RadioBanter - Dual-Z0 Stubs

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)

- - Dual-Z0 Stubs (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/142896-dual-z0-stubs.html)

Jim Kelley wrote:
I'm just stating the obvious here.

One lurker stated the obvious in an email to me.
"It seems these guys will argue that black is white
if it's you that is saying white is white!"

The 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil satisfies the
boundary conditions given for a slow-wave structure.
What is obvious is that you and others absolutely
refuse to engage in any technical argument concerning
the subject. It is indeed obvious why you refuse to
do so.

Jim, I ask you again: How can one possibly use the
following current as reported by EZNEC to measure
the delay through a wire or through a loading coil?

EZNEC+ ver. 4.0
1/4WL vertical 5/7/2009 5:34:16 PM
--------------- CURRENT DATA ---------------
Frequency = 7.29 MHz
Wire No. 1:
Segment Conn Magnitude (A.) Phase (Deg.)
1 Ground 1 0.00
2 .97651 -0.42
3 .93005 -0.83
4 .86159 -1.19
5 .77258 -1.50
6 .66485 -1.78
7 .54059 -2.04
8 .40213 -2.28
9 .25161 -2.50
10 Open .08883 -2.71

Your silence on the subject has so far been deafening.

How do you explain Roy's (w7el) assertion at:
http://www.w8ji.com/agreeing_measurements.htm

"As described in my posting on rraa of November 11,
the inductor "replaces" about 33 electrical degrees
of the antenna."

w8ji's measurement was a 3 nS delay. If an EM wave
can travel through 33 degrees in 3 nS at 4 MHz, it
is traveling considerably faster than the speed of
light which is entirely possible with the lumped-
circuit model. How do you explain that?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim, I ask you again: How can one possibly use the
following current as reported by EZNEC to measure
the delay through a wire or through a loading coil?

Ask as many times as you like. You're asking me explain how to use a
printout from a computer program to measure current. The question makes
no sense, Cecil. What I'd like to know is how is one supposed to
respond to such nonsense.

If what you want to know is how to measure current on a coil, I suggest
that you need to build a current probe. Ask W8JI about it. According
to your reference, the Corum paper, you would then plot current as a
function of position along the axis of the helix. From that one can
determine the axial length of the standing wave pattern - the length of
the wave, so to speak. Given the frequency and the wavelength, one can
easily arrive at the propagation velocity. If you need help with it,
good luck.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim, if you want to retain one iota of respect,
please present a technical argument to refute
what I have asserted.

Sorry OM, you haven't proven your argument. You've provided no
substantive data, and have shown nothing that indicates that this coil
would conduct surface waves or behave as a tightly wound slow wave
structure. It that's a Tesla coil, then so is any other coil. I'm just
stating the obvious here.

ac6xg

Cecil's using the old "You cain't prove it ain't" argument. Where has
that come up before?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
In the early '90's you hadn't come up with your ideas yet.
How could Balanis agree with you before the fact? Again,
nice try.

On the contrary, in the early 90's I had not published
my ideas yet. Dr. Balanis helped me to develop the very
ideas that I have published and he agreed with them.

Come up with some evidence that makes sense concerning your
ideas and we can talk.

I have presented my evidence long ago and you have
ignored it in favor of ad hominem attacks. I cannot
recall a single technical argument from you. For all
I know, you are an 8 year old brat with access to
his mother's computer.

I would like nothing better than to engage in a real
technical argument with you. You can start by producing
technical arguments against the information on my web
page. If you have EZNEC, you can verify everything I
say by downloading the EZNEC files at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/current2.htm

Cecil,
people have tried technical arguments on you for years, to no
avail. Most have given up in disgust. Roy even plonked you. If Roy and
Tom Rauch couldn't make you see reason, no one can. As for Balanis
agreeing with you, that's pretty funny.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On May 7, 2:31*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
But Cecil the Bugcatcher does not conform with Maxwell's laws

In what way does a Bugcatcher not conform with
Maxwell's equations? In "Fields and Waves ...",
Ramo and Whinnery give the actual Maxwell equations
for a loading coil.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

