Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

I have previously presented my thoughts about the
similarity between dual-Z0 stubs and base-loaded
mobile antennas. Here is an article on the subject
of "Dual-Z0 Stubs" that is directly applicable
to base-loaded mobile antennas.

If we can shorten a stub by using two Z0s, why
can't we shorten an antenna by using two Z0s?

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

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
I have previously presented my thoughts about the
similarity between dual-Z0 stubs and base-loaded
mobile antennas. Here is an article on the subject
of "Dual-Z0 Stubs" that is directly applicable
to base-loaded mobile antennas.

If we can shorten a stub by using two Z0s, why
can't we shorten an antenna by using two Z0s?

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

Congratulations, Cecil, you've just re-invented the electrical
analog of the Helmholtz resonator. Your analysis would be a lot
simpler if you'd first characterized each stub with T parameters
and then multiplied them together to get a two port you could use
to find the conditions for the resonance of the entire stub. You
could then use the differential calculus to find out what the
criteria was for the shortest overall stub. (It's true, both lengths
have to be the same.) If you want to take a stab at using your
discovery to deal with antennas, why don't you use two "dual Z0
stubs together to make a folded dipole. You could even do that in
EZNEC. Applying this to your favorite loaded dipole is a stretch,
but that probably won't stop you from trying.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

(P.S. Where did you learn about "dual Z0" stubs?)

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On Apr 24, 8:28*pm, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
If you want to take a stab at using your
discovery to deal with antennas, why don't you use two "dual Z0
stubs together to make a folded dipole. You could even do that in
EZNEC.

Tom,

How would that work in a folded dipole? Surely it's not the
differential mode "stub" you're trying to shorten - it's the common-
mode radiator.

Steve G3TXQ

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

steveeh131047 wrote:
On Apr 24, 8:28 pm, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
If you want to take a stab at using your
discovery to deal with antennas, why don't you use two "dual Z0
stubs together to make a folded dipole. You could even do that in
EZNEC.

Tom,

How would that work in a folded dipole? Surely it's not the
differential mode "stub" you're trying to shorten - it's the common-
mode radiator.

Steve G3TXQ

Hi Steve,
I have no idea what Cecil will find if he tries his
theory on this. However, according to Cecil's favorite text, a
folded dipole's behavior can be analyzed by assuming that its
current "is decomposed into two distinct modes: a transmission
line mode and an antenna mode." (From Balanis, _Antenna Theory_)
You've got EZNEC; you can try this, too. It won't cost you anything,
and, if nothing else, you might get the satisfaction of telling me
how wrong I am.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On Apr 24, 9:26*pm, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
However, according to Cecil's favorite text, a
folded dipole's behavior can be analyzed by assuming that its
current "is decomposed into two distinct modes: a transmission
line mode and an antenna mode." (From Balanis, _Antenna Theory_)
You've got EZNEC; you can try this, too. It won't cost you anything,
and, if nothing else, you might get the satisfaction of telling me
how wrong I am.

Tom: I was unaware of "Cecil's favourite text" and did my own work on
the folded dipole some time ago:
http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/folded_dipole/

I too found that you can resolve the currents between the two wires
into a common-mode radiating component and a differential-mode stub
component. My particular interest was in situations where the velocity
factors of the two modes is very different - for example if you use
zip cord for the construction - and discovering where you then need to
place the stub shorting links for minimum effect on the feedpoint
impedance.

I was disappointed to see that recent editions of the ARRL Antenna
Book don't recognise this effect, but earlier editions do. I have also
found that Cebik's analysis of the topic is incomplete, as a result of
which he reaches the wrong conclusion about shorting link position. I
wrote to ARRL about it some time ago, suggesting they re-instate the
original text, but they seem disinclined to respond.

