Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
John KD5YI wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
A 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil certainly
qualifies as a distributed load being about
1/8WL long.

A 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil is about 30 feet long?

*Electrically*, yes. Its velocity factor calculates
out to be about 0.02 at 4 MHz and it is physically
0.563 feet long. 0.563'/0.02 = ~28 feet.

At 4 MHz, a 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil replaces ~28 feet
of wire in the antenna. That is ~41 degrees at 4 MHz.
(Note there is about 44 feet of wire in a 75m Texas
Bugcatcher loading coil.)


Using your argument, I could buy an inductor wound on a toroid core and
claim it is a "distributed" component because it "electrically" replaces
some calculated "degrees" or "feet" of wire at some frequency.

You appear to be trying to make lumped components into distributed
components to suit your arguments. Shame on you.

John

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 4, 8:17*am, "John KD5YI" wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

...



John KD5YI wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
A 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil certainly
qualifies as a distributed load being about
1/8WL long.

A 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil is about 30 feet long?

*Electrically*, yes. Its velocity factor calculates
out to be about 0.02 at 4 MHz and it is physically
0.563 feet long. 0.563'/0.02 = ~28 feet.

At 4 MHz, a 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil replaces ~28 feet
of wire in the antenna. That is ~41 degrees at 4 MHz.
(Note there is about 44 feet of wire in a 75m Texas
Bugcatcher loading coil.)

Using your argument, I could buy an inductor wound on a toroid core and
claim it is a "distributed" component because it "electrically" replaces
some calculated "degrees" or "feet" of wire at some frequency.

You appear to be trying to make lumped components into distributed
components to suit your arguments. Shame on you.

John

Good for you John, You have no idea of the years I have stated such to
the sneers of this group. They just don't accept change!

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Art Unwin wrote:
I suspect that Corum made some approximations.

Of course, they are approximations. The wire
diameter doesn't even appear in the equation.
Quoting the Corum paper:

"A useful engineering *approximation* has
been found for the fundamental resonance of
helices ...".

"... an *approximation* for M has been determined
by Kandoian and Sichak which is appropriate for
quarter-wave resonance ... for helices with
diameters considerably less than a free-space
wavelength".

"We have found that this expression gives acceptable
results (errors less than 10%) for most practical
applications that involve wave propagation on
helical resonators ...".
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On Mon, 04 May 2009 13:17:13 GMT, "John KD5YI"
wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
A 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil certainly
qualifies as a distributed load being about
A 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil is about 30 feet long?
*Electrically*, yes. Its velocity factor calculates
You appear to be trying to make lumped components into distributed
components to suit your arguments. Shame on you.

Hi John,

All the right words are there. They are expressed in a familiar
order. There is the *implication by special marking* that can be used
equally as a point of reversed qualification - the back exit.

So, in retrospect (a very short one of the six lines above), this is
obviously a problem of you don't understand what you were thinking
when you asked your question. Unfortunately, you could have as easily
agreed only to have Cecil point out, through the same chain of
discussion above, you are wrong - you don't understand what you were
thinking.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

John KD5YI wrote:
Using your argument, I could buy an inductor wound on a toroid core and
claim it is a "distributed" component because it "electrically" replaces
some calculated "degrees" or "feet" of wire at some frequency.

Sorry, that's not true. Toroidal inductors are not covered
by my argument adopted from Dr. Corum's IEEE paper. Toroidal
inductors are not being discussed at all - except by people
afraid to discuss large air-core loading coils. My argument
(based on Dr. Corum's assertions) apply *only* to large,
air-core coils that meet the conditions listed on page 4 of
Dr. Corum's paper at:

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

A 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil is an example of the type
of air-core loading coil that I am talking about. It's
about 6" diameter, 4 tpi, and 6.75" long. Dr. Corum's
equations indicate a VF of ~0.02 for such a coil used
on 4 MHz which makes it electrically about 28 degrees
long.

You appear to be trying to make lumped components into distributed
components to suit your arguments. Shame on you.

No, just the opposite. I am trying to keep others
from considering large air-core distributed network
loading coils to be lumped components (which they
obviously are not). Dr. Corum says any coil electrically
longer than 15 degrees (0.04WL) needs to be treated
as a distrubuted network, not as a lumped-circuit.

