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.

Rough dimensions: 1m mast (5 mm copper wire/tubing), 20 cm long coil/helix with
5 cm diameter turns, 5mm wire diameter, 10 turns, spacing 2 cm followed by 1 m
whip
Resonated at 27.05 MHz
With base current 1 A, at the end of mast/start of coil the current is 0.87457
A
at the end of coil/start of whip the current is 0.66884 A - a decent drop of
0.20573 A or 20.5 % - not an "EQUAL" (you DC coil believer types!!!)

Then I moved the same coil up 50 cm, so the mast was 1.5 m, same coil, followed
by .5 m of whip.
Again with base current of 1 A, the bottom of the coil had current this time
was 0.65479 A, while top of the coil 0.37127 with larger drop of 0.28352 A or
28.3 % - even bigger not "EQUAL" with resonant frequency moving up to 28.7 MHz,
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.

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.

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.

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)

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

Yuri Blanarovich, www.K3BU.us
www.computeradio.us

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
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.

Rough dimensions: 1m mast (5 mm copper wire/tubing), 20 cm long coil/helix with
5 cm diameter turns, 5mm wire diameter, 10 turns, spacing 2 cm followed by 1 m
whip
Resonated at 27.05 MHz
With base current 1 A, at the end of mast/start of coil the current is 0.87457
A
at the end of coil/start of whip the current is 0.66884 A - a decent drop of
0.20573 A or 20.5 % - not an "EQUAL" (you DC coil believer types!!!)

Then I moved the same coil up 50 cm, so the mast was 1.5 m, same coil, followed
by .5 m of whip.
Again with base current of 1 A, the bottom of the coil had current this time
was 0.65479 A, while top of the coil 0.37127 with larger drop of 0.28352 A or
28.3 % - even bigger not "EQUAL" with resonant frequency moving up to 28.7 MHz,
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.

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.

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.

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)

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

Yuri Blanarovich, www.K3BU.us
www.computeradio.us

There may be a difference in current along the coil, but it isn't a
current drop. There is no such thing as a current drop in the sense
people use when they say "voltage drop." By the way, Yuri, since you
are such an unsung genius of electromagnetic analysis, here's a
challenge: design a loading coil for a short vertical radiator that
doesn't have, or has only very little, current variation along its length.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

There may be a difference in current along the coil, but it isn't a
current drop. There is no such thing as a current drop in the sense
people use when they say "voltage drop."

So what you call decrease of current from one to the other?

By the way, Yuri, since you
are such an unsung genius of electromagnetic analysis,

Where is this coming from?

here's a
challenge: design a loading coil for a short vertical radiator that
doesn't have, or has only very little, current variation along its length.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH


No need for that, W8JI has plenty of them, go ask him.
Are you trying to bu funny or play trolling Chipster here?

73 Yuri

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

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.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

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.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH



See what I mean?

I urge any young person to read the book about jerks.

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

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.
73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

See what I mean?
I urge any young person to read the book about jerks.

The key to understanding the total current in standing-wave antennas
is in understanding the forward current and reflected current components
and their superposition at different points along the antenna. The cosine
distribution of standing-wave current in a 1/2WL dipole is the result
of the superposition of forward-traveling current and rearward-traveling
reflected current.

An unterminated rhombic is a standing-wave antenna because the forward
current gets reflected at the open end of the wire. The forward current
causes radiation in the forward direction and the reflected current
causes radiation in the rearward direction. The radiation "loss" causes
the reflected current at the feedpoint to be a lower magnitude than
the forward current at the feedpoint. There are standing waves all
up and down an unterminated rhombic and the Vtot/Itot feedpoint impedance
depends partially upon the phase between the forward current and
reflected current and, of course, upon their magnitudes.

Properly terminating a rhombic virtually eliminates reflections and
turns the antenna into a traveling-wave antenna which radiates mostly
in the forward direction. There are virtually no standing waves on
such an antenna.

These same ideas can be applied to other standing-wave antennas, including
a 1/2WL inverted-V. In EZNEC, we can terminate the ends of such an antenna
to ground through resistors that eliminate standing waves on the antenna.
The feedpoint impedance of such an antenna is in the ballpark of 600 ohms.
Where does the low feedpoint impedance of an unterminated 1/2WL inverted-V
come from? It comes from the superposition of the forward current and
the reflected current at the feedpoint. These two components are in phase
and phasor-add to a large current. The two voltage components are 180 deg
out of phase and add to a small voltage. small-voltage/large-current is
a low feedpoint impedance. Using a minus sign for 180 degrees, the feedpoint
impedance of an inverted-V is approximately (Vf-Vr)/(If+Ir).

We can understand a standing-wave antenna by doing an analysis of a lossy
piece of transmission line. If the losses in the transmission line approximately
equal the radiation "loss" of the antenna, the feedpoint impedances will have
approximately the same value.

Once standing-wave antenna currents are understood, it is easy to see why
the total superposed currents at each end of a 75m Bugcatcher coil are nowhere
near equal even though the forward current and reflected current at each end
of the coil are close to the same value.

Circuit analysis works well when there is only one current flowing in a coil.
Circuit analysis falls apart when forward and reflected currents are flowing
in a coil and distributed network analysis is required when such coils are
installed in 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, KA6RUH wrote:
"---forget what Richard just posted."

Suits me. You recall the old story about leading a horse to water.

Tom rejects measurements of r-f currents at both ends of a loading coil
at work. The currents were clearly differing.

Tom must be stuck with battereis and the rise and fall these produce in
the current of an inductor.

A loading coil is usually in the antenna field in our examples. The
loading coil is subject to an incident wave and to a reflected wave.
These waves combine in a continuously varying phase relation along the
coil to make current, impedance, and voltage all functions of their
positions along the coil. Every spot along the coil is different when
both waves are sensed together. That`s the way SWR works, and we`re
discussing standing-wave antennas.

I have a 1982 ARRL Antenna Book. On page 13-3 there is a Fig. 6,
"Improved Current Distribution Resulting From Center Loading". The
loading coil clearly shows less current at its top than at its bottom.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
I have a 1982 ARRL Antenna Book. On page 13-3 there is a Fig. 6,
"Improved Current Distribution Resulting From Center Loading". The
loading coil clearly shows less current at its top than at its bottom.

My 1988 version shows the same thing on page 16-4, Fig. 7. Unfortunately,
two pages later, in Fig. 10 it shows how the current at the top of a
loading coil can be four times higher than would exist in an equal
top length of a 90 degree antenna. Since V*I*cos(theta) is the power, does
that mean that the voltage at the top of the coil is 1/4 the value of
an equal top length of a 90 degree antenna? So the impedance looking into
that 15 degrees of whip above the coil is 1/16 of the impedance looking
into that same 15 degrees of that same whip mounted above 75 degrees of
wire??? Doesn't sound reasonable, does it? Exactly how does that coil
manage to change the impedance looking into 15 degrees of whip by a
factor of 16 AT THE TOP OF THE COIL?????

That's exactly what happens when one uses circuit analysis on a distributed
network problem. If circuit analysis worked on such a problem, we wouldn't
need distributed network analysis.
--
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:
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.



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