Without modelling it, my guess is that a ""dual Zo" approach will
require the shorting links to be placed much closer to the centre of
the antenna, but it will do nothing for the overall length required
for common-mode resonance. After all, what you require of the stubs is
that they be very high impedance across the feedpoint, and with "dual
Zo" that would require them to be much shorter.

Now, if you can think of some way of forming a large discontinuity in
the COMMON-MODE Zo we may be onto a "breakthrough" ;)

Steve G3TXQ

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
(P.S. Where did you learn about "dual Z0" stubs?)

While I was figuring out why Roy's "measurements"
were very accurate but virtually meaningless.

In an ideal stub, the current doesn't change phase
from end to end. An antenna is more like an ideal
stub than most people realize.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
... why don't you use two "dual Z0
stubs together to make a folded dipole.

I had not thought of that before but I will now. TNX!

I will need to cause the current to be common-mode
rather than differential mode but it might work.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
(P.S. Where did you learn about "dual Z0" stubs?)

While I was figuring out why Roy's "measurements"
were very accurate but virtually meaningless.

This is, of course, referring to Roy's "measurements"
of the "delay" through a 75m mobile loading coil as
being close to zero since there was "no measurable phase
shift" - as if the phase shift had anything to do with
the delay in a standing wave antenna. Hint: It doesn't!

Any person with a modicum of mathematics skill can
look at the following equation and know that there
is no phase shift relative to x in 1/4WL of wire or
coil.

Itot = Imax*cos(kx)*cos(wt)

Since Roy has known these details for more than
five years, I can only assume that he knows that
he is wrong but refuses to admit it - hoping that
his guru status will continue to promote his
old wives' tale.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Any person with a modicum of mathematics skill can
look at the following equation and know that there
is no phase shift relative to x in 1/4WL of wire or
coil.

To the extent that 'a modicum of mathematics skill' is
like 'a little knowledge', I suppose anything is possible.

Itot = Imax*cos(kx)*cos(wt)

Noting the linear variables and constants in there, and the absence of
anything that would change abruptly at certain particular values of x,
what would the expression for a standing wave on a shortened coil loaded
90 degree monopole have to look like?

ac6xg

"To convert from units of current to units of mass simply multiply the
superposition trig identity by mass (and ignore the factor of 2): Mtot =
Mmax*cos(kx)*cos(wt). Try it with any units you like!"

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Itot = Imax*cos(kx)*cos(wt)

Noting the linear variables and constants in there, and the absence of
anything that would change abruptly at certain particular values of x,
what would the expression for a standing wave on a shortened coil loaded
90 degree monopole have to look like?

Ideally, it would be of the form:

For x = 0 to top of coil,
Itot = k1*cos(k2*x)cos(wt)

For x = bottom of stinger to top of stinger,
Itot = k3*cos(k4*x)*cos(wt)

where k1-k4 are constants

Note: The above is a conceptual simplification as it
ignores the current "bulge" in a real-world loading
coil.

Note that at the coil/stinger junction:

Itot = k1*cos(k2*x)*cos(wt) = k3*cos(k4*x)*cos(wt)

- as required by the laws of physics. Remember, it is
always implied that we are considering only the real
part of the phasor. Thus a current phasor can undergo
an abrupt amplitude and phase shift without changing
the real value.

10*cos(0) = 14.14*cos(45) = 10

The above phasor has abruptly rotated its phase by
45 degrees and increased its amplitude by 41% with
no violation of the laws of physics.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On Apr 29, 4:09*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Itot = Imax*cos(kx)*cos(wt)

Noting the linear variables and constants in there, and the absence of
anything that would change abruptly at certain particular values of x,
what would the expression for a standing wave on a shortened coil loaded
90 degree monopole have to look like?

Ideally, it would be of the form:

For x = 0 to top of coil,
Itot = k1*cos(k2*x)cos(wt)

For x = bottom of stinger to top of stinger,
Itot = k3*cos(k4*x)*cos(wt)

where k1-k4 are constants

Note: The above is a conceptual simplification as it
ignores the current "bulge" in a real-world loading
coil.