Here are some of Dr. Corum's class notes:

http://www.ttr.com/corum/index.htm

Here's a quote: "In the following note, we will show
why one needs transmission line analysis (or Maxwell's
equations) to model these electrically distributed
structures. Lumped circuit theory fails because it's
a *theory* whose presuppositions are inadequate. Every
EE in the world was warned of this in their first
sophomore circuits course."

Yet W8JI reports a 3 nS delay through a 100 turn, 10"
long, 2" dia loading coil on 4 MHz, an obvious
impossibility since such a large, long air-core inductor
is nowhere near to being a lumped-inductor. At ~37
degrees, based on Dr. Corum's equations, it is more
than double the 15 degrees that is the point at
which the lumped-circuit model starts to fail.

37 degrees gives a delay of ~25 nS on 4 MHz. That's
approximately what one would measure if one used a
traveling wave for the measurement instead of a
standing wave (which doesn't change phase with
distance). W8JI's "measurements" were off by almost
a magnitude.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 4, 10:32*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
I suspect that Corum made some approximations.

Of course, they are approximations. The wire
diameter doesn't even appear in the equation.
Quoting the Corum paper:

"A useful engineering *approximation* has
been found for the fundamental resonance of
helices ...".

"... an *approximation* for M has been determined
by Kandoian and Sichak which is appropriate for
quarter-wave resonance ... for helices with
diameters considerably less than a free-space
wavelength".

"We have found that this expression gives acceptable
results (errors less than 10%) for most practical
applications that involve wave propagation on
helical resonators ...".
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil you never once backed me up on Maxwell/lumped loads
saga on this group. Now you point to several improvisations on
obtaining
lumped load affects by other avenues where not one theory satisfies
the physics community. If one starts off with the acceptance of errors
in the range of 10 % where you are also allowed to jump from one
theory to another so the acceptable discrepancy can be satisfied then
this is dishonest with respect to physics.
As I have pointed out many times, Maxwell's laws do not pass rigourous
examination when lumped loads are introduced. With that said, I do not
quarrel your aproach with respect to degrees of antenna in terms of
approximations but when it is applied to antennas on this group
adherence to Maxwell is required, which is inclusiveness of all forces
as opposed to planar designs (yagi's) where liberties are taken in not
accounting for all forces within the arbitrary borders. It is this
very aproach which have allowed designs of antennas to move away from
the edicts of Maxwell and the equilibrium requirements of Newton which
provide for maximum efficiency.
It is the silence of you and other respected people on this group that
is responsible for the lack of advancement in antenna design over the
last hundred years by not adhering to classical physics.
Nothing personal intended, but this does exhibit a representation of
the engineers in this group in misleading other hams with respect to
this hobby.
Best regards
Art

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

John KD5YI wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
John KD5YI wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
A 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil certainly
qualifies as a distributed load being about
1/8WL long.
A 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil is about 30 feet long?
*Electrically*, yes. Its velocity factor calculates
out to be about 0.02 at 4 MHz and it is physically
0.563 feet long. 0.563'/0.02 = ~28 feet.

At 4 MHz, a 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil replaces ~28 feet
of wire in the antenna. That is ~41 degrees at 4 MHz.
(Note there is about 44 feet of wire in a 75m Texas
Bugcatcher loading coil.)


Using your argument, I could buy an inductor wound on a toroid core and
claim it is a "distributed" component because it "electrically" replaces
some calculated "degrees" or "feet" of wire at some frequency.

You appear to be trying to make lumped components into distributed
components to suit your arguments. Shame on you.

John



It could be worse, John. He could claim that his loading coil replaces
a certain amount of period (time) in addition to length. That might be
too complex for him, though.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On Mon, 04 May 2009 11:03:50 -0700, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

It could be worse, John. He could claim that his loading coil replaces
a certain amount of period (time) in addition to length. That might be
too complex for him, though.

If he could put it to music, it might top the charts over Cat Stevens'
"Time in a Bottle."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 4, 1:24*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 11:03:50 -0700, "Tom Donaly"

wrote:
It could be worse, John. He could claim that his loading coil replaces
a certain amount of period (time) in addition to length. That might be
too complex for him, though.

If he could put it to music, it might top the charts over Cat Stevens'
"Time in a Bottle."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hold on guys before you start to pile on. Now there is agreement
with respect to approximations, the original debate did not go away.
As Cecil pointed out the difference is in the order of a magnitude!
Somebody has some explanations to provide such as instruments used
were not calibrated as perfect as Richard demands which is why he
agrees with nobody.
Somebody is hiding from the truth and using a sprinkling of untruth to
cover their path.
It is either Roy and Tom or Cecil himself. All others follow their
role models lead.
Art

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Cecil you never once backed me up on Maxwell/lumped loads
saga on this group.

