Tom Donaly wrote:
Did you have fun writing that, Cecil? What makes you think the
variation in current in two seperate places of a coil carrying
A.C. is a "current drop?"

My Webster's has 74 definitions of "drop" including: "a decline
in amount" and "diminished or lessened". The current at a current node
has certainly declined from the current loop and is certainly diminished
from the current at a current loop. The only definition of "drop" in the
IEEE Dictionary is "A connection made between a through transmission
circuit and a local terminal unit". The IEEE Dictionary doesn't define
"current drop". Neither do any of my technical reference books.

So Tom, please provide a definition and a reference for your version
of "current drop". I suspect you are as wrong about the definition
of "current drop" as you were about the contents of Balanis' book.
--
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 =---

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:50:25 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

So Tom, please provide a definition and a reference for your version
of "current drop".

Hi Tom,

How can you sensibly argue with the village idiot?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:50:25 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:


So Tom, please provide a definition and a reference for your version
of "current drop".


Hi Tom,

How can you sensibly argue with the village idiot?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,
you can't, so I'm just going to ignore him for awhile.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
So Tom, please provide a definition and a reference for your version
of "current drop".

How can you sensibly argue with the village idiot?

That's pretty cruel, Richard, not allowing even the village idiot
to ask for a reference. How anyone can argue that there is no current
drop between the current antinode (maximum) and the current node
(minimum) is beyond belief. No drop from maximum to minimum is a
concept that would obselete all of human knowledge.
--
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 =---

Tom Donaly wrote:
Hi Richard, you can't, so I'm just going to ignore him for awhile.

Don't blame you, Tom. If you are as wrong about "current drop" as you
were about the contents of Balanis' book, ignoring me is perfectly
understandable and the logical thing to do.
--
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 =---

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:44:32 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
That's pretty cruel
What a sentimentalist. Wearing a lab coat only makes you a doctor on
TV commercials.

Jimmie wrote:
"I would not even say it is canceled in the far field although this is a
convenient way of looking at radiation."

Kraus writes on page 23 of his 1950 "Antennas":
"Directivity=maximum radiation/average radiation.

The radiation is in watts per sq. mtr.

The famous round balloon example applies. The balloon is filled with so
much air (an analog for the radiated energy). Squeeze the balloon.
Energy like air, increases in the directions it isn`t squeezed in, but
the total amount of air is unchanged and like the balloon air, the
radiated energy total is a constant in the analog.

The idea that energy still exists where suppressed by interference is
illogical.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Tom, KA6RUH wrote:
"What makes you think the variation in current in two separate places of
a coil carrying A.C. is a "current drop"?"

You have a voltage deop, a temperature drop, or a drop in almost any
variable. Why not call a decline in current a current drop?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
You have a voltage drop, a temperature drop, or a drop in almost any
variable. Why not call a decline in current a current drop?

Many examples exist for current drops in distributed networks. That's
one thing that makes circuit analysis invalid for distributed network
problems. The series current is NOT the same value everywhere in a
distributed network. Asserting that there is no such thing as "current
drop" in distributed networks simply indicates an invalid choice of
models.

How much current drop is there at 440 MHz in 100 feet of RG-58 between
the source and a 50 ohm load? Answer: A 20 dB power drop equates to a
40 dB current drop.
--
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 =---

Richard Harrison wrote:
Tom, KA6RUH wrote:
"What makes you think the variation in current in two separate places of
a coil carrying A.C. is a "current drop"?"

You have a voltage deop, a temperature drop, or a drop in almost any
variable. Why not call a decline in current a current drop?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


If you make clear what you mean and why you think it makes sense
there's nothing wrong with using non-standard terminology if it
aids communication. If you just pull it out of the air as if it
were a normal technical term that all technical people use, then
you're just gassing nonsense. I expect someone on this newsgroup
will start talking about "voltage flow" next.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Cecil Moore wrote:

Many examples exist for current drops in distributed networks. That's
one thing that makes circuit analysis invalid for distributed network
problems. The series current is NOT the same value everywhere in a
distributed network. Asserting that there is no such thing as "current
drop" in distributed networks simply indicates an invalid choice of
models.

How much current drop is there at 440 MHz in 100 feet of RG-58 between
the source and a 50 ohm load? Answer: A 20 dB power drop equates to a
40 dB current drop.

Cecil,

You seem to like the "Roach Motel" theory of current flow. The electrons
check in, but they don't check out.

Here's a clue.

Conservation of charge is every bit as fundamental as conservation of
energy. Current does not just disappear. So what happens in your abused
RG-58 case?

Answer: this is not a simple series circuit.