Note that at the coil/stinger junction:

Itot = k1*cos(k2*x)*cos(wt) = k3*cos(k4*x)*cos(wt)

- as required by the laws of physics. Remember, it is
always implied that we are considering only the real
part of the phasor. Thus a current phasor can undergo
an abrupt amplitude and phase shift without changing
the real value.

10*cos(0) = 14.14*cos(45) = 10

The above phasor has abruptly rotated its phase by
45 degrees and increased its amplitude by 41% with
no violation of the laws of physics.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil -

Mathematics is NOT a toy.

:-)

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On Apr 29, 5:09*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Itot = Imax*cos(kx)*cos(wt)

Noting the linear variables and constants in there, and the absence of
anything that would change abruptly at certain particular values of x,
what would the expression for a standing wave on a shortened coil loaded
90 degree monopole have to look like?

Ideally, it would be of the form:

For x = 0 to top of coil,
Itot = k1*cos(k2*x)cos(wt)

For x = bottom of stinger to top of stinger,
Itot = k3*cos(k4*x)*cos(wt)

where k1-k4 are constants

Note: The above is a conceptual simplification as it
ignores the current "bulge" in a real-world loading
coil.

It ingores almost everything about the antenna.

Note that at the coil/stinger junction:

Itot = k1*cos(k2*x)*cos(wt) = k3*cos(k4*x)*cos(wt)

Uh, what units did you say your constants k1-k4 had again?

- as required by the laws of physics.

Is that supposed to automatically add credibility to any remark which
preceeds it? Thusly, the nano-particles emitted by the framistat at
an impedance discontinuity carry only re-reflected energy - as
required by the laws of physics. It does sound impressive.

10*cos(0) = 14.14*cos(45) = 10

The above phasor has abruptly rotated its phase by
45 degrees and increased its amplitude by 41% with
no violation of the laws of physics.

Cecil -

Mathematics is NOT a toy.

:-)

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...
Is that supposed to automatically add credibility to any remark which
preceeds it? Thusly, the nano-particles emitted by the framistat at
an impedance discontinuity carry only re-reflected energy - as
required by the laws of physics. It does sound impressive.

It sounds like something art would say!

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Mathematics is NOT a toy.

Sorry that it is beyond your comprehension level.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Mathematics is NOT a toy.

Sorry that it is beyond your comprehension level.

So I take it you weren't able to answer the question, address the
issues, or resist posting insults.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
So I take it you weren't able to answer the question, address the
issues, or resist posting insults.

I posted the math. You posted opinions devoid of
any technical content. Your assertions about
"nano-particles emitted by the framistat" do not
deserve a serious response.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Note: The above is a conceptual simplification as it
ignores the current "bulge" in a real-world loading
coil.

It ingores almost everything about the antenna.

According to Kraus, the standing waves are the *primary*
effect associated with a standing-wave antenna. Everything
else is indeed a secondary effect. The standing wave current
is about 90% of the total steady-state current. Like a low-
loss transmission line, a loaded mobile antenna can be
analyzed by assuming that it is lossless.

"Antennas", by Kraus, 3rd edition, Standing Wave Antennas

Page 187: "A sinusoidal current distribution may be
regarded as the standing wave produced by two uniform
(unattenuated) traveling waves of equal amplitude moving
in opposite directions along the antenna."

Page 464: "It is generally assumed that the current
distribution of a thin-wire antenna is sinusoidal, and
that the phase is constant over a 1/2WL interval, ..."

Both of Kraus' statements assume a lossless antenna.

Note that at the coil/stinger junction:
Itot = k1*cos(k2*x)*cos(wt) = k3*cos(k4*x)*cos(wt)

Uh, what units did you say your constants k1-k4 had again?

k1 and k3 have the units of current and are the magnitude
of the two standing-wave current phasors on each side of
the coil/stinger junction.

k2 and k4 have the units of degrees/unit-length so when
they are multiplied by x, the result is degrees. Of course,
it could be radians/unit-length.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
It ignores almost everything about the antenna.