Art, I remember the electron/photon discussion but
I do not remember any Maxwell/lumped loads discussion.
I often skip threads that I do not understand.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
It could be worse, John. He could claim that his loading coil replaces
a certain amount of period (time) in addition to length.

The percentage of a wavelength that the loading coil
electrically occupies is directly related to the delay
in time through the loading coil.

At 4 MHz, 36 degrees (0.1 WL) of loading coil equates
to 25 nS of delay through the loading coil.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Art Unwin wrote:
It is either Roy and Tom or Cecil himself. All others follow their
role models lead.

Roy's and Tom's blunder was to think one could use the phase
of the current on a standing wave antenna to determine the
delay through a loading coil when the phase of that current
doesn't change with length even in the wire sections of the
antenna.

Hint: The phase of the current on a standing wave antenna
cannot even be used to determine the delay through a wire
(proved by EZNEC) since the phase doesn't change with
length (over 90 degrees of length).

Since the phase of standing wave current cannot be used on
a wire, why would anyone be naive enough to think it can be
used on a loading coil?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 4, 2:39*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

I often skip threads that I do not understand.

Yup, Roy does that as well as others. Saves having to apologize


Yeah That's the one where you stated energy does not require mass ie
the photon
I would have to go back to the big bang to demonstrate to you that was
wrong.
Another day
Art

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Yeah That's the one where you stated energy does not require mass ie
the photon
I would have to go back to the big bang to demonstrate to you that was
wrong.

I was just quoting the standard model. Photons indeed
do have mass since they are always traveling at the speed
of light through a medium. If a photon ever slows down to
zero, that's when its mass goes to zero. No particle with
a non-zero rest mass can ever travel at the speed of light.

I never, never said that "energy does not require mass"!

What I said was that ZERO energy does not require mass.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 4, 3:22*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Yeah That's the one where you stated energy does not require mass ie
the photon
I would have to go back to the big bang to demonstrate to you that was
wrong.

I was just quoting the standard model. Photons indeed
do have mass since they are always traveling at the speed
of light through a medium. If a photon ever slows down to
zero, that's when its mass goes to zero. No particle with
a non-zero rest mass can ever travel at the speed of light.

I never, never said that "energy does not require mass"!

What I said was that ZERO energy does not require mass.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

HMMmm
The big bang started with energy being supplied to mass at zero
temperature
What supplied that energy has not been determined but it was energy
provided to mass, possibly hydrogen since it is first on an element
list, that propelled the parts of the broken initial mass. The initial
energy can only be provided back per Newtons laws is by all mass
returning to the initial point of rest. Therefore since a boundary was
formed around every piece of mass that was emitted since it generated
its own environment it is impossible for all boundaries to return to
the original point as the environments generated within each boundary
fills all the space around the original point of action. Thus unless
all boundaries decay to nothing, which means all energy now be zero,
it still leaves us with the initial mass to be accounted for that was
the carrier of the initially supplied energy! In other words the
initial energy supplied for the big bang can only return to the
initial point of the universe to achieve accountability of all forces.
I have a feeling that scientists today are getting close to assigning
different
names to the same parts by viewing the same but from different vantage
points ie a cluster of particles having a different name to that of
its parts.
Art

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Art Unwin wrote:
In other words the
initial energy supplied for the big bang can only return to the
initial point of the universe to achieve accountability of all forces.

It's called "The Big Crunch", Art, and is the theory
to which I personally ascribe. I'm trying to live
long enough to see it happen. :-)

I believe the universal expansion from the Big Bang
will someday reverse itself and collapse back into
the singularity from which it came. It's called
"The Oscillating Universe", a book I read half a
century ago about the time I graduated from Texas A&M.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 4, 5:43*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
In other words the
initial energy supplied for the big bang can only return to the
initial point of the universe to achieve accountability of all forces.

