Why should I? You wouldn't believe me anyway since you and Richard are
wedded to your own fractured version of electromagnetics. Besides, Tom
Rauch does a good enough job on his web page.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH



Thank you, you just 'splained yourself, one of those....

Yuri

Tom Donaly wrote:
Besides, Tom Rauch does a good enough job on his web page.

Tom Rauch uses a circuit analysis when he should be using a
distributed network analysis. That's an easy mistake to make
and a hard mistake to admit.
--
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 =---

"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...
Howdy Antenna NGers,

(snip)


So after all, those "dumb" hams pointed out 50 years of misinformation in
even
ARRL "bibles" like Antenna and Handbooks :-(yep, latest 2005 "revision"
still
has it in it)



I think you are taking what ARRL says out of context. I will quote from page
16-7 in The ARRL Antenna Book, 20th edition...

"The loading coil acts as the lumped constant that it is, and disregarding
losses and coil radiation, maintains the same current flow throughout. As a
result, the current at the top of a high-Q coil is essentially the same as
at the bottom of the coil. This is easily verified by installing RF ammeters
immediately above and below the loading coil in a test antenna."

Don't overlook the part about disregarding losses and coil radiation. And,
don't overlook the part about verifying the current with ammeters. Have you
done that?

The ARRL book doesn't even recommend using a loading coil with an 8 foot
whip on the 10 meter band. Read the whole chapter. Note that your "coil" is
7.4% (6.7 degrees) of the antenna system length. It is no longer the lumped
device which is assumed in the book. Please repeat your experiment on an
8-foot whip at 40 meters and then verify with current meters.

If you can still make the same assertions for 40 meters, submit your
findings to the ARRL for publication. If they find them worthwhile, I'm sure
they will publish them.

John

Don't overlook the part about disregarding losses and coil radiation. And,
don't overlook the part about verifying the current with ammeters. Have you
done that?

The ARRL book doesn't even recommend using a loading coil with an 8 foot
whip on the 10 meter band. Read the whole chapter. Note that your "coil" is
7.4% (6.7 degrees) of the antenna system length. It is no longer the lumped
device which is assumed in the book. Please repeat your experiment on an
8-foot whip at 40 meters and then verify with current meters.

If you can still make the same assertions for 40 meters, submit your
findings to the ARRL for publication. If they find them worthwhile, I'm sure
they will publish them.

John


Been there, done it. Check for more story on the subject
http://www.k3bu.us/loadingcoils.htm

Yuri, K3BU.us

"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...
Don't overlook the part about disregarding losses and coil radiation.
And,
don't overlook the part about verifying the current with ammeters. Have
you
done that?

The ARRL book doesn't even recommend using a loading coil with an 8 foot
whip on the 10 meter band. Read the whole chapter. Note that your "coil"
is
7.4% (6.7 degrees) of the antenna system length. It is no longer the
lumped
device which is assumed in the book. Please repeat your experiment on an
8-foot whip at 40 meters and then verify with current meters.

If you can still make the same assertions for 40 meters, submit your
findings to the ARRL for publication. If they find them worthwhile, I'm
sure
they will publish them.

John


Been there, done it. Check for more story on the subject
http://www.k3bu.us/loadingcoils.htm

Yuri, K3BU.us



And in which ARRL publication might I find this information?

John

And in which ARRL publication might I find this information?

John



Since 1953 Belrose article in QST, in all ARRL Antenna Books and Handbooks it
is shown that current across the loading coil (mobile or loaded antennas) is
uniform, while ON4UN Low Band DXing shows and explains it right.

I will have some more samples modeled with EZNEC and one of these days
comprehensive article on the subject. Jus' need some free time.

Yuri

"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...


And in which ARRL publication might I find this information?

John



Since 1953 Belrose article in QST, in all ARRL Antenna Books and Handbooks
it
is shown that current across the loading coil (mobile or loaded antennas)
is
uniform, while ON4UN Low Band DXing shows and explains it right.

I will have some more samples modeled with EZNEC and one of these days
comprehensive article on the subject. Jus' need some free time.

Yuri


No, I meant in which ARRL publication can I find either ON4UN's or your
article correcting the last 50 years of "misinformation?"

John

John Smith wrote:
"And in what ARRL publication might I find this information?"

It`s in ON4UN`s "Low-Band DXing", an ARRL publication.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

John Smith wrote:
"The loading coil acts as the lumped constant that it is, and disregarding
losses and coil radiation, maintains the same current flow throughout.

This statement is somewhat misleading. A standing-wave antenna is
somewhat like a transmission line with standing waves. There are
TWO component currents in a standing wave antenna, forward and reflected.
The total current is the phasor sum of those two currents. Even if the
forward current were constant and the reflected current were constant,
the total current changes because of the phase shift between the
forward current phase and reflected current phase as these two phases
are changing in opposite directions.

For instance, given a 1/4WL ground plane vertical, the forward current
and reflected current are in phase at the feedpoint, thus resulting in
high current. At the tip top of the 1/4WL ground plane, the reflected
current is 180 degrees out of phase with the forward current and their
phasor sum is zero at that point.
--
73, Cecil, 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 =---

oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich) wrote in message ...
Howdy Antenna NGers,

I took the time to check out the Helix feature in EZNEC 4.08 and modeled the
"worst" case - CB whip or 10 m whip with loading coil - helix half way up and
then the same helix moved up to 3/4 way up. Things will get more pronounced
when more turn, more inductance coil is used and frequencies are lower. Yes,
Virginia there is a CURRENT DROP across the loading coil, unless you have more
"appropriate" or "scientwific" term for it.

Who is Virginia? I've never seen her here. Is she posting under an
assumed name?


which corresponds to REALITY measured, experienced and finally properly (close
enough) modeled. Even M0RON (with apologies if there is call like that issued
:-) can see the nice current drop across the coil displayed in the VIEW.

But does it change the *end* results to any large degree? I really
doubt it.

Thank you Roy (now you believe it?), Cecil, Richard. Now the unbelievers can
even model this case themselves and SEE it properly. So ON4UN, K3BU, W9UCW,
W5DXP, KB5WZI were and are right. W8JI, G3SEK et al are sooooo wrong :-) Some
still persist, some are converted and many will be enlightened.

Some of us could care less. I know that applies to me. I know that the
end results of the modeled antenna won't change to any degree worth
worrying about.
The recommended coil placement positions are not going to change
either.


Now if Roy can incorporate elegant way of modeling real life coil/inductance by
inputing Inductance L and its physical size and have it calculate things
without modeling turns, that would be a winner and a segment saver.

I don't see the point, if the end result of the modeled antenna is
accurate. And it is, as far as I've seen so far.

So after all, those "dumb" hams pointed out 50 years of misinformation in even
ARRL "bibles" like Antenna and Handbooks :-(yep, latest 2005 "revision" still
has it in it)

Uhhh, I hate to break it to you, but the antenna handbook has *both*
descriptions within it's covers. One says the current taper is fairly
constant, and one says it can vary.

Just watch W8JI to massage his web page and twist out of this one (yet another
egg in the face :-)

Who cares what he does or thinks....
You take this stuff too personal I think. Also, you have a tendency to
be overally smartass with some of your descriptions of people, or the
way they think, or the theories they support. Or the names you make up
to call them. IE: You once called *me* Virginia... You can inspect me,
and if you find a female apparatus "taco shaped", or big tits, I'll
give you $1000. You would get much more respect as far as this coil
current taper theory, if you weren't such a frigging smartass about
it. Just state the facts, or what you observe, and leave the horsecrap
and childish names out. Just my opinion. MK