"Antennas", by Kraus, 3rd edition, Standing Wave Antennas

Kraus on the other hand ignores almost nothing about antennas. (for ref.
I'm looking at his 2nd edition.)

Uh, what units did you say your constants k1-k4 had again?

k1 and k3 have the units of current and are the magnitude
of the two standing-wave current phasors on each side of
the coil/stinger junction.

k2 and k4 have the units of degrees/unit-length so when
they are multiplied by x, the result is degrees. Of course,
it could be radians/unit-length.

So the constants in your equations for current on the segments of a coil
loaded monpole a maximum current, wave number, and frequency; and the
linear variables are time, and distance.

Of those things, only maximum current would have any dependence at all
on the nature of the antenna. How does one know what value Imax to
plug-in for each segment?

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Kraus on the other hand ignores almost nothing about antennas. (for ref.
I'm looking at his 2nd edition.)

On the contrary, for the purposes of current analysis on
a standing-wave antenna, Kraus ignores everything except
the current in the standing wave. I don't have the 2nd
edition but the graphic I am referencing was in the 1st
and 3rd editions.

Chapter 14 in the 3rd edition is "The Cylindrical Antenna
and the Moment Method".

In the 3rd edition, it is Figure 14-2, Relative current
amplitude and phase along a center-fed 1/2WL antenna. He
gives the curves for length/diameters of infinity and 75.
Please take a look at that graph in your 2nd edition and
in particular, note the current phase plot. This is the
same current that Roy used for his coil delay "measurements".

Kraus shows that phase angle varying by about 3 degrees over
180 degrees of antenna. How can that phase possibly be used
to measure the delay in a wire? Since it cannot be used to
measure the delay in a wire, why would anyone attempt to
measure the delay in a loading coil using the same current?

Of those things, only maximum current would have any dependence at all
on the nature of the antenna. How does one know what value Imax to
plug-in for each segment?

Kraus normalizes the feedpoint current to 1.0 and that's
good enough for me. The actual value of Imax obviously depends
upon the power incident upon the antenna. If one assumes a
current of 1.0 at the feedpoint of the coil, then one can calculate
the Imax at the base of the stinger given the Z0 of the loading
coil and the Z0 of the stinger. I can lead you through a
qualitative analysis if you so desire.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Kraus on the other hand ignores almost nothing about antennas. (for
ref. I'm looking at his 2nd edition.)

On the contrary, for the purposes of current analysis on
a standing-wave antenna, Kraus ignores everything except
the current in the standing wave.

Kraus, in his book entitled "Antennas" ignores almost nothing about
antennas. I don't believe that is a controversial point of view.

Of those things, only maximum current would have any dependence at all
on the nature of the antenna. How does one know what value Imax to
plug-in for each segment?

Kraus normalizes the feedpoint current to 1.0 and that's
good enough for me.

Yes, unless of course you're talking about a real antenna with actual
current on it. That is what I thought we were talking about. My
recollection is that it was resonant on 75 meters, and the coil and
stinger have very specific dimensions.

The actual value of Imax obviously depends
upon the power incident upon the antenna. If one assumes a
current of 1.0 at the feedpoint of the coil, then one can calculate
the Imax at the base of the stinger given the Z0 of the loading
coil and the Z0 of the stinger.

It might even be better to measure it - with some type of current probe
device. Then you could solve for phase at any x or t you want.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Kraus, in his book entitled "Antennas" ignores almost nothing about
antennas.

On the contrary, when Kraus talks about standing-wave
antenna current, he ignores everything except standing
waves. Here are some quotes:

"Antennas ...", by Kraus, 3rd edition:
Standing Wave Antennas

Page 187: "A sinusoidal current distribution may be
regarded as the standing wave produced by two uniform
(unattenuated) traveling waves of equal amplitude moving
in opposite directions along the antenna."