It's called "The Big Crunch", Art, and is the theory
to which I personally ascribe. I'm trying to live
long enough to see it happen. :-)

I believe the universal expansion from the Big Bang
will someday reverse itself and collapse back into
the singularity from which it came. It's called
"The Oscillating Universe", a book I read half a
century ago about the time I graduated from Texas A&M.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

How can you live to see it happen when it requires our Earth to be
concentrated as a single point mass at what was our Earth center of
gravity! Only when all boundaries shrink to point mass will they all
be able to elbow themselves back to a single point at the point of
origin. You can't see a black hole if you are drawn in also!
Enuff said
Art

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

snip

There is nothing without mass. Radiation is created by an
accelleration of charge which is mass. Particles create radiation .
Waves is also mass that is soluble acting under the influences of the
Universe.Thus a wave is a adjective that describes the applied
actions upon mass ie a noun. If a particle sits on the formation of a
wave then the two part ways.

When ya 'splains it that way, it gets me to thinkin'.

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On Mon, 4 May 2009 20:25:23 -0700, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:

There is nothing without mass.

Metaphysics?

Waves is also mass
How much does one wave of 160M weigh on Earth? (Killer question
because none will never see a number put to it.)

Here's another, perhaps easier, question: "How many angels dancing on
the head of a pin would a 75cM wave knock off?" [You don't need a
number to answer "all of them."]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Richard Clark wrote:
How much does one wave of 160M weigh on Earth?

How many photons are in that wave?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Richard Clark wrote:

If he could put it to music, it might top the charts over Cat Stevens'
"Time in a Bottle."

I think Jim Croce did that one. Cat Stevens did Wild World, Peace
Train, Moon Shadow, etc. And to top the charts these days you pretty
much have to be a rapper and have a dance crew.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John KD5YI wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
A 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil certainly
qualifies as a distributed load being about
1/8WL long.

A 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil is about 30 feet long?

*Electrically*, yes. Its velocity factor calculates
out to be about 0.02 at 4 MHz and it is physically
0.563 feet long. 0.563'/0.02 = ~28 feet.

At 4 MHz, a 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil replaces ~28 feet
of wire in the antenna. That is ~41 degrees at 4 MHz.
(Note there is about 44 feet of wire in a 75m Texas
Bugcatcher loading coil.)

Equation 32 in the following IEEE paper is what I used
to calculate the velocity factor of the loading coil.

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

How well does your answer compare with the curves in Fig. 1 given the
number of turns in a Bugcatcher coil?

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
How well does your answer compare with the curves in Fig. 1 given the
number of turns in a Bugcatcher coil?

Since the curves are generated from the equation,
they should match perfectly. As a matter of fact,
I have a dot on that graph at 0.004 and 5k. The
VF is ~0.02.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On May 4, 3:22 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
HMMmm
The big bang started with energy being supplied to mass at zero
temperature

so now you are a cosmologist and can perfectly explain the start of the big
bang... have you discussed this with stephen hawking recently?

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"John KD5YI" wrote in message
...

You appear to be trying to make lumped components into distributed
components to suit your arguments. Shame on you.

its all a question of scale... your lumped inductor looks distributed to me
under a microscope, and still obeys all of maxwell's equations.

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On May 3, 5:36 pm, "Dave" wrote:

You really enjoy playing the simple person. You don't find the weak
force as believable but do find Coriolis effect believable so I gave
you what you desire, something to believe in.

i don't find the coriolis effect to be believable in causing tilted antennas
either, but its more fun to talk about that than the weak force. i find the
image of watching your antenna spiral down a toilet drain amusing.

The basic level of time in physics is based
on the speed for a capaciter to release all its energy which is then
replaced by a magnetic field.

so now you can define time in terms of time, sounds like another circular
argument to me. it takes time to discharge and that defines time... why
doesn't the time it takes to rotate the earth define time? that is more
sensible and has been known to man for much longer than discharging
capacitors.

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
John KD5YI wrote:

(snip)

A 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil is an example of the type
of air-core loading coil that I am talking about. It's
about 6" diameter, 4 tpi, and 6.75" long. Dr. Corum's
equations indicate a VF of ~0.02 for such a coil used
on 4 MHz which makes it electrically about 28 degrees
long.

You appear to be trying to make lumped components into distributed
components to suit your arguments. Shame on you.

No, just the opposite. I am trying to keep others
from considering large air-core distributed network
loading coils to be lumped components (which they
obviously are not). Dr. Corum says any coil electrically
longer than 15 degrees (0.04WL) needs to be treated
as a distrubuted network, not as a lumped-circuit.


