Tom Donaly wrote:
Meaning you don't want anyone to disagree with you.

What I invite is someone disagreeing with me about
a 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil along with some technical
proof that I am wrong. All I have gotten so far is
ad hominem attacks. Where's the beef?

Dr. Corum's empirically-based equations do not work
for toroidal inductors so they are outside the scope
of my discussion. Why not discuss the most common
large air-core coils used for loading 75m mobile
antennas?

No he wouldn't. You don't know what he would have measured.

I have exactly the same coil that Tom used for his
"measurements". I have measured the traveling wave
delay through the coil by loading it with a 5k
resistor to eliminate reflections. I do know what
he would measure if he would only run the experiment
correctly. You could do it too if you so chose. x and
y are the current sample points.

source---x-Tom's coil-y--5k load
+-------------------------+

Maxwell's equations don't say anything about "slow-wave
structures."

If you are saying that Maxwell's equations are invalid
for slow-wave structures, your argument is with Ramo,
Whinnery, and Dr. Corum, not with me.

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?

You are free to access the above web page to see who
wrote it. If Dr. Corum stole Reg's ideas, he should
have given him the credit. Dr. Corum does provide
50 references for his paper but Reg is not one of them.
However, here is a partial list:
7. J. D. Kraus, "Antennas"
19. F. E. Terman, "Resonant Lines in Radio Circuits"
23. J. D. Ryder, "Networks, Lines, and Fields"
29. S. Ramo and J. R. Whinnery, "Fields and Waves in Modern Radio"
30. R. W. P. King, "Electromagnetic Engineering"
43. M. Born and E. Wolf, "Principles of Optics"
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Meaning you don't want anyone to disagree with you.

What I invite is someone disagreeing with me about
a 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil along with some technical
proof that I am wrong. All I have gotten so far is
ad hominem attacks. Where's the beef?

Dr. Corum's empirically-based equations do not work
for toroidal inductors so they are outside the scope
of my discussion. Why not discuss the most common
large air-core coils used for loading 75m mobile
antennas?

No he wouldn't. You don't know what he would have measured.

I have exactly the same coil that Tom used for his
"measurements". I have measured the traveling wave
delay through the coil by loading it with a 5k
resistor to eliminate reflections. I do know what
he would measure if he would only run the experiment
correctly. You could do it too if you so chose. x and
y are the current sample points.

source---x-Tom's coil-y--5k load
+-------------------------+

Maxwell's equations don't say anything about "slow-wave
structures."

If you are saying that Maxwell's equations are invalid
for slow-wave structures, your argument is with Ramo,
Whinnery, and Dr. Corum, not with me.

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?

You are free to access the above web page to see who
wrote it. If Dr. Corum stole Reg's ideas, he should
have given him the credit. Dr. Corum does provide
50 references for his paper but Reg is not one of them.
However, here is a partial list:
7. J. D. Kraus, "Antennas"
19. F. E. Terman, "Resonant Lines in Radio Circuits"
23. J. D. Ryder, "Networks, Lines, and Fields"
29. S. Ramo and J. R. Whinnery, "Fields and Waves in Modern Radio"
30. R. W. P. King, "Electromagnetic Engineering"
43. M. Born and E. Wolf, "Principles of Optics"

I didn't write that the Corums stole Reg's ideas, I wrote that you did.
You know that. Quit trying to hide behind authority. Do you really think
that the people who wrote the references you cite, if they were all
alive today, would agree with you? Ha, ha, ha. Nice try, Cecil.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
I didn't write that the Corums stole Reg's ideas, I wrote that you did.

But I am only quoting Drs. Corum, not Reg. If anyone
stole Reg's ideas, it was Dr. Corum, not I.

Do you really think
that the people who wrote the references you cite, if they were all
alive today, would agree with you?

As a matter of fact, Dr. Balanis did agree with me
when I took his antenna class at ASU in the early
90's. There were some Motorola people in the class
who asked, "Why do Intel people know so much about
antennas?" Dr. Balanis and I worked closely together
on a joint ASU/Intel project.

The complete absence of technical rebuttal in your
posting is noted. I don't know much about you, Tom,
but you seem to be more ad hominem than technical.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
I didn't write that the Corums stole Reg's ideas, I wrote that you did.

But I am only quoting Drs. Corum, not Reg. If anyone
stole Reg's ideas, it was Dr. Corum, not I.

Do you really think
that the people who wrote the references you cite, if they were all
alive today, would agree with you?