Page 464: "It is generally assumed that the current
distribution of a thin-wire antenna is sinusoidal, and
that the phase is constant over a 1/2WL interval, ..."

Both of those statements assume nothing but standing wave
current on a standing wave antenna. Have you looked at
that graph of standing wave current amplitude and phase
that Kraus provides in "Antennas"?

Kraus normalizes the feedpoint current to 1.0 and that's
good enough for me.

Yes, unless of course you're talking about a real antenna with actual
current on it. That is what I thought we were talking about. My
recollection is that it was resonant on 75 meters, and the coil and
stinger have very specific dimensions.

Unfortunately, the simulation of a 75m Bugcatcher loading
coil violates the EZNEC segmentation rules on 4 MHz. To
avoid objections to such, I have used the 75m Bugcatcher
loading coil form factor on a loaded 40m mobile antenna
using about 14 turns. EZNEC doesn't complain about that
6" diameter, 4 tpi form factor used on 40m. That 40m
mobile antenna file can be downloaded from:

http://www.w5dxp.com/coil426.EZ

The current at the bottom of the coil is
1.0168 amps at 0.00 degrees

The current at the top of the coil is
..8179 amps at -0.06 degrees

In this case, the delay through the coil is unrelated
to the phase shift.

The actual value of Imax obviously depends
upon the power incident upon the antenna. If one assumes a
current of 1.0 at the feedpoint of the coil, then one can calculate
the Imax at the base of the stinger given the Z0 of the loading
coil and the Z0 of the stinger.

It might even be better to measure it - with some type of current probe
device. Then you could solve for phase at any x or t you want.

Roy already made the necessary measurements. All he needs
is help in comprehending the results. Unfortunately, he is
still suffering from the misconception that the current
phase that he "measured" is associated with the propagation
delay through the loading when it is not.

The phase of the current in a standing wave antenna
changes hardly at all through a wire or through a loading
coil. Running the above file under EZNEC proves that
statement. Roy has even, in the past, agreed with the
EZNEC results yet he continues to ignore the nature of
the current on a standing wave antenna as reported by
EZNEC. Go figure.

As Gene Fuller asserted years ago, the phase information
in the current on a standing-wave antenna is buried in
the current magnitude measurement, not in the current
phase measurement. You seem to agree.

But Roy did NOT use the magnitude measurement to calculate
the phase shift!!! I explained how to take the ARCCOSine
of the current normalized magnitude to calculate the actual
phase shift through a wire more than 5 years ago. He called
the concept gobbledygook, plonked me, threatened to refund
my EZNEC purchase price, and revoke my customer support.

An EZNEC simulation using the *SAME* 40m loading coil above
using traveling wave current, showing an actual phase shift
of ~40 degrees is at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/coil426s.EZ

The current at the bottom of the coil is
1.0053 amps at -3.25 degrees.

The current at the top of the the coil is
..90356 amps at -43.43 degrees.

In this case, the delay through the coil is proportional
to the phase shift.

Hopefully, you or someone else who understands what I am
saying will contact Roy about his conceptual blunders.
He keeps trying to avoid the discussion of large bugcatcher
loading coils by retreating to the shelter of a small
toroidal coil which more closely matches the lumped-circuit
model along with his mistaken concepts. Unfortunately, his
small toroidal coil bears no resemblance to a 75m Texas
Bugcatcher coil which is the subject of the discussion.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Hopefully, you or someone else who understands what I am
saying will contact Roy about his conceptual blunders.

On w8ji's web page: http://www.w8ji.com/agreeing_measurements.htm

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

If "the inductor replaces about 33 electrical degrees
of the antenna", isn't the argument over?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 2, 9:52*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Hopefully, you or someone else who understands what I am
saying will contact Roy about his conceptual blunders.

