Cecil,

Until you try to understand the difference between current in a
conductor and power radiated into space, this is a hopeless debate.

There are several important relationships among charge, current,
E-fields, voltage, and H-fields. However, current is not the same as
H-field, voltage is not the same as E-field, and charge is not the same
as a radiation field.

Back to Physics 101 for you.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:

[big snip]


Some of the power radiated from an antenna does NOT return to the source.
It may even escape to outer space. Power lost from the system causes
a current drop. In fact, it is hard to separate the H-field from the
E-field for RF. I am amazed how you guys have been seduced by your math
models. Reality is supposed to dictate math models, not vise versa.

Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil,
Until you try to understand the difference between current in a
conductor and power radiated into space, this is a hopeless debate.

Isn't there a direct correlation between current in a radiator and
power radiated into space? Assuming the conservation of energy
principle holds, power radiated into space reduces the current
in a radiator (since the ratio of the forward voltage in a radiator
and the forward current in a radiator is proportional to the power
available). Sorry to say, Gene, the current drops in proportion to
the drop in the voltage in a fixed Z0 environment. If a terminated
traveling-wave antenna were 100 wavelengths long, it's current at
the termination would be a small percentage of the source current.

Hint: ExH = Poynting Vector power and the E/H ratio is constant.

Until you give up on the possibility of a point inductance
existing in reality, this is a hopeless debate. I can't believe
you are defending an indefensible model of reality, so I can only
conclude that you are defending the irrational premise of a friend.
You and I are obviously on the same side of physics and you are to be
commended for being a good enough friend to that un-named someone
to set aside your knowledge of physics and side with his/her
irrational premises, arguments, and conclusions. The reason that
I don't have any such friends is that I wouldn't accept that kind
of support if I was wrong. But I do understand it is human nature
to respond in such a manner.

The ARRL Antenna Book and various other publications give the
characteristic impedance of a horizontal single-wire TRANSMISSION
LINE over ground as:

Z0 = 138*log(4h/d) where 'h' is the height and 'd' is the diameter

Doesn't a "horizontal single-wire transmission line over ground"
sound a lot like a dipole made out of #16 wire 24 feet above ground
having a Z0 of 600 ohms?

If you ignore that question, I will assume your position on this
subject has everything to do with friendship and nothing to do
with physics. Actually, like Richard C. and I, I don't think
you and I have any argument about physics.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil,

Until you try to understand the difference between current in a
conductor and power radiated into space, this is a hopeless debate.

There are several important relationships among charge, current,
E-fields, voltage, and H-fields. However, current is not the same as
H-field, voltage is not the same as E-field, and charge is not the same
as a radiation field.

Back to Physics 101 for you.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:

[big snip]


Some of the power radiated from an antenna does NOT return to the source.
It may even escape to outer space. Power lost from the system causes
a current drop. In fact, it is hard to separate the H-field from the
E-field for RF. I am amazed how you guys have been seduced by your math
models. Reality is supposed to dictate math models, not vise versa.



Hi Gene,
you may never have had an exchange with Cecil. Cecil will use
any tactic in the book to "win" an argument, the more illogical
the better. Moreover, he's absolutely dogged in his determination to
have the last word, going so far as to make completely idiotic posts
in the hopes that his opponent will quit in disgust. Unless you
want to engage in a 500 post exercise in absolute lunacy, you might
want to ignore Cecil altogether, as several of us do.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom,

Every few months I suffer a complete breakdown in common sense, and I
engage with Cecil.

You may recall the record-setting threads on Steve Best vs. Walt
Maxwell. Then there was the endless debate on optical reflections, built
around Cecil's gross misinterpretation of the Melles-Griot Optics Guide.

You are right; it is time to go back to my cave for a while.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Tom Donaly wrote:


Hi Gene,
you may never have had an exchange with Cecil. Cecil will use
any tactic in the book to "win" an argument, the more illogical
the better. Moreover, he's absolutely dogged in his determination to
have the last word, going so far as to make completely idiotic posts
in the hopes that his opponent will quit in disgust. Unless you
want to engage in a 500 post exercise in absolute lunacy, you might
want to ignore Cecil altogether, as several of us do.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
you may never have had an exchange with Cecil. Cecil will use
any tactic in the book to "win" an argument, the more illogical
the better. Moreover, he's absolutely dogged in his determination to
have the last word, going so far as to make completely idiotic posts
in the hopes that his opponent will quit in disgust. Unless you
want to engage in a 500 post exercise in absolute lunacy, you might
want to ignore Cecil altogether, as several of us do.

One wonders if you are capable of anything except ad nauseum ad hominem
attacks. So far, my grouchy ten-year-old grand-neice could have made your
postings.

Tom, so far, you have offered absolutely nothing of a technical nature
to prove me wrong. That's a big clue that you have nothing to offer. If
you can easily prove me wrong, why haven't you? If you can prove me to
be technically wrong, I will yield to you in respect. However, until I
am proven wrong or sentenced to house arrest, you can expect me to have
an attitude similar to Galileo's up against the Catholic priests. Is one
iota of proof too much to ask?

Balanis says you are wrong! Kraus says you are wrong! EZNEC even says
you are wrong! Today I created a one foot high helical antenna that packs
90 electrical degrees into one foot. The current at the bottom is one amp.
The current at the top is zero amps. Want me to send you the EZNEC file?

Here's your chance. Exactly what is the difference between a 1/2WL #16
single-wire transmission line 24 feet above ground and a #16 1/2WL dipole
24 feet above ground? Please be technically specific. Your feelings don't
matter.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Cecil,

Were you there when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

(That was a great movie. Are you related to the late John Belushi?)