At every point along the line the current splits between continuing down
the line and shunting to the other half of the transmission line. When
the line is lossless, the shunting is purely reactive, and no net
current flows. However, when there is loss in the line, there is a small
phase shift along with the attenuation, and net current is shunted.

The "circuit" model, as you like to call it, is every bit as valid as
the "distributed network" model. However, due to the distributed time
and space considerations in a transmission line, the "circuit" model is
mathematically intractable for many applications.

The physical reality remains the same even if we cannot easily do the math.

Oh, by the way, in a constant impedance environment the current change
corresponding to a power reduction of 20 dB is also 20 dB, not 40 dB.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:10:22 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

However, due to the distributed time
and space considerations in a transmission line, the "circuit" model is
mathematically intractable for many applications.

AKA Violation of Kirchhoff

Richard,

I am not sure why you think there is a violation of Kirchhoff.

The current law is unchanged. The analysis of the voltage law is much
more complicated, but not incorrect.

The situation is not really any different than the use of retarded
potentials for radiation. One must carefully keep track of the loop
voltages with consideration for time and space differences, but there is
no fundamental difference in the physics.

For distributed networks, the Kirchhoff voltage calculation is difficult
(intractable). It is not impossible, but it is unnecessary due to the
existence of the much more friendly transmission line formulations.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:10:22 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:


However, due to the distributed time
and space considerations in a transmission line, the "circuit" model is
mathematically intractable for many applications.


AKA Violation of Kirchhoff

Tom Donaly, KA6RUH wrote:
"I know there are people in the past who have attempted to characterize
antennas as transmission lines."

True. You can include Terman among them.

Terman discusses antenna current distribution on page 866 of his 1955
edition:

"Under most circumstances the losses are sufficiently low and the ratio
of wire length to diameter sufficiently great so that to a first
approximation the current distribution can be taken as that for a line
with zero losses; it then has the characteristics discussed in Sec,
4-5."

Sec.4-5 is found on page 95 and is titled: "The Effect of Attenuation on
Voltage and Current Distribution - Lossless Lines".

Sec. 4-5 is in Terman`s chapter on Transmission lines. Obviously an
open-circuit antenna has the same current distribution as an
open-circuit transmission line, and for the same reason.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Tom Donaly" wrote:
I expect someone on this newsgroup will start talking about
"voltage flow" next.

The E-field and the H-field are inseparable in an EM RF wave.
If the H-field (current component) is flowing, then so is the
E-field (voltage component). If the E-field (voltage component)
is dropping due to radiation, then so is the H-field (current
component). That's one of the differences between a distributed
network RF wave and a DC bench circuit.

And how could we possibly have a Power Flow Vector without the
voltage flowing along with the power and the current? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Tom Donaly wrote:

If you make clear what you mean and why you think it makes sense
there's nothing wrong with using non-standard terminology if it
aids communication. If you just pull it out of the air as if it
were a normal technical term that all technical people use, then
you're just gassing nonsense. I expect someone on this newsgroup
will start talking about "voltage flow" next.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Probably best we distinguish between "flow", and propagation, before we
digress into discussions of "standing wave propagation". ;-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Richard Harrison wrote:
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH wrote:
"I know there are people in the past who have attempted to characterize
antennas as transmission lines."

True. You can include Terman among them.

Terman discusses antenna current distribution on page 866 of his 1955
edition:

"Under most circumstances the losses are sufficiently low and the ratio
of wire length to diameter sufficiently great so that to a first
approximation the current distribution can be taken as that for a line
with zero losses; it then has the characteristics discussed in Sec,
4-5."

Sec.4-5 is found on page 95 and is titled: "The Effect of Attenuation on
Voltage and Current Distribution - Lossless Lines".

Sec. 4-5 is in Terman`s chapter on Transmission lines. Obviously an
open-circuit antenna has the same current distribution as an
open-circuit transmission line, and for the same reason.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


You don't even have to go as far back as Terman. Reg Edwards bases his
antenna programs on the transmission line behavior of antennas, and
his programs do as well as you'd want. That's one way to look at
antenna behavior. It's not the only way, and it doesn't mean that
Cecil knows what he's talking about when he espouses the theories
he made up in his head out there in the hot Texas sun.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

In message , Cecil Moore
writes
How much current drop is there at 440 MHz in 100 feet of RG-58 between
the source and a 50 ohm load? Answer: A 20 dB power drop equates to a
40 dB current drop.

Uh? Are you really REALLY sure?
Do you want to change your mind?
Ian.
--

It's not the only way, and it doesn't mean that
Cecil knows what he's talking about when he espouses the theories
he made up in his head out there in the hot Texas sun.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH


We get the picture of you Tom, you can stop with that crap, quite enough!
Chipster will get jelous for you to take away his crown as troller
extraordinaire.