On w8ji's web page:http://www.w8ji.com/agreeing_measurements.htm

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

If "the inductor replaces about 33 electrical degrees
of the antenna", isn't the argument over?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Now , now, Cecil. you cannot equate a coil with electrical degrees of
an antenna.
Lumped loads are not included in the laws of Maxwell only distributed
loads
Art

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Art Unwin wrote:
Lumped loads are not included in the laws of Maxwell only distributed
loads

A 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil certainly
qualifies as a distributed load being about
1/8WL long.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 3, 9:41*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Lumped loads are not included in the laws of Maxwell only distributed
loads

A 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil certainly
qualifies as a distributed load being about
1/8WL long.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Aw come on Cecil
It is a lumped load which is unbalanced and Maxwell demands
equilibrium ie balanced. Yes, it has distributed loading but formed
into a helix antenna
such that it includes lumped loading. Maxwell in his search for
maximum efficiency he would have added a symbol to his equations for
lumped loads . He then would have to include pitch and the like but he
just did not consider it as a consideration.
This is clearly shown with a WL verticle when for maximum effeiciency
it is tipped from right angles to the Earth ala the Corriolis effect
with which you are tampering with
when current rotates, and its introduction of a slow wave and a
different velocity factor
This is why you cannot equate lumped loads with antenna degrees, only
approximate
I have no which to debate it so I will leave it at that. Soon I will
be heading home.
No offense intended but physics is physics
Art

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Maxwell in his search for
maximum efficiency he would have added a symbol to his equations for
lumped loads .

lumped loads like capacitors and inductors are indeed included in maxwell's
equations, its just a matter of scale. the problem is that most modeling
programs can't handle the large scale variation needed to go from a large
radiator down to a small coil and still maintain the segments properly. but
indeed the fields from and within the lumped elements do follow maxwell's
equations.

This is clearly shown with a WL verticle when for maximum effeiciency
it is tipped from right angles to the Earth ala the Corriolis effect

art is a bit tipped from vertical also, but i doubt if it is a corriolis
problem.

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Aw come on Cecil
It is a lumped load which is unbalanced and Maxwell demands
equilibrium ie balanced. Yes, it has distributed loading but formed
into a helix antenna
such that it includes lumped loading. Maxwell in his search for
maximum efficiency he would have added a symbol to his equations for
lumped loads . He then would have to include pitch and the like but he
just did not consider it as a consideration.
This is clearly shown with a WL verticle when for maximum effeiciency
it is tipped from right angles to the Earth ala the Corriolis effect
with which you are tampering with
when current rotates, and its introduction of a slow wave and a
different velocity factor
This is why you cannot equate lumped loads with antenna degrees, only
approximate
I have no which to debate it so I will leave it at that. Soon I will
be heading home.
No offense intended but physics is physics
Art

Hi Art,
Can you reference a professional journal that confirms this Coriolis (I
believe that is the correct spelling) effect w/ respect to tipped
verticals - or is this something only you have discovered?

Dale W4OP

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Dave wrote:

lumped loads like capacitors and inductors are indeed included in
maxwell's equations, its just a matter of scale. the problem is that
most modeling programs can't handle the large scale variation needed to
go from a large radiator down to a small coil and still maintain the
segments properly. . .

I don't quite understand this. Could you elaborate please?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Dale Parfitt" wrote in message
...
Hi Art,
Can you reference a professional journal that confirms this Coriolis (I
believe that is the correct spelling) effect w/ respect to tipped
verticals - or is this something only you have discovered?

thats one of art's discoveries. though it started out as being because of
the weak force instead of the coriolis effect, i think coriolis is probably
more believable... but do you have to tip them different in the north vs
south hemispheres? and what happens at the poles and equator, are they
straight up or horizontal??

