Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH wrote:
"There may be a difference in current along the coil, but it isn`t a
current drop."


He wrote that about four times, what's the point of it? Smart Alec attitude?

If there is something you believe is wrong and you know better, than please
correct us stupid hams.

Thanks for your patience Richard, KB5WZI, you are one of few decent posters
here.

73 Yuri, K3BU

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

Ian White, G3SEK wrote:
"An ideal loading inductance does "not" radiate."

A loading coil does not need to radiate to produce significant
difference between the current at its ends.

The same power may be produced at various impedances. The product of the
real voltage and the real current must be the same in all cases for the
same power.

A loading coil experiences a different voltage to current ratio
(impedance) at every point along its length.. This is due to the
combination of forward and reflected volts and amps. Because of the
reflection, their forward and reflected vectors are rotating in oposite
directions. This makes every spot along the paths of these vectors
unique with its own voltage to current ratio (impedance).

Cecil. W5DXP has already posted in some detail how the forward and
reflected values encounter the incident values and their superposition
produces a new impedance. That surely happens at the load end of a
loading coil.

If the phase between the incident and reflected waves, at the coil to
whip junction, makes a different impedance than that at the feed end of
the coil, it is likely that the coil output current will be different
from the coil input current That`s expected.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI.

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

Ian White, G3SEK wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:

Richard Harrison wrote:

Tom Donaly, KA6RUH wrote:
"There may be a difference in current along the coil, but it isn`t a
current drop."
Call it a decline if you don`t like the word drop.
A wave traveling along an antenna induces current in the wire. This
current causes radiation from the wire. A current traveling from
"a" to "b" in the wire loses energy to
radiation. The energy at "b" is less than the energy at "a" if the
source is at "a".
If the impedance at "a" is the same as the impedance at "b", the
voltage
and the current at "a" are larger than the voltage and current at "b".
We don`t need energy to decline from "a" to "b" to have a current drop.
We only need current to decline between "a" and "b". Yuri has
demonstrated a "current drop" with r-f ammeters inserted at both ends of
the loading coil. Analysis of the cause is not necessary to demonstrate
a current drop.
As straight wires are usually better radiators than the same wire in
coils, I speculate that the current drop measured by Yuri is mostly due
to the high impedance (High voltage, low current) on the output of the
loading coil.
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


I would urge any young person who reads this and wants to understand
electromagnetics to get a good book on the subject, read what the
authors say, and forget what Richard just posted. He's all wrong.


Well, not entirely, if he follows through the logic of what he says. An
ideal loading inductance does *not* radiate; therefore the current at
its two terminals *must* be the same.

I keep coming back to the same point: until someone correctly
understands what pure unadulterated inductance does in an antenna, he
can never *truly* understand how a real-life loading coil works.



You're right about the understanding part Ian, but Yuri is trying to
make generalizations based
on the measured behavior of real coils without taking too much time
to analyze why the behavior of his coils departs from the ideal.
Making up terms, such as "current drop" to give more technical
credence to his ideas doesn't help. Richard's attempt to justify
Yuri's technical jargon is little more than pathetic.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Hi Yuri,

And yet you are on Tom for just such a similar distinction of word
choice. Does this illustrate the principles of reciprocity? ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Slight difference. Rauchians choose their words as weapons of smart ass
attitude at "morons" who happen to be right, while Rs are wrong. They fail at
the discussion of facts and arguments. I resort to (not too proud of it)
responding and biting back in order to prove the point. There is reciprocity
but not ideal, just like RF current behavior in real coil.
And he did it for the fifth time, go figure. Fuggetaboutit!

Yuri, K3BU

Richard Harrison wrote:
Ian White, G3SEK wrote:
"An ideal loading inductance does "not" radiate."

A loading coil does not need to radiate to produce significant
difference between the current at its ends.

Those two paragraphs, one right after the other, say it all. You want to
gallop straight on to talk about "loading coils".

I want you to stop and think a moment, about how an IDEAL INDUCTANCE
behaves in an antenna. (Sorry to shout, but every time I type "ideal
inductance" quietly, you seem to read something else :-)

Hopefully you will agree that an IDEAL INDUCTANCE does not ever have
different currents at its two terminals, and does not radiate either.


