Mark Keith wrote:
My argument boils down to: What does this mean to the antenna builder
or modeler?

Probably a little more than the theory of relativity which seems
to be quite important in the scheme of things.

If any discrepancy is so small to be barely measurable,
all this speculation about gross error when modeling is *to me* a load
of hooey. Even if the current varies, which BTW, I never claimed would
be exactly perfect front to back, it should have so little effect on
accuracy to be a non issue. Where is the beef that this claimed
variation of current across a coil causes drastic modeling or coil
placement calculation errors? Sorry, I just don't see it. What am I
missing here? MK

Well, for instance, EZNEC cannot directly model the phased array
in Kraus' book which requires the coils to perform a 180 degree
phase shift in the current. Don't you think that is useful information?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On 13 Nov 2003 08:56:04 -0800, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

Richard,
You have written quite extensively on this thread, a lot of it being
comments that I just dont understand.

It would help you, me, and the rest if you simply asked each time that
occurs.

I posted 11 times to Yuri's thread of 183
I posted ONCE to Roy's thread of 103
I posted 5 (now 6) times to this

You've posted 8 times total among them - you know, that still leaves
something like 300 postings, 90%, by others (and among not too many
different individuals). I can certainly offer that my writing has
more impact, but hardly as much tonnage. YMMV

If you don't like the way it is
going or the people involved are not coming to you' as is their job,
to present absolute proof then why bother with these people or the
thread.

You might as well ask those who live in pollution why they don't
simply stop breathing.

Can't you bend just a bit and go with the flow when unsurmountable
proof is not presented to you first, which you say is everybodies job.

With 80% of the weather vanes already turned into the wind, why would
I want to do that? Art you pine for a more soothed and tranquil
passage across what is in fact a stormy sea.

Didn't you yourself invite me to
participate ? If so you must certainly had some interest in what the
lesser people were saying.

You focus too much on these herculean threads and it would behoove you
to participate outside of them (and I will offer that you already
have). The majority of my correspondence is in fact with those asking
questions that these titans have disdained from answering:
Parasitic Question...
Hints for a quasi professional cage...
Penn state fractal...
dielectric antennas...
OCF Dipole...
ant coupler and silver mica...
Magloop woes
1.2 GHz antennas...
Device by an antenna...
to trust which SWR meter...
in the last week alone. Do you see any insistence by me for absolute
accuracy, or demands for proofs in those? No, Art, I reserve that for
those who are too lame to defend outrageous claims. None of the
topics above qualify in that regard. Well maybe one inflated soul,
perhaps. A guy with 9 actual out of 12 patents claimed - should I put
on a happy face and simply offered "Bravo! 9 out of 12 is good
enough"? People like that inflated the stock bubble of 2000.

To put it simply, if you lay it out as a fact, I will test it as a
fact. If you lay it out as an idea, then there is something to listen
to. I can let ideas pass on their own merit, but facts have a status
that require validation. If you want an idea validated, that requires
the assistance of psychiatry or religion because you are mixing faith
and science inappropriately. If you want to argue faith and/or
science, it belongs in the Racist and Democracy threads that I eschew.

I will admit I love kicking out the crutches of cripples who are
obvious charlatans. In my youth I walked past too many street urchins
begging for spare change (called flower children then) who are now
robbing companies of earnings as CEO's (they were flower children
because what change they couldn't scrabble up for dope, they could
call home for from Daddy-kins, or Mummy-kins to help bail them out).

This simply means I can tell (as many can, it is no great talent) the
difference between an honest call for help, and a fool's mission.
Long threads such as this and others contain no more than 20% real
content. When I have responded to that, the remainder begs for
entertainment critiques (generally very poor material and easily
mocked). As a benefit, my critiques are far more entertaining too.