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 3, 2:15*pm, "Dale Parfitt" wrote:
*Aw come on Cecil
It is a lumped load which is unbalanced and Maxwell demands
equilibrium ie balanced. Yes, it has distributed loading but formed
into a helix antenna
such that it includes lumped loading. *Maxwell in his search for
maximum efficiency he would have added a symbol to his equations for
lumped loads . He then would have to include pitch and the like but he
just did not consider it as a consideration.
This is clearly shown with a WL verticle when for maximum effeiciency
it is tipped from right angles to the Earth ala the Corriolis effect
with which you are tampering with
when current rotates, and its introduction of a slow wave and a
different velocity factor
This is why you cannot equate lumped loads with antenna degrees, only
approximate
I have no which to debate it so I will leave it at that. Soon I will
be heading home.
No offense intended but physics is physics
Art

Hi Art,
Can you reference a professional journal that confirms this Coriolis (I
believe that is the correct spelling) effect w/ respect to tipped
verticals - or is this something only you have discovered?

Dale W4OP

Coriolis effect is already well accepted in science.
A tipped radiator comes about when one uses optimizer style programs
based on the teaching or equations of Maxwell which accounts for ALL
forces involved within an arbitrary border ie equilibrium per the
teachings of Newton. Most people ignore the tipping arrangement for
simplicity and use programs strictly for planar forms which is an good
approximation in accounting for all generated radiation

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 3, 4:57*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Dale Parfitt" wrote in message

...

*Hi Art,
Can you reference a professional journal that confirms this Coriolis (I
believe that is the correct spelling) effect w/ respect to tipped
verticals - or is this something only you have discovered?

thats one of art's discoveries. *though it started out as being because of
the weak force instead of the coriolis effect, i think coriolis is probably
more believable... but do you have to tip them different in the north vs
south hemispheres? *and what happens at the poles and equator, are they
straight up or horizontal??

Yes you are correct David. Coriolis effect is well known where as the
weak force is not
because of resistance to change. The Coriolis effect can be observed
by looking in the toilet bowl in the different parts of our Earth.
Whether the change over effect observations alignes with the equator I
do not know as I am now home in Illinois and have no wish to travel
more today
.. As for reference in professional papers take note of equations for
displacement current as stated by Maxwell which I refer to as "the
weak force" that Einstein spent so much time in looking for without
success. This force is one of the four forces alluded to in The
Standard Model of physics

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On May 3, 4:57 pm, "Dave" wrote:
As for reference in professional papers take note of equations for
displacement current as stated by Maxwell which I refer to as "the
weak force" that Einstein spent so much time in looking for without
success. This force is one of the four forces alluded to in The
Standard Model of physics

oh, so the displacement 'current' is now the weak 'force'... please explain
how those units match up, and also how the observed range of the weak force
coincides with the wide ranging effects of the displacement current.
..

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Art Unwin wrote:

On May 3, 4:57Â*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Dale Parfitt" wrote in message

...

Hi Art,
Can you reference a professional journal that confirms this Coriolis (I
believe that is the correct spelling) effect w/ respect to tipped
verticals - or is this something only you have discovered?

thats one of art's discoveries. Â*though it started out as being because
of the weak force instead of the coriolis effect, i think coriolis is
probably more believable... but do you have to tip them different in the
north vs south hemispheres? Â*and what happens at the poles and equator,
are they straight up or horizontal??

Yes you are correct David. Coriolis effect is well known where as the
weak force is not
because of resistance to change. The Coriolis effect can be observed
by looking in the toilet bowl in the different parts of our Earth.
Whether the change over effect observations alignes with the equator I
do not know as I am now home in Illinois and have no wish to travel
more today

Here is further documentation on the Coriolis effect.
http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp


. As for reference in professional papers take note of equations for
displacement current as stated by Maxwell which I refer to as "the
weak force" that Einstein spent so much time in looking for without
success. This force is one of the four forces alluded to in The
Standard Model of physics

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Dale Parfitt" wrote in message
...
Hi Art,
Can you reference a professional journal that confirms this Coriolis (I
believe that is the correct spelling) effect w/ respect to tipped
verticals - or is this something only you have discovered?

thats one of art's discoveries. though it started out as being because of
the weak force instead of the coriolis effect, i think coriolis is
probably
more believable... but do you have to tip them different in the north vs
south hemispheres? and what happens at the poles and equator, are they
straight up or horizontal??