As a matter of fact, Dr. Balanis did agree with me
when I took his antenna class at ASU in the early
90's. There were some Motorola people in the class
who asked, "Why do Intel people know so much about
antennas?" Dr. Balanis and I worked closely together
on a joint ASU/Intel project.

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.


The complete absence of technical rebuttal in your
posting is noted. I don't know much about you, Tom,
but you seem to be more ad hominem than technical.

You're being ad hominem by accusing me of being ad hominem.
Come up with some evidence that makes sense concerning your
ideas and we can talk.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

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
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

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

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

On May 7, 7:51*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Meaning you don't want anyone to disagree with you.

What I invite is someone disagreeing with me about
a 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil along with some technical
proof that I am wrong. All I have gotten so far is
ad hominem attacks. Where's the beef?

Dr. Corum's empirically-based equations do not work
for toroidal inductors so they are outside the scope
of my discussion. Why not discuss the most common
large air-core coils used for loading 75m mobile
antennas?

No he wouldn't. You don't know what he would have measured.

I have exactly the same coil that Tom used for his
"measurements". I have measured the traveling wave
delay through the coil by loading it with a 5k
resistor to eliminate reflections. I do know what
he would measure if he would only run the experiment
correctly. You could do it too if you so chose. x and
y are the current sample points.

source---x-Tom's coil-y--5k load
* *+-------------------------+

Maxwell's equations don't say anything about "slow-wave
structures."

If you are saying that Maxwell's equations are invalid
for slow-wave structures, your argument is with Ramo,
Whinnery, and Dr. Corum, not with me.

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?

You are free to access the above web page to see who
wrote it. If Dr. Corum stole Reg's ideas, he should
have given him the credit. Dr. Corum does provide
50 references for his paper but Reg is not one of them.
However, here is a partial list:
7. J. D. Kraus, "Antennas"
19. F. E. Terman, "Resonant Lines in Radio Circuits"
23. J. D. Ryder, "Networks, Lines, and Fields"
29. S. Ramo and J. R. Whinnery, "Fields and Waves in Modern Radio"
30. R. W. P. King, "Electromagnetic Engineering"
43. M. Born and E. Wolf, "Principles of Optics"
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

I agree whole heartedly. Maxwell never included slow waves which is a
result of lumped loads. Maxwell equations studies have been rigorous
with respect to accounting for all forces involved in radiation for
maximum efficiency. It stands to reason then that for efficiency a
load is not valid. Thus Reg was correct in seeing a transmission line
as an antenna with just distributed loads when the length is in terms
of a WL i.e. in equilibrium. Thus Kraus's antennas are not in
equilibrium and thus deviated away from Maxwell's laws. Same goes for
Corum ! And Ramo still talks of waves so he is in the same bracket.
All electrical engineering turns topsey turvey
when engineers are forced to consider particles instead of waves and I
will be the leader of that change that will stop CERN in its tracks
Art

Art wrote:
"Thus Kraus`s antennas are not in equilibrium and thus deviated away
from Maxwell`s laws."

Impossible.

Maxwell`s laws are all that is nscessary and sufficient to describe
radiation from any antenna.

On page 37 of Kraus & Marthelka`s "Antennas for All Applications" one
can read:

"Although a charge moving with uniform velocity along a sreaighr
conductor does not radiate, a charge moving back and forth in simple
harmonic motion along the conductor is subject to aceleration (and
deceleration) and radiates."

To better understand Maxwell and radiation, I recommend
"Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals" by B. Whitfield Griffith,
Jr (now reprinted by Scitech Publishing Inc..

See "Directive Patterns Over Real Groind" in the "ARRL Antenna Book"
for how rays combine to make a pattern.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Richard Harrison" wrote
...
Art wrote:
"Thus Kraus`s antennas are not in equilibrium and thus deviated away
from Maxwell`s laws."

Impossible.

Maxwell`s laws are all that is nscessary and sufficient to describe
radiation from any antenna.

On page 37 of Kraus & Marthelka`s "Antennas for All Applications" one
can read:

"Although a charge moving with uniform velocity along a sreaighr
conductor does not radiate, a charge moving back and forth in simple
harmonic motion along the conductor is subject to aceleration (and
deceleration) and radiates."

Tell us than from which part of Hertz apparatus a radio waves are radiated?
(http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jone...Hertz_exp.html

Are they transverse or longitudinal?
S*