Roy's separate thread started out shame-based, I recognized it from
the start because I can do it so much better, and have. It deserved
only one comment from me because it was lost from the beginning. That
it ran to some 100+ postings proves its lack of material and its girth
of ego. My own shame-based topics have run to less postings than the
total of Roy's tap dancing. The only difference is my ego requires
less from me, and is satisfied with the silence of others humbled by
their poverty of refute. ;-)

Why not look at the possitives presented and put aside attempts to
deflate
or deride honest attempts to explain. You are apparently a computor
expert so why not derive a system where a inductance is transfered to
a system that can easily be modeled since there seems to be some
interest in the matter and you would good chance of becoming a hero
to all.

Both Roy and I offered a protocol to do just that - BEFORE these 300+
postings! You simply have to read Yuri's page to observe it, and how
it is accomplished. Then ask yourself, what quality of discussion
from 300+ posts in its complete indifference could be called
meritorious?

Still your friend and hanging on
Art

Hi Art,

Probably more that what you wanted to know. All part of my service in
providing entertainment analysis and criticism when no data is offered
and no principles of science are being tested. As to your comment of
my becoming a hero to all - not the model I aspire to at all.

Heros, in literature and legend, either die in the last act, or are
insipid and overwhelmingly dull individuals. I am content to allow
for 100 Heroes to rise here in my place. :-)

What I am is a triple threat. I know the material, I can write, and I
don't give a damn (which is to say, I don't care if I'm wrong, because
I can change that by anyone proving it).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 13 Nov 2003 08:57:49 GMT, oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

KB7QHC:
Take the simple question I offered you some time ago: "What is the
value of this inductor?" You have never responded to this, nor
offered an anticipated value for your own, future work.

Value as inductance?

Yes, and its physical size. The remainder of you post is not data and
does not respond to the question.

Are we merging?

Yuri

Hi Yuri,

I hope that wasn't a question of conjugation.

Humor aside (dry as it might be). Give details specific to a physical
model that can go directly into a software model:
Size of radiator (all physical dimensions);
Size and value of inductor (all physical dimensions);
Size and composition of ground field (radial count, gauge, and
physical dimensions);
Elevation of feed/GP - if any (physical dimension);
Position of Solenoid (physical dimension);
Frequency of excitation (Hz, radians/sec, or CPS - your choice).

I know you haven't done it yet. What do you intend for each above?
None of this is going to nail you down to prove with absolute
precision. None of this is so alien that it requires a semester of
study before committing to a prototype.

Scientific method proceeds from the question through experimentation
and data to the validation, not the other way around. That means you
should have all these details at least roughed out to an approximation
by now. I did as much from photos in less than half an hour. If you
were to do as much, you could already answer the majority of those
specifications asked for above.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote in message ...
Mark Keith wrote:
My argument boils down to: What does this mean to the antenna builder
or modeler?

To the antenna user, or the antenna builder/modeler who doesn't care
about current distribution, it would probably mean nothing.

Well, I care a great deal myself, I can't see how this would help me
at all. What would you do about it?

If any discrepancy is so small to be barely measurable,
all this speculation about gross error when modeling is *to me* a load
of hooey.

The discrepancy varies anywhere from barely measureable to very
measureable.

That says a lot...

Where is the beef that this claimed
variation of current across a coil causes drastic modeling or coil
placement calculation errors? Sorry, I just don't see it. What am I
missing here?

I think it should only matter to people who want to give advice on the
subject.

That doesn't answer the question. MK

Cecil Moore wrote in message Where is the beef that this claimed
variation of current across a coil causes drastic modeling or coil
placement calculation errors? Sorry, I just don't see it. What am I
missing here? MK

Well, for instance, EZNEC cannot directly model the phased array
in Kraus' book which requires the coils to perform a 180 degree
phase shift in the current. Don't you think that is useful information?

I can model it just fine using two sources. I've done it many times.
You can set the phase shift to anything you want. My question pertains
to the claimed or implied drastic modeling error we are supposed to be
seeing due to current taper in a mobile bugcatcher coil. Thats what
all this revolves around. Myself, I don't think any error would be
enough to worry about. Do you disagree? MK

Mark Keith wrote:

I can model it just fine using two sources. I've done it many times.
You can set the phase shift to anything you want.

Yes, but how did you first discover that was the way to go instead
of trying to model a coil to cause the phase shift?