Wake up, Cecil. The 6.75 inch long Texas Bugcatcher coil falls into the
lumped component category (being only .002WL at 75m).

John

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 5, 5:33*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On May 3, 5:36 pm, "Dave" wrote:

You really enjoy playing the simple person. You don't find the weak
force as believable but do find Coriolis effect believable so I gave
you what you desire, something to believe in.

i don't find the coriolis effect to be believable in causing tilted antennas
either, but its more fun to talk about that than the weak force. *i find the
image of watching your antenna spiral down a toilet drain amusing.

The basic level of time in physics is based
on the speed for a capaciter to release all its energy which is then
replaced by a magnetic field.

so now you can define time in terms of time, sounds like another circular
argument to me. *it takes time to discharge and that defines time... why
doesn't the time it takes to rotate the earth define time? *that is more
sensible and has been known to man for much longer than discharging
capacitors.

Because the magnetic field produced launches the particle which
travels at the speed of light by impact. This is the basic metric of
time. A particle emits light when it's momentum changes. Particles
carry just one color which is a measure of its frequency. There are
only three colors available but together they form the basics of all
colours. Colors emitted can be seen in the Northern lights as the
momentum changes of particles entering the Earth's medium where they
come to rest as unbound electrons on diamagnetic surfaces.
Hawkins is in hospital at the moment so you can't chat with him

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

John KD5YI wrote:
Wake up, Cecil. The 6.75 inch long Texas Bugcatcher coil falls into the
lumped component category (being only .002WL at 75m).

Sorry John, we are not talking about *physical* length
- we are talking about *electrical* length which, like
a piece of coax, depends upon the velocity factor. The
velocity factor for a Texas Bugcatcher coil is ~0.02.

6.75"/0.02=337.5", 337.5"/12 = 28 feet,
28'/(246'/lamda) = 0.114 WL

Thus a 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil is electrically
about 41 degrees long at 4 MHz. Hint: It is a slow-wave
structure described in "Fields and Waves ..." by
Ramo, Whinnery, and Van Duzer, 3rd edition, page 476.

The equation for the approximate velocity factor for
an RF coil meeting the specified physical conditions
is given in equation 32 on page 4 of:

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

Fig. 1 gives the VF for various diameter/wavelength
ratios and turns/wavelength. Here's how to determine
the VF from the Fig. 1 graph.

For the coil in question, calculate the
diameter/wavelength ratio and plot it on the x axis.

The diameter/wavelength ratio for the Texas Bugcatcher
is ~0.5/246 = 0.002, i.e. 2x10^-3 on the graph.

For the coil in question, calculate the
turns/wavelength ratio and select the proper curve.

The turns/wavelength ratio for the Texas Bugcatcher
is 4tpi*12*246' = 11,800, i.e. slightly to the left
of the left-most 10k curve.

That puts the Texas Bugcatcher squarely in the slow-
wave category with a velocity factor of ~0.02.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Particles
carry just one color which is a measure of its frequency.

This is true for orbital electrons but not true for
free electrons as exist in conductors like copper
and aluminum. Free electrons can emit photons of any
frequency. We change the transmitting frequency of
the photons by adjusting our VFOs to virtually
limitless frequencies.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
John KD5YI wrote:
Wake up, Cecil. The 6.75 inch long Texas Bugcatcher coil falls into the
lumped component category (being only .002WL at 75m).

Sorry John, we are not talking about *physical* length
- we are talking about *electrical* length which, like
a piece of coax, depends upon the velocity factor. The
velocity factor for a Texas Bugcatcher coil is ~0.02.


I think any inductor with the same inductance, Q, and self-resonant
frequency will give the same velocity factor and delay as your Bugcatcher. I
don't think that neither the coil nor the "stinger" knows how the inductor
is constructed. I think the slight difference due to radiation from the
Bugcatcher can be ignored since it is small physically.

I think you will measure the same velocity factor with any other coil that
gives the same inductance, Q, and self-resonant frequency regardless of
whether it is wound on air, a toroid core, a ferrite rod, or a beer can. If
so, then that coil will be a distributed component according to you because
it meets the electrical requirements.

John

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

John KD5YI wrote:
I think any inductor with the same inductance, Q, and self-resonant
frequency will give the same velocity factor and delay as your
Bugcatcher.

That may or may not be true - I don't have an
opinion one way or another - and it is NOT part
of my argument. My argument deals only with
75m Texas Bugcatcher coils and other large air-
core loading coils used on 75m.