Yuri

Gene Fuller wrote:
Conservation of charge is every bit as fundamental as conservation of
energy. Current does not just disappear. So what happens in your abused
RG-58 case?

Answer: this is not a simple series circuit.

Thanks Gene, that is exactly my point. 17th century simple series
DC concepts don't work on RF distributed networks.
--
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:
Oh, by the way, in a constant impedance environment the current change
corresponding to a power reduction of 20 dB is also 20 dB, not 40 dB.

Yep, you're right. All I was (mistakenly) thinking about was the 10
vs 20 multiplier. Mea culpa. 20 lashes with a wet noodle for me.
--
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 =---

Richard Harrison wrote:

Tom Donaly, KA6RUH wrote:
"I know there are people in the past who have attempted to characterize
antennas as transmission lines."

True. You can include Terman among them.

Kraus also.
--
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 =---

Ian Jackson wrote:

Cecil Moore writes:
How much current drop is there at 440 MHz in 100 feet of RG-58 between
the source and a 50 ohm load? Answer: A 20 dB power drop equates to a
40 dB current drop.

Uh? Are you really REALLY sure? Do you want to change your mind?

Yep, already did. My bad. Mea culpa. 20 more lashes with a wet noodle.
--
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:
... it doesn't mean that
Cecil knows what he's talking about when he espouses the theories
he made up in his head out there in the hot Texas sun.

Tom, I think I get it now. Here is what I have learned from you.

1. Even though the only difference in the voltage and current equations
for a transmission line is one constant (the variable terms yield
exactly the same relative magnitude, phase, and attenuation
for the voltage wave and the current wave) and the decrease in the
voltage and current between the source and the load is exactly the
same percentage:

While the voltage reaching the load suffers a 10% drop, the current
does not suffer a drop. The current only suffers a 10% decrease.

2. While the voltage wave and current wave are traveling exactly the
same path in the same phase at the same speed from the source to the
load:

The current wave flows to the load but the voltage wave does not
flow to the load. The voltage wave only travels to the load.

Did I get it right?
--
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,

I am glad you agree with me, but unfortunately my message was apparently
lost on you.

No one has ever discussed simple series DC concepts except you.
Kirchhoff laws do not require series circuits or DC.

The simple concepts work perfectly well, even on transmission lines.
However, setting up and solving problems is mathematically complex, so
everyone uses the transmission line formulations. There is no new
physics needed. The electrons and waves don't care about math models. (I
think I heard something from you along that line a few times.)

There is nothing wrong with the theory. It works perfectly well on "RF
distributed networks". What is wrong is calling a lossy transmission
line a "simple series circuit" and then misapplying the theory.

73,
Gene
W4SZ



Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

Conservation of charge is every bit as fundamental as conservation of
energy. Current does not just disappear. So what happens in your
abused RG-58 case?

Answer: this is not a simple series circuit.


Thanks Gene, that is exactly my point. 17th century simple series
DC concepts don't work on RF distributed networks.

Gene Fuller wrote:
No one has ever discussed simple series DC concepts except you.

Don't you recognize "17th century DC concepts" as sarcasm?

What is wrong is calling a lossy transmission
line a "simple series circuit" and then misapplying the theory.

That's exactly my point, Gene. I think you missed it. What is
wrong is assuming a simple one-way series current flowing through
a point inductance in a *standing-wave* mobile antenna containing
a one foot by one foot 75m *bugcatcher* coil that occupies more
than 60 degrees of an electrical 1/4 wavelength.

The original argument originated over on eHam.net. Tom, W8JI
said there is no change in current from end to end in a loading
coil. Yuri disagreed. Everything else is a fallout from that
original argument.
--
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 =---

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:46:50 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

I am not sure why you think there is a violation of Kirchhoff.

Hi Gene,

Kirchhoff does not allow for circuits of dimensions that are
appreciable size with respect to wavelength. Simple reason is that
you should then shrink down the unspecified lead length (for voltage
law) into the stray, equivalent and dimensionless components. This is
outrageously flaunted in this group, and then couched as examples of
modeling failure (when it is in fact modeler - the human component -
failure).

This is the "intractability" you speak of - the neglect of the proper
rendering of the network in dimensionless terms.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil,

I am fully aware of the "original argument". To confess my bias, I agree
with Tom D. and Tom R. There is no "current drop" ever, and there is no
current change in an ideal inductor. W8JI explains in some detail why
real coils show different currents at each end.

