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

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

:-) And obviously it's electrical length depends on Vp, which depends on
whether it behaves as a helical sheath.

There is a test equation in the Drs. Corum paper that
indicates whether a particular coil meets the requirements
for a helical sheath or not. A 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil
meets the requirements. A small toroidal coil does not.
If you had ever actually read the article, you would know that.

Are you trying to imply that the paper isn't about Tesla coils?

No, I am asserting that the paper isn't *only* about Tesla
coils. It is about RF coils in general. Hint: "RF Coils"
are the first two words in the title.

it's a 'cartoon'.

Actually, it's a graphic diagram of a Tesla coil with
a top hat or a 75m Texas Bugcatcher with a top hat.
There is no conceptual difference in the diagrams.
The only difference is that we hams avoid arcing
by running reduced power compared to Tesla coils.

But it's not clear to me that the article applies to
coils with these parameters, and I haven't seen any (reputable)
empirical evidence to support it.

Then I would suggest that you read the article. There is
a test for validity on page 4. Let's see if you can
use your "expertise" to locate it.

Actually, I will make it easy for you. Here is an EXCEL
file that I generated based on the Corum paper which
includes the test for validity in red.

http://www.w5dxp.com/CoilZ0VF.xls

What do you suppose Corum^2 meant when they wrote "Experimentally, the
wave velocity and velocity factor may be measured by determining the
axial length of the standing wave pattern on the helical structure"?

EZNEC can do that for us since EZNEC will display the
current in each segment. I have been explaining that
for five+ years. Have you not looked at any of the
EZNEC results I have posted or have you just not been
able to comprehend them? It can also be done, as it
was for Tesla coils, by measuring the electric field
along the coil.

Describing constructive interference as "voltage
magnification" is an example.

Well, don't blame me. Drs. Corum think they are the
same thing, just using different words. I understand
what they mean. Obviously, the highest "voltage
magnification" occurs at the point where the forward
and reflected voltages are in phase, i.e. constructive
interference. If you disagree, let's hear your theory
on the subject.

Jim, you seem to object to anyone, including Drs. Corum,
choosing slightly different words from the ones you would
choose. Are you actually omniscient?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

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

On May 7, 12:43*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
:-) And obviously it's electrical length depends on Vp, which depends on
whether it behaves as a helical sheath.

There is a test equation in the Drs. Corum paper that
indicates whether a particular coil meets the requirements
for a helical sheath or not. A 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil
meets the requirements. A small toroidal coil does not.
If you had ever actually read the article, you would know that.

Are you trying to imply that the paper isn't about Tesla coils?

No, I am asserting that the paper isn't *only* about Tesla
coils. It is about RF coils in general. Hint: "RF Coils"
are the first two words in the title.

it's a 'cartoon'.

Actually, it's a graphic diagram of a Tesla coil with
a top hat or a 75m Texas Bugcatcher with a top hat.
There is no conceptual difference in the diagrams.
The only difference is that we hams avoid arcing
by running reduced power compared to Tesla coils.

But it's not clear to me that the article applies to
coils with these parameters, and I haven't seen any (reputable)
empirical evidence to support it.

Then I would suggest that you read the article. There is
a test for validity on page 4. Let's see if you can
use your "expertise" to locate it.

Actually, I will make it easy for you. Here is an EXCEL
file that I generated based on the Corum paper which
includes the test for validity in red.

http://www.w5dxp.com/CoilZ0VF.xls

What do you suppose Corum^2 meant when they wrote "Experimentally, the
wave velocity and velocity factor may be measured by determining the
axial length of the standing wave pattern on the helical structure"?

EZNEC can do that for us since EZNEC will display the
current in each segment. I have been explaining that
for five+ years. Have you not looked at any of the
EZNEC results I have posted or have you just not been
able to comprehend them? It can also be done, as it
was for Tesla coils, by measuring the electric field
along the coil.

Describing constructive interference as "voltage
magnification" is an example.

Well, don't blame me. Drs. Corum think they are the
same thing, just using different words. I understand
what they mean. Obviously, the highest "voltage
magnification" occurs at the point where the forward
and reflected voltages are in phase, i.e. constructive
interference. If you disagree, let's hear your theory
on the subject.

Jim, you seem to object to anyone, including Drs. Corum,
choosing slightly different words from the ones you would
choose. Are you actually omniscient?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

But Cecil the Bugcatcher does not conform with Maxwell's laws and
EZNEC has no provision to explain to you when you deviate from
Maxwell's laws with invalid designs
All Eznec does is to apply the best math available via approximations
to what you direct it to do. It is not able to inform you or change
the input so it does conform to Maxwell's equations. A typical
description of garbage in garbage out with respect to a rigourous
examination for accuracy. So to refer to Eznec as an authority of
accuracy is the same as an author who details all that agree with him
at the outset. This is not
to say that EZNEC is not a useful tool or not close in it's
approximations. It is a tool that matches the requirements of the
average ham and the education given him.
Art

Cecil Moore wrote:

Are you actually omniscient?

I know bullcrap when I see it.

ac6xg

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

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.

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Are you actually omniscient?

I know bullcrap when I see it.

So you have the omniscient gift of recognizing
bullcrap just by observing it with absolutely
no technical rebuttal and no possibility of
your being conceptually wrong? Exactly what
is it about Drs. Corum paper that you don't
understand?

Jim, if you want to retain one iota of respect,
please present a technical argument to refute
what I have asserted. Your gut feelings of
"bullcrap" are completely irrelevant. How about
your equations that prove Dr. Corums's IEEE
paper's equations are wrong?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

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

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