Maybe this gets to Faraday Rotation? The Coriolis Effect is on particles,
not waves, right? EM waves have no mass.

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Dale Parfitt" wrote in message
...
Hi Art,
Can you reference a professional journal that confirms this Coriolis (I
believe that is the correct spelling) effect w/ respect to tipped
verticals - or is this something only you have discovered?

thats one of art's discoveries. though it started out as being because
of
the weak force instead of the coriolis effect, i think coriolis is
probably
more believable... but do you have to tip them different in the north vs
south hemispheres? and what happens at the poles and equator, are they
straight up or horizontal??


Maybe this gets to Faraday Rotation? The Coriolis Effect is on particles,
not waves, right? EM waves have no mass.


not art's waves, they are made up of magical levitating diamagnetic
neutrinos that jump off antennas when you pass a current through them.

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

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

...
On May 3, 4:57 pm, "Dave" wrote:

As for reference in professional papers take note of equations for
displacement current as stated by Maxwell which I refer to as "the
weak force" that Einstein spent so much time in looking for without
success. This force is one of the four forces alluded to in The
Standard Model of physics

oh, so the displacement 'current' is now the weak 'force'... please explain
how those units match up, and also how the observed range of the weak force
coincides with the wide ranging effects of the displacement current.
.

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. 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. In other words time refers to the time a
magnetic field is formed by one of the standard models
forces. When a you have a tank circuit a symbol of resonance, the
energy created by the magnetic field is really the effect of that
energy called displacement current which flow in a circular motion at
and below the maximum diameter of the radiator.
This force provides an elevating force to unbound particles at rest on
a diamagnetic surface which meets the definition of a accellerated
charge. The speed of this particle is the energy applied on impact
during the formation of the magnetic field or energy release from a
capacitor. As the unbound electron constitutes the unbound particle
the energy is enough to project the particle with spin where gravity
does not have a measured effect on it's trajectory. Gravity is the
weakest force known despite it's name and the unbound electron is
considered the physical smallest mass that exists in the Universe.
So David you have the answer as to what the "weak force" is and what
energy it contains in measurable terms that it imparts to a particle.
This IS included in Maxwell's laws where there is the reference to
time. Physics is physics.
David, I am getting very close to plonking you as you show no
indication of benefit from the answers you demand of me and others.
Art

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 3, 6:07*pm, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message

...



"Dale Parfitt" wrote in message
.. .
*Hi Art,
Can you reference a professional journal that confirms this Coriolis (I
believe that is the correct spelling) effect w/ respect to tipped
verticals - or is this something only you have discovered?

thats one of art's discoveries. *though it started out as being because of
the weak force instead of the coriolis effect, i think coriolis is
probably
more believable... but do you have to tip them different in the north vs
south hemispheres? *and what happens at the poles and equator, are they
straight up or horizontal??

Maybe this gets to Faraday Rotation? *The Coriolis Effect is on particles,
not waves, right? *EM waves have no mass.

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.
Art

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin wrote:
Lumped loads are not included in the laws of Maxwell only distributed
loads

A 75m Texas Bugcatcher loading coil certainly
qualifies as a distributed load being about
1/8WL long.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com



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

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

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

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On May 4, 6:45*am, 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
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

In part II of the said Corum paper it clearly states that there is no
rigourous solution to helicals supplied by Maxwells laws. If this is
the case I suspect that Corum made some approximations. This is the
point that I am making with respect to Maxwell's law's and lumped
loads.