I looked up the references and here are my comments
1 a helical is not in a state of equilibrium
2 A radiator that is not a WL or multiple thereof is not in
equilibrium
3 It refered to boundary laws and then mis used them.
4 The beginning was littered with "assume" and terms of" Aproximation"
5 It then went on to change the configuration of a helix to a
configuration that
he thinks he has solved when using the approximations. He also assumed
that the speed of light could be exceeded
6 I saw no evidence of accounting for the flux in a clockwise versus a
counterclockwise action tho apparently he made assumptions that
circular motion was zero.
7Frankly Cecil he knew what answer was to be accepted by reviwing
Krauss's work and devised his mathematics accordingly
8 Krauss's work was on the subject of a helical that was not in
equilibrium which thus forced him to include the helix angle which
also is nowhere to be seen in Maxwells laws.
The reference he used is not credible but name dropping of those that
he agrees with
is a confidence builder for those you judge plagurism as being with co
believers.
This is the same as those who defined light as a wave where academics
followed
with smiles and without question.
It all still comes back to the fact that in boundary laws the contents
must be in equilibrium and nothing about your antennamatches that
requirement
Sorry about that Cecil No harm meant
Art

On May 7, 9:16*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 7, 2:31*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
But Cecil the Bugcatcher does not conform with Maxwell's laws

In what way does a Bugcatcher not conform with
Maxwell's equations? In "Fields and Waves ...",
Ramo and Whinnery give the actual Maxwell equations
for a loading coil.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

I looked up the references and here are my comments
1 a helical is not in a state of equilibrium
2 A radiator that is not a WL or multiple thereof is not in
equilibrium
3 It refered to boundary laws and then mis used them.
4 The beginning was littered with "assume" and terms of" Aproximation"
5 It then went on to change the configuration of a helix to a
configuration that
he thinks he has solved when using the approximations. He also assumed
that the speed of light could be exceeded
6 I saw no evidence of accounting for the flux in a clockwise versus a
counterclockwise action tho apparently he made assumptions that
circular motion was zero.
7Frankly Cecil he knew what answer was to be accepted by reviwing
Krauss's work and devised his mathematics accordingly
8 Krauss's work was on the subject of a helical that was not in
equilibrium which thus forced him to include the helix angle which
also is nowhere to be seen in Maxwells laws.
The reference he used is not credible but name dropping of those that
he agrees with
is a confidence builder for those you judge plagurism as being with co
believers.
This is the same as those who defined light as a wave where academics
followed
with smiles and without question.
It all still comes back to the fact that in boundary laws the contents
must be in equilibrium and nothing about your antennamatches that
requirement
Sorry about that Cecil No harm meant
Art

Oooops, I forgot the real biggy.
You mentioned that a spark was emmited from the end of your antenna. I
am sure you are aware that this is symbolic of end effect.
Maxwell has no equation for end effect ! Nor did he see the need to
account for that force. Why? Because that is representitive of a
radiator that is NOT in equilibrium. It takes a circuit of 1 WL or
multiple there of to reach the state of equilibrium.
This is why the radiator at Quito Equador was changed to a quad ala 1
WL just to get rid of "end effect" which is of no help in terms of
drectivity just a waste of radiation energy. I will say it again,
boundary laws as does all the laws of our Universe demand
that a state of equilibrium is present such that it meets Newtons law
that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" which in
mathematical terms for the boundary aproach is that all forces summed
equals zero.
I feel that this debate has now come to an end. Maxwell's laws are not
applicable or valid when a radiator is not in equilibrium. And
resonance does not equate to equilibrium because end effect is not
present and thus not applicable with respect to Maxwell.
Best regards
Art'

On May 7, 1:35*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

I don't know about waves but my understanding is that all colors come
from the mixing *of the three basic colors, or is it four? When you
mix frequencies I
would imagine you could arrive at all possible frequencies. *I think
you should drop the idea of waves with respect to frequency. If you
observe a rainbow how many basic colors are there in the mix!

The visible spectrum does not include "basic colors" It pretty much has
all of them. Well, not Magenta. Is magenta a color?

And when you talk "basic, are you talking Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, or Red,
Green, Blue. It makes a difference.

In a
projector isn't there just three filters required for a movie in
color? One thing you have to get into your mind is the idea of basic
temperature and mass without energy.

That would be a black body radiator at absolute 0.

It's not very simple.

Except for monochromatic light sources like lasers, light of any color
contains multiple spectral lines. Sunlight or, for example, an
incandescent bulb or red hot electric stove element contains a
continuous spectrum, or effectively an infinite number of spectral lines
or "colors". So you can't duplicate these with any finite number of
spectral lines. The interesting thing is that with only three spectral
lines (pure monochromatic colors) you can produce light that *looks*
line nearly any color of light that's really made from many spectral
lines. For example, (transparent) box A can contain an incandescent bulb
whose light contains an infinite number of spectral lines or "colors",
box B can produce light with only three spectral lines, and you won't be
able to perceive the difference by eye if they're the right colors and
brightnesses. This is the trick that makes color TV and color film work.
It would be pretty easy to detect the difference with some simple tests,
though. For example, the light from the two would look like different
colors after passing through various color filters. Or pass the lights
through a prism, and you'd see many more colors in the light from the
incandescent bulb than the three-color source.

But you can't make all perceived colors from any set of primary colors
-- various choices of primary colors give you certain ranges of colors
you can mimic. RGB and CMY of particular wavelengths give wide ranges,
which is why they're common, but no choice can mimic all. I notice that
some color printers have more ink colors, which I assume allows an even
wider range. Creating light by combining colors is a different process
than filtering white light by subtracting colors or letting only certain
colors through. So different primary color sets are required. It's a
fascinating topic, and yet another example of how our eyes deceive us.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Further on this topic: one of the interesting things that comes up
when you look into "white" LED or fluorescent lights is that they
pretty much all have "holes" in their spectra. That is, the spectrum
they emit isn't continuous and the same shape as with light from an
incandescent source (including sunlight). The result is that some
things which reflect strongly over a narrow spectral band and much
less outside that band will look funny under such an LED or
fluorescent light. The light reflected by the object under such a
light doesn't have the "right" spectral shape. But it's something
that the lamp manufacturers are paying special attention to these
days, and you can find ratings on many bulbs about how good a job they
do at color rendering.

Cheers,
Tom

Jim Kelley wrote:
Ask as many times as you like. You're asking me explain how to use a
printout from a computer program to measure current. The question makes
no sense, Cecil. What I'd like to know is how is one supposed to
respond to such nonsense.

Jim, I'm sorry that you are not capable of converting
the EZNEC printout into a graph. Would you like me to
show you how to do it?

If what you want to know is how to measure current on a coil, I suggest
that you need to build a current probe. Ask W8JI about it. According
to your reference, the Corum paper, you would then plot current as a
function of position along the axis of the helix. From that one can
determine the axial length of the standing wave pattern - the length of
the wave, so to speak. Given the frequency and the wavelength, one can
easily arrive at the propagation velocity. If you need help with it,
good luck.

You're preaching to the choir, Jim. You and I know that
the phase information for a standing wave is contained
in the amplitude and the phase relative to time is constant
at all points on the antenna for any particular time.

What you should be doing is explaining that to w7el and
w8ji because they don't seem to understand that the
current phase in standing wave antennas does NOT change
with distance. Here's an earlier question that you guys
ignored. Given a 1/2WL dipole with current probes at x and y:

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

points x and y are 30 degrees apart. What will be the
difference between the phase of the current at x and
the phase of the current at y? EZNEC says ~1 degree.
How can current phase change by one degree in 30
degrees of wire?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil's using the old "You cain't prove it ain't" argument.

I have presented my arguments. Nobody has refuted
them technically. All the objections have been ad
hominem or based on false premises.

A 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil meets the Corum test
for a helical sheath. That test is on page 4 of:

http://www.ttr.com/TELSIKS2001-MASTER-1.pdf

"... is valid for helices with 5ND^2/WLo 1
where N is the TPI and D is the diameter."

That figure is 0.244 1 for the 75m Texas Bug
Catcher used on 4 MHz.

5*4*6^2/2952 = 0.244

So all you guys have to do to shoot down my analysis
is to prove that 0.244 is not less than one.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Tom Donaly wrote:
If Roy and Tom Rauch couldn't make you see reason, no one can.

Roy and Tom are the ones committing the technical
blunder of trusting their phase measurements using
a current that doesn't change phase relative to
the source phase anywhere up and down the thin-wire
1/2WL dipole. Now you and others are helping them
to sandbag their technical myths and hoodwink the
unwashed masses. If that's what you want for a
reputation, be my guest.

EZNEC agrees that the relative phase of the current
on a standing wave antenna doesn't change anywhere
on a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole so it cannot be used
to measure the phase shift through the wire. EZNEC
says that the phase of the current on a standing
wave antenna changes about 1 degree for every 30
degrees of antenna wire. Roy and Tom would have to
admit that is considerably faster than the speed
of light. Of course, that's exactly what the
lumped-circuit model presupposes - instantaneous
propagation through the lumped-inductor.

Since that current cannot even be used to determine
the phase shift through the antenna wire, how can anyone
honestly assert that it can be used to determine the
phase shift through a loading coil?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com