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

On 19 Oct 2004 16:47:46 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

Hi Yuri,

Slight difference. Rauchians choose their words as weapons of smart ass
attitude at "morons" who happen to be right, while Rs are wrong.
This is the trivial difference.
They fail at the discussion of facts and arguments.
This is the Rauchian difference.

I will agree in this respect, but not all Toms are Rauchs. The term
"Current Drop" is abhorrent to some (a pollution of technical
language), an irritant to others, and inconsequential to many who
simply enjoy the cat fight.

I can take only so much of the technical pollution. The breaking
point for me is when foreign terms are elevated to prayer status and
made icons of a new theory. This, for you, I presume constitutes much
the same issue as
They fail at the discussion of facts and arguments.
which you are closely mimicking in the tedious and insistent manner of
upholding a foreign usage. You agreed that Tom (Rauch) could have as
easily chosen better language, the same resolution is afforded in this
current contretemps too.

A simpler resolution is to simply drop it and move on.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Ian White, G3SEK wrote:
An
ideal loading inductance does *not* radiate; therefore the current at
its two terminals *must* be the same.

This is misleading. Since virtually all coil-loaded mobile antennas
are *STANDING WAVE* antennas, there are two current components which
superpose to your total current. Let's assume a certain loading coil
does not radiate. The forward current is the same magnitude at the
bottom of the coil and at the top of the coil. The reflected current
is the same at the bottom of the coil and at the top of the coil.
There is a phase shift through the coil that affects both those
currents. The total current is the phasor sum of the forward current
and reflected currents. That phasor sum is different at the bottom
of the coil and at the top of the coil. The constant current principle
definitely applies but there are two component currents with phase
shifts to worry about, just as there are in a transmission line with
reflections.

Do you use circuit analysis on a transmission line with reflections?
If not, why do you use circuit analysis on an antenna with reflections?

I keep coming back to the same point: until someone correctly
understands what pure unadulterated inductance does in an antenna, he
can never *truly* understand how a real-life loading coil works.

Ian, using circuit analysis on a standing-wave antenna is not valid.
Until someone correctly understands that only a distributed network
analysis works on a standing-wave antenna, he can never *truly* understand
how a real-life loading coil works. Hint: When installed in a standing-
wave antenna, a loading coil works like a transmission line so circuit
analysis is an invalid approach. The cosine current distribution on a
1/2WL standing-wave antenna is just 180 degrees of a standing current
wave which necessarily must possess two superposed current components,
forward and reflected.

This is just another example of an invalid math model trying to
dictate reality instead of reality dictating a valid math model.

Until someone understands the nature of forward current and reflected
current on standing-wave antennas, one will remain confused and be
tempted to use that invalid circuit model.

Your circuit model can be used on traveling-wave antennas. It is NOT
valid for standing-wave antennas.
--
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 =---

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 =---

Tom Donaly wrote:
Making up terms, such as "current drop" to give more technical
credence to his ideas doesn't help. Richard's attempt to justify
Yuri's technical jargon is little more than pathetic.

There doesn't need to be a current drop through a coil for the
total current to be different at each end. Assume a base-loaded
mobile system. Assume the forward current through the coil is
constant at 1.1 amp. Assume the reflected current through the coil
is constant at 1.0 amp. Assume the phase shift through the coil is
45 degrees.

If the forward current and reflected current are in phase at the
base of the coil (feedpoint) the total current will be

1.1+1.0 = 2.1 amps of total current at the base of the coil.

The total current at the top of the coil will be

1.1 amps at -45 degrees superposed with 1.0 amps at +45 degrees.

1.1*cos(-45) + 1.0*cos(45) = 1.48 amps.

The coil is lossless and the component currents are absolutely
constant through the coil yet the superposed total current at
the top of the coil is only about 71% of the superposed total
current at the bottom of the coil. No "technical jargon" involved.

Using circuit analysis on a distributed network problem simply
demonstrates ignorance of the problem. It'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 =---