My argument is that the velocity factor of a 75m
Texas Bugcatcher coil is ~0.02, occupies ~41
electrical degrees on 4 MHz, and exhibits a
delay of ~28 nS through the coil. That is my only
argument. I am not interested in diversions from
that argument.

My argument also includes the 100 turn, 10 inch long,
2 inch diameter coil that w8ji used for his 3 nS delay
"measurements". If he had used traveling wave current
for the measurement, he would have measured approximately
25 nS.

Maxwell's equations for slow-wave structures (like
a 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil) are given in
"Fields and Waves ...", by Ramo and Whinnery:
pages 467-479 in the 2nd edition. This is one of
the references in the Corum IEEE paper.

What do you make of Roy's (w7el) statement 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."
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 5:33 pm, "Dave" wrote:
Because the magnetic field produced launches the particle which
travels at the speed of light by impact. This is the basic metric of
time. A particle emits light when it's momentum changes. Particles
carry just one color which is a measure of its frequency. There are
only three colors available but together they form the basics of all
colours. Colors emitted can be seen in the Northern lights as the
momentum changes of particles entering the Earth's medium where they
come to rest as unbound electrons on diamagnetic surfaces.
Hawkins is in hospital at the moment so you can't chat with him

only 3 colors eh? if the particles can only carry one of 3 frequencies how
do they generate 160m frequencies? 80m frequencies?? the whole range of
hf, vhf, uhf, mf, lf, etc, etc, etc... the whole spectrum of electromagnetic
waves can't come from just 3 basic frequencies.

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 6, 5:54*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On May 5, 5:33 pm, "Dave" wrote:

Because the magnetic field produced launches the particle which
travels at the speed of light by impact. This is the basic metric of
time. A particle emits light when it's momentum changes. Particles
carry just one color which is a measure of its frequency. There are
only three colors available but together they form the basics of all
colours. Colors emitted can be seen in the Northern lights as the
momentum changes of particles entering the *Earth's medium *where they
come to rest as unbound electrons on diamagnetic surfaces.
Hawkins is in hospital at the moment so you can't chat with him

only 3 colors eh? if the particles can only carry one of 3 frequencies how
do they generate 160m frequencies? *80m frequencies?? *the whole range of
hf, vhf, uhf, mf, lf, etc, etc, etc... the whole spectrum of electromagnetic
waves can't come from just 3 basic frequencies.

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! 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. the case prior to the big bang.
The temperature aspect is very important input
of the inpact of energy at the initial stage where decelleration of a
particle in a changing medium generates a change in temperature which
is also synonimous with particle temperature. You are for ever
compartmentizing every thing as if there are no connections to be had
as per G.U.T. or more to the point static versus dynamic fields.
You are way to quick to say that you can't and should listen to OBAMA
who states yes we can.

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
How well does your answer compare with the curves in Fig. 1 given the
number of turns in a Bugcatcher coil?

Since the curves are generated from the equation,
they should match perfectly. As a matter of fact,
I have a dot on that graph at 0.004 and 5k. The
VF is ~0.02.

Presumably there is a lower limit to the number of turns the coil would
have to have, or an upper limit to the pitch angle, in order to behave
as described - a helical sheath. Tesla coils usually have at least a
few hundred turns wound closely together, and often operate at
wavelengths considerably longer that 75 meters. One could easily argue
that 30 turns do not a Tesla coil make, in which case Eq. 32 would not
apply.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

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?

That's the RGB standard designed for fooling human
eyes into seeing more than just red, green, and blue.
Photons in nature come in *all* EM frequencies.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
John KD5YI wrote:
I think any inductor with the same inductance, Q, and self-resonant
frequency will give the same velocity factor and delay as your
Bugcatcher.

That may or may not be true - I don't have an
opinion one way or another - and it is NOT part
of my argument. My argument deals only with
75m Texas Bugcatcher coils and other large air-
core loading coils used on 75m.

If it IS true, then the point I tried to make that you are making a
distributed component from a lumped one is valid. That's what caused me to
object to your earlier post.

And, by the way, I feel the same way you do except about people who are
afraid to consider lumped components. Perhaps they do not have what it takes
to judge when a proper substitution can be made.

John

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

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?

Your understanding is in error... at least, if you're referring to
colors in terms of actual photon behavior (energy and wavelength)
rather than to the human *perception* of color.