My response was aimed at your little demo circuit. Let me share one of
my own.


----------------------------------------------------
+ | | |
------------ ----------- -----------
| | | Ra | | Rb |
| 1 V DC | | 100 Ohm | | 100 Ohm |
| 20 mA | | 10 mA | | 10 mA |
------------ ----------- -----------
- | | |
----------------------------------------------------


The source provides 20 mA, but Rb passes only 10 mA. Would you call this
a "current drop"? Most people would say that the total current has
simply divided into multiple paths.

Your RG-58 transmission line example is no different. The current from
the source is not lost or "dropped". It simply finds other paths in
addition to the "load" to return back to the source. Antennas and
loading coils exhibit the same phenomenon.

The error is in considering the transmission line as simply two
non-interacting conductors that somehow magically enforce a fixed
impedance, Zo. If the conductors did not interact there would be no
fixed impedance; it would not be a transmission line.

Your reference to simple DC analysis ignores the interaction between the
transmission line conductors. If you modeled the problem correctly you
would need to account for the leakage current. There would be no
"current drop" and no mystery.

The laws of electromagnetics do not change in any fundamental way until
relativistic and/or quantum considerations come into the picture. There
are "different horses for different courses", and there are different
"computationally preferred" approaches to different electromagnetic
configurations. Often there is best choice for practical reasons, but
that does not make the more difficult computation wrong.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

No one has ever discussed simple series DC concepts except you.


Don't you recognize "17th century DC concepts" as sarcasm?

What is wrong is calling a lossy transmission line a "simple series
circuit" and then misapplying the theory.


That's exactly my point, Gene. I think you missed it. What is
wrong is assuming a simple one-way series current flowing through
a point inductance in a *standing-wave* mobile antenna containing
a one foot by one foot 75m *bugcatcher* coil that occupies more
than 60 degrees of an electrical 1/4 wavelength.

The original argument originated over on eHam.net. Tom, W8JI
said there is no change in current from end to end in a loading
coil. Yuri disagreed. Everything else is a fallout from that
original argument.

Richard,

In simple terms Kirchhoff's loop law says that if we correctly add all
of the potential changes around a closed loop we do not end up with a
different potential than we had initially. (It does not say just how to
handle the computation.)

As you may know, there are some non-conservative systems in which this
behavior is not true. Traversing around a loop exhibits a spiral
behavior. The measured quantity continues to increase (or decrease) with
every pass around the loop. Kirchhoff's loop law says this sort of
spiral does not happen in an electrical circuit.

Computation is "intractable" for distributed RF networks, but the
principle is still valid.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Richard Clark wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:46:50 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:


I am not sure why you think there is a violation of Kirchhoff.


Hi Gene,

Kirchhoff does not allow for circuits of dimensions that are
appreciable size with respect to wavelength. Simple reason is that
you should then shrink down the unspecified lead length (for voltage
law) into the stray, equivalent and dimensionless components. This is
outrageously flaunted in this group, and then couched as examples of
modeling failure (when it is in fact modeler - the human component -
failure).

This is the "intractability" you speak of - the neglect of the proper
rendering of the network in dimensionless terms.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil,

I am fully aware of the "original argument". To confess my bias, I agree
with Tom D. and Tom R. There is no "current drop" ever, and there is no
current change in an ideal inductor. W8JI explains in some detail why
real coils show different currents at each end.

So do I, Gene. Have you looked at my web page? A standing-wave antenna
contains standing waves. The forward and reflected currents superpose.
If there is any phase shift at all through a 75m bugcatcher coil, the
current at the bottom and at the top will NOT be equal even if the
forward current through the coil is constant and the reflected current
through the coil is constant. If you disagree with me and agree with
Tom, you are saying there is zero phase shift through a one foot by
one foot bugcatcher coil. Do you really want to assert that?

How can there possibly be a current drop across a dimensionless point?
The fact is, a dimensionless point inductance does NOT and can NOT exist
in reality. So are more interested in playing games in your mind than
you are in the real world? The argument is about real world 75m bugcatcher
coils, not ideal inductances that exist only in someone's wet dream.

Your example is a circuit, not a distributed network, and is therefore
irrelevant to this discussion. Distributed networks behave different
enough from lumped circuits that the lumped circuit shortcuts just
don't work on distributed networks. Why you and Tom want to force your
lumped constant concepts unquestioned upon the field of distributed
network problems is beyond me.

Your RG-58 transmission line example is no different. The current from
the source is not lost or "dropped". It simply finds other paths in
addition to the "load" to return back to the source. Antennas and
loading coils exhibit the same phenomenon.

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.
--
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,

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?