transmission lines causes delay seehttp://www.rhombus-ind.com/dlcat/app1_pas.pdf

73, ac6xg

Jim, thanks for the reference.

Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly. What I've not
seen, for example, is a lumped-element analysis which takes just the
coil dimensions as input, and predicts theoretically - without a lot
of empirical "tweaking" - the reactance at a particular frequency;
particularly a frequency close to self-resonance. There may be one out
there, but I've not yet found it!

In contrast, the ON4AA calculator - based on Corums' transmission-line
analysis - does just that, and produces results which seem to match
well the EZNEC modelling results.

Regards,
Steve G3TXQ

That is because the transmission line is considered to be within a
arbitrary boundary
where all applicable forces equals zero, ie in equilibrium. Eznec is
also based on the condition of equilibrium as applied by Maxwell in
concert with Newton.
This group is using the conditions accounted on this Earth where as
scientific laws are based upon a Universe within a boundary and not
just the Earth. TRhat is equivalent to saying weight is the same
metric as mass !
Art

steveeh131047 wrote:
On Apr 23, 4:42 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
For a more quantitative illustration of how distributed reactance in
transmission lines causes delay seehttp://www.rhombus-ind.com/dlcat/app1_pas.pdf

73, ac6xg

Jim, thanks for the reference.

Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly. What I've not
seen, for example, is a lumped-element analysis which takes just the
coil dimensions as input, and predicts theoretically - without a lot
of empirical "tweaking" - the reactance at a particular frequency;
particularly a frequency close to self-resonance. There may be one out
there, but I've not yet found it!

In contrast, the ON4AA calculator - based on Corums' transmission-line
analysis - does just that, and produces results which seem to match
well the EZNEC modelling results.

Regards,
Steve G3TXQ


EZNEC is a mathematical model just as the transmission line model is
a model. EZNEC doesn't use a transmission line
analog in order to reach its conclusions. If you're really interested
in this subject, you have to read Schelkunoff and others who did the
research on this years ago. A big, honking loading coil doesn't
act much like a lumped component. It makes a pretty shabby transmission
line, too. If you want to understand it, you have to study
electromagnetics and approach it from that standpoint, which may not
be easy. Finally, a modest question: if you have EZNEC, why would you
be wasting time with something inferior? The gold standard is the gold
standard. Or are you on some philosophical quest, like Cecil?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Apr 23, 12:22*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Apr 23, 11:16*am, Art Unwin wrote:



On Apr 23, 10:07*am, Cecil Moore wrote:

steveeh131047 wrote:
I'm inclined to try to understand it better, because it's this derived
Characteristic Impedance, along with the axial Velocity Factor, that
generates the reactance values which seem such a good match to
experimental and modeled results.

Steve, you will find some old-fashioned concepts here
based on the lumped-circuit model rather than the
distributed network EM wave reflection model. One can
easily disprove the assertion that a single wire
in free space doesn't have a characteristic impedance
by asking the question: Does a single electromagnetic
wave traveling through free space (without a wire)
encounter a characteristic impedance? If so, why doesn't
a single wave traveling through a wire in free space
encounter a characteristic impedance? Of course, the
ratio of the electric field to the magnetic field,
whatever that turns out to be, is the characteristic
impedance of a single wire in free space. It, like
the characteristic impedance of free space, seems
to be a few hundred ohms.

There are lots of old wives tales asserted by the gurus
on this newsgroup. One must be careful what one accepts
as technical fact.

"A single conductor doesn't have a characteristic impedance."
is a preposterous assertion. If free space itself has a
characteristic impedance, what are the chances that a
single wire in free space would not have a characteristic
impedance??? Zero, at best??? :-)

Some will say: "Where is the return path for the current?"
I will respond: Where is the return path for the "current"
arriving from the Sun that can be captured by a solar
panel? Good Grief!
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, reference you comment that a straight wire does NOT have a
characteristic impedance, this is one place where you misunderstanding
things. A charge rests on the surface and when it is radiating it
instantly is removed from the surface by the displacement current in
coordination with the applied current. If the radiator is not a full
wave length there is no surface for a displacement current to exist
thus the direction of charge is not elevated away from the surface but
continuing the parallel to the surface direction which is the observed
as "end effect"
If the concept of a bounce back of charge was maintained then the
amount of charge
must also change as time revolves around a full period where
eventually the charge
totally reaches the scource when the bouncing around coincided with a
period.
Thus if the charge is in "standing wave" form the impedance changes
during every circuit of the charge back to the source and that can
never be. Characteristic impedance is that seen only with a closed
anti resonant point or in other words at the point of equilibrium
which is represented by a period.
Looking at things from a different angle, when the time varying field
becomes a constant which is then the application of DC then you have a
tesla coil where the spark or energy and thus radiation is parallel to
the conductor and where the period covered by over shoot, a one time
event, where radio radiation is shown by the area of the curve during
the time of that event.
Best regards
Art

Cecil,
You based your proof of a magnetic wave in a vacuum but it is an
accelerating charge
which obviously must have mass, that is radiation ala the particle.
If you have a Tesla set up in a vacuum the speed of the particle/spark/
light is the approximation of the speed of light.( I say approximation
since I am using the metric
of Earth's vacuum and not that of the Universe) The velocity factor is
the true ratio of the mismatch with the travel of a electric current
on Earth with all its relavent factors and comparing it to the speed
of light in the average metric of vacuum of the Universe.
Bottom line is particles are part of radiation as is light, "waves"
are not involved other than a bevy of particles separated by a
fraction of a period.
Art

When students perform an experiment to proove the laws of Nature it
really does belittle seeing is believing. To change the statistics of
what we are seeing which is the situation on Earth, this alludes
the"relative" term of Einstein, then to bring what we deduced by
seeing by the conversion of weight to mass. This correction thus
brings in to focus what Einstein meant by relativity because it
depends on the gravitational pull relative to what part of the
Universe the experiment was performed. What we term as Classical
physics is the behavior of the Universe and the laws that govern it.
Thus mass is the carrier of potential energy where decay is synonamous
with the break off of a particle which contains a portion of the
potential energy where the brake off is the decelleration of the
partical when it enters a different gravitational field
and thus turns to kinetic energy and where this change is seen as
light i.e Kinetic energy that is transformed to heat which also
governs light. Thus when considering
a perfect conductor ie zero resistance which is also a measure of the
datum level of zero movement of electrons within mass there is zero
movement within mass to affect the passage of current and thus the
current travels at the speed of light. When temperature in not at the
datum level it is the movement of electron within mass that provides
the resistance to current flow and thus we have what is known as the
"velocity factor", and it is the circular movement of displacement
current which is also a movement of current flow that applies what we
know as displacement current.
Thus there is a Universal law of nature because all things revolve
about the relative movement of particles compared to that of a static
particle which if the change is instantaneous we have what Hawkings
calls the BIG BANG.
All of the above emphasises where all the participants of this thread
are argueing about the same problem but from different relative
positions within the Universe

Lesson.
All scientific debate is correlated to the whole of the Universe and
not the metric datum of vacuum as represented by the size of a
arbitrary fieldwithin the Universe
This is what is meant by CLASSICAL PHYSICS.
Enuff said.
Art Unwin