That's the RGB standard designed for fooling human
eyes into seeing more than just red, green, and blue.

Yup. And, the red/green/blue system is an artifact of the human
visual system... most of us happen to have three different types
of photo-sensitive molecules in the cone cells in our eyes, and these
three types of molecules have their peak receptivities at the
frequencies that we refer to as "red", "green", and "blue."

There seems to be some amount of genetic variation, among humans, in
the exact frequencies at which the peak sensitivies lie. And, some
people have are missing one or more of these types of photoreceptor,
and are referred to as "colorblind".

There are apparently some humans who have four different types of
photopigment, and thus may have an improved ability to perceive
distinctions between colors. Certain species of animal are known to
have four photopigments (one for e.g. UV sensitivity) and I wouldn't
be surprised if some species have five or more variants.

Photons in nature come in *all* EM frequencies.

Yup again. It's an interesting process:

- Light comes in a continuous range of frequencies.

- Our eyes "sample" this continous range, with three types of sensor
having different-but-overlapping sensitivities. Each sensor
generates a variable amplitude (or pulse train) based on the
intensity that it's detecting, within its sensitivity range.

- Our nervous system maps the three amplitudes back into a perception
of a continuous range of colors.

The process is far from perfect... information is lost during the
sampling process, and thus the perception of a continuous spectrum is
necessarily flawed and imperfect.

This is why a mixture of two different pure colors (e.g. red and
green) can look like a single pure color to our eyes (e.g. yellow or
amber)... it happens to excite the red and green photosensors in the
same proportion that a single, pure-yellow light would. Mixed
together, the colors look like one... split them apart with a prism
and you can easily distinguish them and see the trick.

[Almost] All Is Illusion.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 6, 7:05*pm, Cecil Moore 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?

That's the RGB standard designed for fooling human
eyes into seeing more than just red, green, and blue.
Photons in nature come in *all* EM frequencies.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil
Seems like this thing called photon is the magic article that created
the big bang.
You attribute everything to the photon but I don't think physics as
got a proper handle on it! Heck, only a few years ago they said a
particle could exist without mass.If a particle emitted from the Sun's
boundary( lepton?) deaccellerated in a particular medium
and broke apart into many electrons, then would not heat or light be
emitted as kinetic energy contained in the particles of different
sizes representing the spectrum
of a particular color with respect to potential energy contained in
the various sized particles? Does your photon come in different sizes,
color and potential energy?
My understanding is that there are about seven leptons that break away
from the Sun's boundary, three of which contains color attributes
along with other flavours which is indicative of temperature and
change in momentum.
I think it is to early to argue about such a subject.

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John KD5YI wrote:
I think any inductor with the same inductance, Q, and self-resonant
frequency will give the same velocity factor and delay as your
Bugcatcher.

That may or may not be true - I don't have an
opinion one way or another - and it is NOT part
of my argument. My argument deals only with
75m Texas Bugcatcher coils and other large air-
core loading coils used on 75m.

My argument is that the velocity factor of a 75m
Texas Bugcatcher coil is ~0.02, occupies ~41
electrical degrees on 4 MHz, and exhibits a
delay of ~28 nS through the coil. That is my only
argument. I am not interested in diversions from
that argument.

Meaning you don't want anyone to disagree with you.



My argument also includes the 100 turn, 10 inch long,
2 inch diameter coil that w8ji used for his 3 nS delay
"measurements". If he had used traveling wave current
for the measurement, he would have measured approximately
25 nS.

No he wouldn't. You don't know what he would have measured.
You don't know how to measure it yourself because you don't have
any idea of what's going on, theoretically.



Maxwell's equations for slow-wave structures (like
a 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil) are given in
"Fields and Waves ...", by Ramo and Whinnery:
pages 467-479 in the 2nd edition. This is one of
the references in the Corum IEEE paper.

Maxwell's equations don't say anything about "slow-wave
structures." If they did, you couldn't understand the vector
calculus involved, anyway. This is more picking and choosing
from authorities.



What do you make of Roy's (w7el) statement 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."

Are you sure that isn't a quote from Reg Edwards, whose ideas
you stole in the first place? Reg thought that antennas were
transmission lines. There's nothing wrong with that. Reg even
worked out some practical formulas based on his ideas that seemed
to work well enough for who they were for. What he didn't do was
discover any laws of nature, any more than you have.

73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH