Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
But what is being discussed here is the total current
reported by EZNEC. Is EZNEC wrong when it indicates
1 degree of current phase shift in 30 degrees of
length in a dipole antenna?

What 30 degrees? There aren't any "30 degrees of length"
in a loading coil, and there doesn't have to be.

I'm glad you asked, Tom. There was no mention of
a loading coil. I am talking about a simple 1/2WL
wire dipole with current probes at the x=1/3 and
y=2/3 points as illustrated. Why I am doing that
will become obvious.

------------------------fp-------x-------y--------

This is a center-fed 1/2WL dipole with current probes
installed at points 'x' and 'y'. The 1/2WL dipole is
known to be 180 degrees long. Half of a 1/2WL dipole
is 1/4WL, i.e. 90 degrees long. From the feedpoint
to point 'x' is 30 degrees. From point 'x' to point
'y' is 30 degrees. From point 'y' to the end of the
dipole is 30 degrees.

This 1/2WL dipole in EZNEC uses two wires of 90 segments
each, i.e. each segment equals one degree of dipole.
Point 'x' is at segment 30 and point 'y' is at segment
60 in Wire No. 2 on the right side of the dipole above.

Here are the results directly from EZNEC:

Source 1 Current = 1 A. at 0.0 deg.

Wire No. 2:
Segment Conn Magnitude (A.) Phase (Deg.)
30 'x' .87634 -1.49
60 'y' .52573 -2.43
90 Open .01185 -3.12

The phase of the current changes by 1.06 degrees between
point 'x' and point 'y' which is 30 degrees of antenna
*WIRE* (not loading coil). How can the phase of that current
possibly be used to determine the delay through the wire
which we know is related to the speed of light in the wire
medium? The delay through 30 degrees of wire at 4 MHz
would be about 20 nanoseconds.

In the 1/2WL wire dipole above, the phase of the current
in each 90 degrees of wire changes by 3.12 degrees.

If Roy performs the measurements, he will correctly report
a negligible phase shift in the current between point 'x'
and point 'y' (just as he did for the loading coil).

Following his previous loading coil logic, he will report
that the delay through 30 degrees of wire dipole is not
20 nS at 4 MHz as would be expected but is instead closer
to zero, maybe one or two nanoseconds. We all know that
report would be false. One cannot use a current with
essentially unchanging phase to calculate delay through
a wire (or through a loading coil).

If Roy cannot accurately measure the delay through
30 degrees of wire, why does anyone suppose Roy can
accurately measure the delay through a loading coil
using the phase of that same total current on a standing
wave antenna?

Note that the true phase information is contained in the
amplitude, not the phase, just as Gene Fuller said. If we
take the ARCCOSine of the magnitudes above, we obtain:

Source, ARCCOS(1.0) = 0 degrees
Seg 30, ARCCOS(0.87634) = 29 degrees
Seg 60, ARCCOS(0.52573) = 58 degrees
Seg 90, ARCCOS(0.01185) = 89 degrees

Incidentally, I told all of this to Roy 5 years ago,
Jan 2004, according to Google. He plonked me.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
But what is being discussed here is the total current
reported by EZNEC. Is EZNEC wrong when it indicates
1 degree of current phase shift in 30 degrees of
length in a dipole antenna?

What 30 degrees? There aren't any "30 degrees of length"
in a loading coil, and there doesn't have to be.

I'm glad you asked, Tom. There was no mention of
a loading coil. I am talking about a simple 1/2WL
wire dipole with current probes at the x=1/3 and
y=2/3 points as illustrated. Why I am doing that
will become obvious.

------------------------fp-------x-------y--------

This is a center-fed 1/2WL dipole with current probes
installed at points 'x' and 'y'. The 1/2WL dipole is
known to be 180 degrees long. Half of a 1/2WL dipole
is 1/4WL, i.e. 90 degrees long. From the feedpoint
to point 'x' is 30 degrees. From point 'x' to point
'y' is 30 degrees. From point 'y' to the end of the
dipole is 30 degrees.

This 1/2WL dipole in EZNEC uses two wires of 90 segments
each, i.e. each segment equals one degree of dipole.
Point 'x' is at segment 30 and point 'y' is at segment
60 in Wire No. 2 on the right side of the dipole above.

Here are the results directly from EZNEC:

Source 1 Current = 1 A. at 0.0 deg.

Wire No. 2:
Segment Conn Magnitude (A.) Phase (Deg.)
30 'x' .87634 -1.49
60 'y' .52573 -2.43
90 Open .01185 -3.12

The phase of the current changes by 1.06 degrees between
point 'x' and point 'y' which is 30 degrees of antenna
*WIRE* (not loading coil). How can the phase of that current
possibly be used to determine the delay through the wire
which we know is related to the speed of light in the wire
medium? The delay through 30 degrees of wire at 4 MHz
would be about 20 nanoseconds.

In the 1/2WL wire dipole above, the phase of the current
in each 90 degrees of wire changes by 3.12 degrees.

If Roy performs the measurements, he will correctly report
a negligible phase shift in the current between point 'x'
and point 'y' (just as he did for the loading coil).

Following his previous loading coil logic, he will report
that the delay through 30 degrees of wire dipole is not
20 nS at 4 MHz as would be expected but is instead closer
to zero, maybe one or two nanoseconds. We all know that
report would be false. One cannot use a current with
essentially unchanging phase to calculate delay through
a wire (or through a loading coil).

If Roy cannot accurately measure the delay through
30 degrees of wire, why does anyone suppose Roy can
accurately measure the delay through a loading coil
using the phase of that same total current on a standing
wave antenna?

Note that the true phase information is contained in the
amplitude, not the phase, just as Gene Fuller said. If we
take the ARCCOSine of the magnitudes above, we obtain:

Source, ARCCOS(1.0) = 0 degrees
Seg 30, ARCCOS(0.87634) = 29 degrees
Seg 60, ARCCOS(0.52573) = 58 degrees
Seg 90, ARCCOS(0.01185) = 89 degrees

Incidentally, I told all of this to Roy 5 years ago,
Jan 2004, according to Google. He plonked me.

I don't blame him for plonking you. You're saying that because you
fantasized that Roy would make a mistake that Roy would never make,
that he also made the same mistake when measuring the delay through a
coil. Cecil, a length of antenna is not a coil. A coil is not an
antenna. Declaring that coils are antennas and vice versa doesn't make
them so. You don't really know what the delay through your bugcatcher
coil is. If you substituted a real transmission line for your coil,
you could make the degree length - within limits - whatever you wanted
it to be just by changing the Z0 of the transmission line.

So here's your logic: Because EZNEC reports a amall angular difference
at the ends of your half-wave antenna in current, and because Roy
measured a small difference in delay through a coil, there must be a
larger real delay across the coil due to the analogy with the half wave
antenna. You're assuming, without proof, that the coil behaves as a
piece of straight wire, therefore the coil behaves as a piece of
straight wire. Nice logic. You have a lot in common with Art.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Apr 20, 2:29*pm, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
But what is being discussed here is the total current
reported by EZNEC. Is EZNEC wrong when it indicates
1 degree of current phase shift in 30 degrees of
length in a dipole antenna?

What 30 degrees? There aren't any "30 degrees of length"
in a loading coil, and there doesn't have to be.

I'm glad you asked, Tom. There was no mention of
a loading coil. I am talking about a simple 1/2WL
wire dipole with current probes at the x=1/3 and
y=2/3 points as illustrated. Why I am doing that
will become obvious.

------------------------fp-------x-------y--------

This is a center-fed 1/2WL dipole with current probes
installed at points 'x' and 'y'. The 1/2WL dipole is
known to be 180 degrees long. Half of a 1/2WL dipole
is 1/4WL, i.e. 90 degrees long. From the feedpoint
to point 'x' is 30 degrees. From point 'x' to point
'y' is 30 degrees. From point 'y' to the end of the
dipole is 30 degrees.

This 1/2WL dipole in EZNEC uses two wires of 90 segments
each, i.e. each segment equals one degree of dipole.
Point 'x' is at segment 30 and point 'y' is at segment
60 in Wire No. 2 on the right side of the dipole above.

Here are the results directly from EZNEC:

Source 1 * * *Current = 1 A. at 0.0 deg.

Wire No. 2:
Segment *Conn * * *Magnitude (A.) *Phase (Deg.)
30 * * * 'x' * * * *.87634 * * * * *-1.49
60 * * * 'y' * * * *.52573 * * * * *-2.43
90 * * * Open * * * .01185 * * * * *-3.12

The phase of the current changes by 1.06 degrees between
point 'x' and point 'y' which is 30 degrees of antenna
*WIRE* (not loading coil). How can the phase of that current
possibly be used to determine the delay through the wire
which we know is related to the speed of light in the wire
medium? The delay through 30 degrees of wire at 4 MHz
would be about 20 nanoseconds.

In the 1/2WL wire dipole above, the phase of the current
in each 90 degrees of wire changes by 3.12 degrees.

If Roy performs the measurements, he will correctly report
a negligible phase shift in the current between point 'x'
and point 'y' (just as he did for the loading coil).

Following his previous loading coil logic, he will report
that the delay through 30 degrees of wire dipole is not
20 nS at 4 MHz as would be expected but is instead closer
to zero, maybe one or two nanoseconds. We all know that
report would be false. One cannot use a current with
essentially unchanging phase to calculate delay through
a wire (or through a loading coil).

If Roy cannot accurately measure the delay through
30 degrees of wire, why does anyone suppose Roy can
accurately measure the delay through a loading coil
using the phase of that same total current on a standing
wave antenna?

Note that the true phase information is contained in the
amplitude, not the phase, just as Gene Fuller said. If we
take the ARCCOSine of the magnitudes above, we obtain:

Source, ARCCOS(1.0) * * = *0 degrees
Seg 30, ARCCOS(0.87634) = 29 degrees
Seg 60, ARCCOS(0.52573) = 58 degrees
Seg 90, ARCCOS(0.01185) = 89 degrees

Incidentally, I told all of this to Roy 5 years ago,
Jan 2004, according to Google. He plonked me.

I don't blame him for plonking you. You're saying that because you
fantasized that Roy would make a mistake that Roy would never make,
that he also made the same mistake when measuring the delay through a
coil. Cecil, a length of antenna is not a coil. A coil is not an
antenna. Declaring that coils are antennas and vice versa doesn't make
them so. You don't really know what the delay through your bugcatcher
coil is. If you substituted a real transmission line for your coil,
you could make the degree length - within limits - whatever you wanted
it to be just by changing the Z0 of the transmission line.

So here's your logic: Because EZNEC reports a amall angular difference
at the ends of your half-wave antenna in current, and because Roy
measured a small difference in delay through a coil, there must be a
larger real delay across the coil due to the analogy with the half wave
antenna. You're assuming, without proof, that the coil behaves as a
piece of straight wire, therefore the coil behaves as a piece of
straight wire. Nice logic. You have a lot in common with Art.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Well Tom I am not part of this debate but to say a coil is not a
radiator is silly It must radiate as does a helix antenna. The only
difference is how much slower the helix forces the charge to delay as
in "slow wave." Thus the coil act as a radiator where you must
multiply it by a velocity factor. After all, a "tesla" style coil will
display a resonance with the wire used much longer than a straight
wire length and like a helix will radiate.
Kraus states that for a helix one should not use wire shorter than two
wavelength
which I suspect is a substitute calculation for the VF change from a
straight radiator.

Ar

Art Unwin wrote:
Kraus states that for a helix one should not use wire shorter than two
wavelength which I suspect is a substitute calculation for the VF
change from a straight radiator.

Because of adjacent coil coupling, it takes
more wire to achieve the phase shift effect
of a straight wire.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Apr 20, 4:07*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Kraus states that for a helix one should not use wire shorter than two
wavelength which I suspect is a substitute calculation for the VF
change from a straight radiator.

Because of adjacent coil coupling, it takes
more wire to achieve the phase shift effect
of a straight wire.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Which is what I have always maintained, lumped loads are not included
in Maxwell's
equations .
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Which is what I have always maintained, lumped loads are not included
in Maxwell's equations .

CORRECT! he got one right! must be dumb luck.

you are absolutely correct, there are no terms in maxwell's equations
representing lumped loads. HOWEVER, you can use maxwell's equations to
derive the fields that explain how lumped elements work.

On Apr 20, 6:06*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Which is what I have always maintained, lumped loads are not included
in Maxwell's equations .

CORRECT! *he got one right! *must be dumb luck.

you are absolutely correct, there are no terms in maxwell's equations
representing lumped loads. *HOWEVER, you can use maxwell's equations to
derive the fields that explain how lumped elements work.

At the expense of efficiency per unit length

Tom Donaly wrote:
I don't blame him for plonking you. You're saying that because you
fantasized that Roy would make a mistake that Roy would never make,
that he also made the same mistake when measuring the delay through a
coil.

Sorry Tom, that is a diversion. The subject is NOT the delay
through a coil. The present subject is the delay through a
straight wire which is well understood. Please deal with the
topic at hand. If you refuse, we will know that you are not
sincere as far as technical facts are concerned.

Please ask Roy to prove that the current on a standing wave
antenna can be used to measure the delay through a straight
piece of wire that is x degrees long. If so, exactly how is
it done?

Roy is NOT omniscient. He definitely made the mistake but
like most gurus, refuses to admit it. You want to sweep the
mistake under the rug through diversions but I won't allow
you to do that. Once you and Roy admit that the current on
a standing wave antenna cannot be used to calculate delay,
everything else will become clear.

Please feel free to contact Roy by private email to resolve
the issue. Roy has, so far, simply stuck his head in the
sandbags and refused to respond. I'm sure he would have
advised you to plonk me instead of engaging me, for fear
of being proved wrong.

Yet, he admitted years ago that the phase of current in a
standing wave antenna varies by a very small amount. He
is presently trying to have his cake and eat it too. In
the process, he (and you as a supporter) are hoodwinking
the unwashed masses. Shame on all of you.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
I don't blame him for plonking you. You're saying that because you
fantasized that Roy would make a mistake that Roy would never make,
that he also made the same mistake when measuring the delay through a
coil.

Sorry Tom, that is a diversion. The subject is NOT the delay
through a coil. The present subject is the delay through a
straight wire which is well understood. Please deal with the
topic at hand. If you refuse, we will know that you are not
sincere as far as technical facts are concerned.

Please ask Roy to prove that the current on a standing wave
antenna can be used to measure the delay through a straight
piece of wire that is x degrees long. If so, exactly how is
it done?

Roy is NOT omniscient. He definitely made the mistake but
like most gurus, refuses to admit it. You want to sweep the
mistake under the rug through diversions but I won't allow
you to do that. Once you and Roy admit that the current on
a standing wave antenna cannot be used to calculate delay,
everything else will become clear.

Please feel free to contact Roy by private email to resolve
the issue. Roy has, so far, simply stuck his head in the
sandbags and refused to respond. I'm sure he would have
advised you to plonk me instead of engaging me, for fear
of being proved wrong.

Yet, he admitted years ago that the phase of current in a
standing wave antenna varies by a very small amount. He
is presently trying to have his cake and eat it too. In
the process, he (and you as a supporter) are hoodwinking
the unwashed masses. Shame on all of you.

No, it's not a diversion. You're making up things in your head.
The original controversy involved a claim by you that the coil in
a short, mobile antenna made up for the degrees lost in said
shortened antenna. You were wrong. Now you've changed the subject to
a half wave dipole, attributing to Roy a position he would never take.
That's an old, stupid trick a woman might use in a domestic argument,
but it won't work here. I know you have a pathological need to
win every argument (you ought to talk that over with your analyst) but
that's no reason anyone should waste time agreeing with you.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:

I'm going to break my reply up into two pieces. First I
will address the actual number of degrees occupied by
a loading coil.

No, it's not a diversion. You're making up things in your head.
The original controversy involved a claim by you that the coil in
a short, mobile antenna made up for the degrees lost in said
shortened antenna.

Sorry Tom, that is a false statement. Please stop misquoting
me. The coil occupies some number of degrees but not nearly
enough to make up for all of the "lost" degrees which are not
lost at all as I have demonstrated in the past and will do so
again here. Following is a *resonant open-circuit 1/4WL stub*
that is electrically 90 degrees long yet it is only physically
38 degrees long.

Z1
---19 deg 450 ohm feedline---+---19 deg 50 ohm feedline---open
-j145

The 450 ohm feedline occupies 19 degrees of the stub. The 50
ohm feedline occupies 19 degrees of the stub. The stub is
physically 38 degrees long total. It needs another 52 degrees
to make it electrically 1/4WL long and resonant. The "lost"
52 degrees is *not lost at all* and occurs abruptly at the
junction point '+'. Call the impedance at that point Z1. The
52 degrees of phase shift occurs between Z1/450 and Z1/50.
Microsmith says that Z1 = -j145.

Z1/450 = -j145/450 = -j0.3222

Z1/50 = -j145/50 = -j2.9

Take a look at the number of degrees between -j0.3222 and
-j2.9 on a Smith Chart. Surprise! There is the "lost" 52
degrees. Those degrees are not lost at all and are just
a fact of physics concerning phase shifts at an impedance
discontinuity.

Now if we multiply the stub impedances by 10, we have
a reasonable facsimile of a resonant base-loaded monopole.

19 deg coil
///////////////-----19 deg ~500 ohm stinger-----open
Z0= ~4500 ohms
VF= ~0.02

The loading coil occupies 19 degrees and the stinger
occupies 19 degrees. There is a 52 degree phase shift
at the coil to stinger junction. There are no "lost"
degrees. 19+52+19 = 90 degrees.

There were (are) two sides to the argument.

1. The coil furnishes the "lost" degrees.
FALSE!
The coil furnishes some number of degrees but not
nearly enough to make up for the phase shift at
the coil/stinger junction.

2. The coil supplies almost zero degrees.
FALSE!
The phase shift at the coil/stinger junction is not
enough to account for the "lost" degrees. The magnitude
of that phase shift is easily calculated on a Smith Chart.

Please skip the ad hominem attacks and use the laws
of physics and mathematics to prove me wrong.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com