My views are completely based on physics principles. I have endless
argument with your views on physics.

I have never met nor corresponded with Tom D., Tom R. or Roy L. I just
happen to agree with their public writings.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:


If you ignore that question, I will assume your position on this
subject has everything to do with friendship and nothing to do
with physics. Actually, like Richard C. and I, I don't think
you and I have any argument about physics.

Gene Fuller wrote:

Tom, Every few months I suffer a complete breakdown in common sense, and I
engage with Cecil.

You may recall the record-setting threads on Steve Best vs. Walt
Maxwell.

I hope you remember that I didn't agree with either side. I stated that
they were two inches apart and neither one of them would budge one inch.
Dr. Best denied there was any such thing as interference at a match point.
At the time, Walt didn't understand the pseudo S-parameter analysis that
Dr. Best was using.

Then there was the endless debate on optical reflections, built
around Cecil's gross misinterpretation of the Melles-Griot Optics Guide.

The "lost" reflected power joins the forward wave? That's what they say.
There's no way for reflected power to join the forward wave without changing
direction. Seems I am up against the Spanish Inquisition. Is "Fuller" Spanish? :-)

You are right; it is time to go back to my cave for a while.

I am always quick to admit an error, like the 20dB vs 40dB error I made
yesterday. Nobody has offered one iota of technical proof that I am wrong.
I didn't realize that the science of physics depends on a newsgroup democracy.

I find it amazing that the only argument you guys can come up with is
an ad hominem attack. That's usually the last resort of someone who has
lost the argument. If I am so technically incorrect, is one iota of
technical proof too much to ask? It is, of course, if this is a good-
old-boys EM religion discussion rather than a technical discussion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Gene Fuller wrote:
Are you related to the late John Belushi?)

According to DNA analysis, most Americans of European decent are
amazingly closely related - Nth cousins. Bush is supposed to be
a cousin of Kerry's. Besides London, the city with the highest
population named "Moore" is Houston, TX, 90 miles South of me.

My views are completely based on physics principles. I have endless
argument with your views on physics.

Then why are ad hominem attacks all you have to offer? Why not share
some of you physics knowledge with us? I've got Balanis, Kraus, Johnson,
and Hecht on my side. Who's on your side?

I have never met nor corresponded with Tom D., Tom R. or Roy L. I just
happen to agree with their public writings.

I suspect Roy L., being a reasonable fellow, is in the process of changing
his mind given the latest EZNEC helical evidence. How about you?

Please pick one item of physics with which you disagree with me and let's
discuss it in a gentlemanly fashion. There's some pretty savvy people on
this newsgroup who agree with me. Perhaps, the argument is only a semantics
problem, like the definition of "drop" and "flow". It's really hard to see
how an E-field can drop but not flow and an H-field can flow but not drop.

Pick one simple topic upon which you think you and I disagree. So far,
you have posted nothing except ad hominem attacks. That's not a good
way to impress people and win technical arguments. I think you are a
better person than that.

Here's a topic if you can't think of one. How can a one foot long section
of transmission line exhibit a phase shift if a one foot long coil doesn't?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
"The current and voltage distributions on open-ended wire antennas are
similar to the standing wave patterns on open-ended transmission lines ...
Standing wave antennas, such as the dipole, can be analyzed as traveling
wave antennas with waves propagating in opposite directions (forward and
backward) and represented by traveling wave currents If and Ib ..."
_Antenna_Theory_, Balanis, Second Edition, Chapter 10, page 488 & 489


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Gene, W4SZ wrote:
"However, current is not the same as H-field,--."

No, but current causes the H-field.

An antenna loading coil has volts and amps from both directions in a
standing-wave antenna. These two waves create the standing-wave pattern
seen along the antenna`s length (including the coil).

The coil has a finite length so the sum of the forward and reflected
waves make volts, amps, and impedances which vary from coil end to coil
end,

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Cecil,

I was going to drop this discussion, but I will respond to your request
to share physics knowledge.

1) I will repeat. E-fields, H-fields, voltages, and currents are all
related through some very profound equations. However, shout THEY ARE
NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. /shout

This is not just a matter of semantics. These entities have different
physical meanings, different units, and different dimensionalities.

2) I offered a physics-based explanation for your proposed "current
drop" in the 440 MHz RG-58 example a few days ago. Did you not read that
message before responding to it?

3) A one foot long section of wire and a one foot long section of coil
exhibit similar phase shifts, according to both the theory and the
reported data. What is not correct is the assertion that the coil
exhibits a phase shift consistent with, for example, 20 feet of wire
used to make the coil. The notion that a coil replaces some sizable
portion of the total phase shift in an antenna has been shown to be
incorrect. Experiments reported by Roy and Tom R. convincingly
demonstrate the phase shift behavior of coils.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Cecil Moore wrote:

[snip]

Please pick one item of physics with which you disagree with me and let's
discuss it in a gentlemanly fashion. There's some pretty savvy people on
this newsgroup who agree with me. Perhaps, the argument is only a semantics
problem, like the definition of "drop" and "flow". It's really hard to see
how an E-field can drop but not flow and an H-field can flow but not drop.

Pick one simple topic upon which you think you and I disagree. So far,
you have posted nothing except ad hominem attacks. That's not a good
way to impress people and win technical arguments. I think you are a
better person than that.

Here's a topic if you can't think of one. How can a one foot long section
of transmission line exhibit a phase shift if a one foot long coil doesn't?