My question pertains
to the claimed or implied drastic modeling error we are supposed to be
seeing due to current taper in a mobile bugcatcher coil. Thats what
all this revolves around. Myself, I don't think any error would be
enough to worry about. Do you disagree? MK

The original statement that triggered this entire miniseries was:

"You like to call names, insult people, and argue rather than take the
time to learn basic electronics. This is in any book, including the ARRL
Handbook. If you look at HOW an inductor works, the current flowing in
one terminal ALWAYS equals the current flowing out the other terminal."

If you were posting technical facts and someone accused you of calling
names, insulting people, and arguing rather than taking time to learn
basic electronics, do you think that error would be enough to worry about?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Well, I care a great deal myself, I can't see how this would help me
at all. What would you do about it?

Mike,
to put in perspective, and I tried to point out in the course of threading this
thread, the significance is this:

1. Impact on effciency - efficiency is roughly proportional to the area under
the current curve over the radiator. When the current drop across the coil is
significant, that "eats" the portion of the curve and the curve above the coil
is much smaller (cosine or triangle shape), less efficiency (than shown in some
pictures).

2. Understanding the effect allows to better optimize the antenna performance,
be it through modeling or experimenting and measuring. That's why top hats look
so good. We are not talking just fraction of dB, on low bands that shows as 10s
of dBs on signal.

3. Proper modeling in software will allow better design and optimization. See
case of linear loaded 80m KLM beam vs. modified with loading coils, big
difference in pattern and gain and performance.

4. If the modeling software can not capture the effect, than your designs of
multielement loaded antennas are off.

This exercise already opened my eyes wider and after I test the designs, I will
hopefully come up with some better mobile antennas.

Yuri

If you were posting technical facts and someone accused you of calling
names, insulting people, and arguing rather than taking time to learn
basic electronics, do you think that error would be enough to worry about?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



Thank you!

Yuri

Mark Keith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
... do you think that error would be enough to worry about?

No one is answering my simple questions.

Mine either. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Harrison wrote:
Yuri, K3BU wrote:
"W8JI used this picture (Fig 10) to "see, it is constant".

But that was only by specification. It`s the same as saying, "Let`s say
the line is lossless".

I looked at the ARRL Antenna Book CD and it contains the same
stuff. It also says: "This product is licensed under the terms
of the License Agreement contained in the LICENSE.TXT file on
the disk. Read it carefully before using the CD." :-)
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Read it carefully before using the CD." :-)

I didn't use CD, just book 19th Ed.

BUmmer

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"I looked at the ARRL Antenna Cook CD and it contains the same stuff."

Declaring a coil to have zero size and loss does not make it so.

Loss resistance alone does not delay anything. It kills electricity by
converting it to heat instantly. It takes no prisoners. It has no
electrical storage.

Pure inductance delays current by exactly 90-degrees behind the applied
a-c voltage. Resistance adds vectorially with inductive reactance to
produce an impedance on some angle with the resistance between 0 and
90-degrees, depending upon the magnitudes of resistance and reactance.

So, in any coil the current is delayed. Coax with a coiled center
conductor is manufactured as delay line and is specified in microhenries
per foot.

Coils are made of conductors which suffer skin effect resistance. None
escape loss, despite declarations. None occupy zero space.

Assuming perfection is valuable for analysis, but should not be used as
proof of performance.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Mark Keith wrote:
"But I still feel I`m already building mine as well as they can be."

Close the patent office!

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Mark Keith wrote:
If you noticed a taper across a
coil, what would you do about it? How are you going to improve the
antenna, if #1 , the coil is already as high as you can place it, and
#2, the stinger is as long as you can make it.

Come on, Mark. How can ones ability to model and build better antennas
be totally unaffected by an element that is missing from their
understanding of the fundamental phenomena.

I don't see how we can improve over what we are using.

Do you think that people who have made improvements were unable to see
how they could make improvements?

But I still feel I'm already building mine as
well as they can be.

That may very well be the case, Mark. But unless you understand how
they work, you can't very well convince someone of why it is the case.

73, Jim AC6XG

Mark Keith wrote:
"But I still feel I`m already building mine as well as they can be."

Close the patent office!

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI




Bingo!

In order not to rush Phreak into the patent office I will sit on some solutions
for a while. :-)

3BUmmer

Hi All,

After having asked more than once for simple characteristics, taken
Tom's speculative offering of 300µH (to which Yuri neither accepted
nor rejected, nor offered amendment to, nor any value of his own, nor
attempted to confirm or reject through his correspondence); I settled
down to hammering through the values to make it ring using the other
speculations of simple characteristics that remain wholly undisclosed
(see enumeration above).

The valuation offered by Tom was easily 1000% high. That I suggested
that my model did not resonate came to no response by Yuri, who was
quick to accept testimony of there being a current differential (which
was also in reverse characteristic to those so-called measurements).

Instead, I used what metrics were offered in the casual report and by
evidence of photography to mock up the following:
0.375" Diameter copper (with losses) radiator length at 92";
a ground field of 60 #12 copper (with losses) radials;
a 36.8267µH lumped coil (no losses attributed through R, no C);
the lumped coil placed at the 46th inch (49.45%);
the antenna placed over real ground;
ground is of medium characteristic;
the entire antenna/ground plane is 6" above actual ground;
that comes to the following current distribution:
1 W2E1 1 0.00
2 1.0005 0.00
3 1.0012 -0.01
4 1.0019 -0.02
5 1.0027 -0.03
6 1.0035 -0.03
7 1.0043 -0.04
8 1.0051 -0.05
9 1.006 -0.05
10 1.0069 -0.06
11 1.0079 -0.06
12 1.0089 -0.07
13 1.0099 -0.07
14 1.011 -0.08
15 1.0121 -0.08
16 1.0132 -0.09
17 1.0144 -0.09
18 1.0156 -0.10
19 1.0169 -0.10
20 1.0182 -0.10
21 1.0195 -0.11
22 1.021 -0.11
23 1.0224 -0.12
24 1.024 -0.12
25 1.0256 -0.12
26 1.0273 -0.13
27 1.029 -0.13
28 1.0309 -0.13
29 1.0328 -0.14
30 1.0349 -0.14
31 1.0371 -0.14
32 1.0394 -0.14
33 1.0418 -0.15
34 1.0445 -0.15
35 1.0473 -0.15
36 1.0503 -0.16
37 1.0535 -0.16
38 1.0571 -0.16
39 1.061 -0.16
40 1.0653 -0.16
41 1.0702 -0.17
42 1.0759 -0.17
43 1.0826 -0.17
44 1.091 -0.17
45 1.1039 -0.17
46 1.1224 -0.18
47 1.0841 -0.18
48 1.0513 -0.18
49 1.0231 -0.18
50 .99652 -0.18
51 .97101 -0.18
52 .94623 -0.18
53 .92201 -0.19
54 .8982 -0.19
55 .87475 -0.19
56 .85159 -0.19
57 .82863 -0.19
58 .80587 -0.19
59 .78328 -0.20
60 .76083 -0.20
61 .73849 -0.20
62 .71627 -0.20
63 .69412 -0.20
64 .67205 -0.20
65 .65004 -0.20
66 .62807 -0.21
67 .60614 -0.21
68 .58425 -0.21
69 .56237 -0.21
70 .5405 -0.21
71 .51863 -0.21
72 .49675 -0.21
73 .47485 -0.22
74 .45294 -0.22
75 .43099 -0.22
76 .40898 -0.22
77 .38692 -0.22
78 .3648 -0.22
79 .34259 -0.23
80 .32028 -0.23
81 .29787 -0.23
82 .27531 -0.23
83 .25259 -0.23
84 .22969 -0.23
85 .20656 -0.23
86 .18316 -0.23
87 .15942 -0.24
88 .13523 -0.24
89 .11047 -0.24
90 .08486 -0.24
91 .05798 -0.24
92 Open .02713 -0.24

for each INCH of the radiator (and lumped coil)
A visual description would be a constant current to the coil, and then
a linear taper to the tip.

The corresponding launch characteristic:
1.80dBi @ 29°

By Decimating the lumped value across 10" (corresponding to the large
solenoid's apparent size ascertained from the photographs); to 10
lumped values of 4.28078µH (adjusted to re-obtain resonance); placed
at successive 1 inch segments (50..59); we find the following changes:
1 W2E1 1 0.00
2 1.0005 0.00
3 1.0011 -0.02
4 1.0017 -0.02
5 1.0024 -0.03
6 1.0031 -0.04
7 1.0039 -0.04
8 1.0047 -0.05
9 1.0054 -0.05
10 1.0063 -0.06
11 1.0071 -0.07
12 1.008 -0.07
13 1.0089 -0.08
14 1.0099 -0.08
15 1.0108 -0.09
16 1.0118 -0.09
17 1.0129 -0.10
18 1.014 -0.10
19 1.0151 -0.11
20 1.0162 -0.11
21 1.0174 -0.11
22 1.0187 -0.12
23 1.02 -0.12
24 1.0213 -0.13
25 1.0227 -0.13
26 1.0241 -0.13
27 1.0256 -0.14
28 1.0272 -0.14
29 1.0289 -0.14
30 1.0306 -0.15
31 1.0324 -0.15
32 1.0344 -0.15
33 1.0364 -0.16
34 1.0385 -0.16
35 1.0408 -0.16
36 1.0432 -0.17
37 1.0458 -0.17
38 1.0485 -0.17
39 1.0515 -0.17
40 1.0547 -0.18
41 1.0582 -0.18
42 1.0621 -0.18
43 1.0665 -0.18
44 1.0714 -0.18
45 1.0776 -0.19
46 1.0854 -0.19
47 1.0886 -0.19
48 1.0876 -0.19
49 1.083 -0.19
50 1.0748 -0.19
51 1.0633 -0.20
52 1.0484 -0.20
53 1.0301 -0.20
54 1.0084 -0.20
55 .98291 -0.20
56 .9533 -0.20
57 .92528 -0.20
58 .8983 -0.21
59 .87192 -0.21
60 .84597 -0.21
61 .82036 -0.21
62 .79502 -0.21
63 .7699 -0.21
64 .74494 -0.21
65 .72014 -0.22
66 .69545 -0.22
67 .67086 -0.22
68 .64635 -0.22
69 .62191 -0.22
70 .59751 -0.22
71 .57314 -0.22
72 .5488 -0.23
73 .52446 -0.23
74 .50012 -0.23
75 .47576 -0.23
76 .45136 -0.23
77 .42692 -0.23
78 .40243 -0.23
79 .37785 -0.24
80 .35318 -0.24
81 .32841 -0.24
82 .30348 -0.24
83 .2784 -0.24
84 .25312 -0.24
85 .22759 -0.24
86 .20178 -0.24
87 .1756 -0.25
88 .14894 -0.25
89 .12165 -0.25
90 .09344 -0.25
91 .06384 -0.25
92 Open .02987 -0.25

for each INCH of the radiator (and lumped coil)
A visual description would be a constant current to the coil, and then
a linear taper to the tip. It should be noted that for the protocol
of solenoid assembly by lumped parts, the current into the solenoid
does not equal the current out of the solenoid.

The corresponding launch characteristic:
1.56dBi @ 29°

Or roughly a quarter dB difference between the two (being generous, a
6% variation in absolute signal strength)

Any surprises? Perhaps to the easily surprised, but a quarter dB
variation hardly counts in the real world. Moment to moment
propagation variation will eclipse or boost this easily (although
employing 0.3dB to boost or eclipse is a strain on language). The
real world is going to suffer the bitch of matching R (being resonant
does not confer a 50 Ohm match to this small radiator). Does the
current drop through the solenoid? Again, no surprise. Does it drop
enough? Well that is arguable given the lack of attention to details
of specifying the original test.

Has any new precept been obtained that has not already been supplied?
Insofar as the complaint of not seeing the current variation goes,
that was answered long before the 350 itinerant postings that ignored
it. Does the decimation offer enough accuracy? Angel population
counts will undoubtedly be re-entered into with relish to make that
illusionary exploration despite the obvious variation of so little as
a quarter dB did for the first huge leap being the greatest difference
that will be found.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote -

The valuation offered by Tom was easily 1000% high.

.................................................. ............

Sounds a lot. Do you mean it was 10 or was it 11 times bigger?

Richard, that was a darned good response, clear and to the point,
Makes me feel a bit silly.
Actually Richard this same question has been bothering me for some
time in my modeling,
As you know I am dealing with coupling of radiated circuits. I know
you are not in agreement in what I am doing but that is not important
at this time.
When I realised that one cannot get the Q that one desires it was
really brought home to me what many had said to me about top band and
low efficiencies.
Not only have I had it brought home to me that there is more to an
inductance than I realised but also the difficulties of modeling its
many facets.
The last month or so I have modeled and remodeled my coupling inductor
not only by splitting it up into more than one but also spacing them
out so they represent the actual inductance length plus making the
diameter of those element segments the same as the coil diameter, all
these present different efficiencies tho not by very much . But then
the bandwidth on the model
is much narrower that the actual antenna!. My first reaction is that
the coil is more lossier than the model shows but what it really shows
is that the program can't handle inductances to my satisfaction thus
for me this thread is enlarging my education. So your comments are
very welcome.
Regards
Art


yRichard Clark wrote in message . ..
On 13 Nov 2003 08:56:04 -0800, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

Richard,
You have written quite extensively on this thread, a lot of it being
comments that I just dont understand.

It would help you, me, and the rest if you simply asked each time that
occurs.

I posted 11 times to Yuri's thread of 183
I posted ONCE to Roy's thread of 103
I posted 5 (now 6) times to this

You've posted 8 times total among them - you know, that still leaves
something like 300 postings, 90%, by others (and among not too many
different individuals). I can certainly offer that my writing has
more impact, but hardly as much tonnage. YMMV

If you don't like the way it is
going or the people involved are not coming to you' as is their job,
to present absolute proof then why bother with these people or the
thread.

You might as well ask those who live in pollution why they don't
simply stop breathing.

Can't you bend just a bit and go with the flow when unsurmountable
proof is not presented to you first, which you say is everybodies job.

With 80% of the weather vanes already turned into the wind, why would
I want to do that? Art you pine for a more soothed and tranquil
passage across what is in fact a stormy sea.

Didn't you yourself invite me to
participate ? If so you must certainly had some interest in what the
lesser people were saying.

You focus too much on these herculean threads and it would behoove you
to participate outside of them (and I will offer that you already
have). The majority of my correspondence is in fact with those asking
questions that these titans have disdained from answering:
Parasitic Question...
Hints for a quasi professional cage...
Penn state fractal...
dielectric antennas...
OCF Dipole...
ant coupler and silver mica...
Magloop woes
1.2 GHz antennas...
Device by an antenna...
to trust which SWR meter...
in the last week alone. Do you see any insistence by me for absolute
accuracy, or demands for proofs in those? No, Art, I reserve that for
those who are too lame to defend outrageous claims. None of the
topics above qualify in that regard. Well maybe one inflated soul,
perhaps. A guy with 9 actual out of 12 patents claimed - should I put
on a happy face and simply offered "Bravo! 9 out of 12 is good
enough"? People like that inflated the stock bubble of 2000.

To put it simply, if you lay it out as a fact, I will test it as a
fact. If you lay it out as an idea, then there is something to listen
to. I can let ideas pass on their own merit, but facts have a status
that require validation. If you want an idea validated, that requires
the assistance of psychiatry or religion because you are mixing faith
and science inappropriately. If you want to argue faith and/or
science, it belongs in the Racist and Democracy threads that I eschew.

I will admit I love kicking out the crutches of cripples who are
obvious charlatans. In my youth I walked past too many street urchins
begging for spare change (called flower children then) who are now
robbing companies of earnings as CEO's (they were flower children
because what change they couldn't scrabble up for dope, they could
call home for from Daddy-kins, or Mummy-kins to help bail them out).

This simply means I can tell (as many can, it is no great talent) the
difference between an honest call for help, and a fool's mission.
Long threads such as this and others contain no more than 20% real
content. When I have responded to that, the remainder begs for
entertainment critiques (generally very poor material and easily
mocked). As a benefit, my critiques are far more entertaining too.

Roy's separate thread started out shame-based, I recognized it from
the start because I can do it so much better, and have. It deserved
only one comment from me because it was lost from the beginning. That
it ran to some 100+ postings proves its lack of material and its girth
of ego. My own shame-based topics have run to less postings than the
total of Roy's tap dancing. The only difference is my ego requires
less from me, and is satisfied with the silence of others humbled by
their poverty of refute. ;-)

Why not look at the possitives presented and put aside attempts to
deflate
or deride honest attempts to explain. You are apparently a computor
expert so why not derive a system where a inductance is transfered to
a system that can easily be modeled since there seems to be some
interest in the matter and you would good chance of becoming a hero
to all.

Both Roy and I offered a protocol to do just that - BEFORE these 300+
postings! You simply have to read Yuri's page to observe it, and how
it is accomplished. Then ask yourself, what quality of discussion
from 300+ posts in its complete indifference could be called
meritorious?

Still your friend and hanging on
Art

Hi Art,

Probably more that what you wanted to know. All part of my service in
providing entertainment analysis and criticism when no data is offered
and no principles of science are being tested. As to your comment of
my becoming a hero to all - not the model I aspire to at all.

Heros, in literature and legend, either die in the last act, or are
insipid and overwhelmingly dull individuals. I am content to allow
for 100 Heroes to rise here in my place. :-)

What I am is a triple threat. I know the material, I can write, and I
don't give a damn (which is to say, I don't care if I'm wrong, because
I can change that by anyone proving it).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 14 Nov 2003 18:18:03 -0800, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

Richard, that was a darned good response, clear and to the point,
Makes me feel a bit silly.
Actually Richard this same question has been bothering me for some
time in my modeling,
As you know I am dealing with coupling of radiated circuits. I know
you are not in agreement in what I am doing but that is not important
at this time.
When I realised that one cannot get the Q that one desires it was
really brought home to me what many had said to me about top band and
low efficiencies.
Not only have I had it brought home to me that there is more to an
inductance than I realised but also the difficulties of modeling its
many facets.
The last month or so I have modeled and remodeled my coupling inductor
not only by splitting it up into more than one but also spacing them
out so they represent the actual inductance length plus making the
diameter of those element segments the same as the coil diameter, all
these present different efficiencies tho not by very much . But then
the bandwidth on the model
is much narrower that the actual antenna!. My first reaction is that
the coil is more lossier than the model shows but what it really shows
is that the program can't handle inductances to my satisfaction thus
for me this thread is enlarging my education. So your comments are
very welcome.
Regards
Art


Hi Art,

Modeling is simply a way to take notes that matter. EZNEC has no
settings for words like "miracle gain," and has no multiplier for
"Quantum Electro-Dynamic Tachyons." You pass around models and no one
is confused by what is meant by Source Z. Or if they are, it is an
efficient means for thinning out the herd.

Does your brain fill to overflowing when asked to add all the
reflections in a system? Tell them to show a model and watch their
thumbs burn out flipping pages to their favorite passage in greek.
Lord knows that asking them to step up to the bench has them
struggling to find their crutches.

If I give you grief, you at least know which end of the soldering iron
to pick up. That puts you out 6 sigma from the xerox-philosophers.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Mark Keith wrote:
"I`ve seen nothing so far to indicate we are designing in gross error or
even noticible error."

Neither have I. But, I`ve read several stimulating perceptions which
were new to me and motivated me to investigate and improve my
understanding.

I am sorry My statement, "Close the patent office!" offended Mark. I
have no doubt that Mark has optimized his mobil antennas.

Forty years after Faraday suggested the existence of electric fields in
about 1842,
Heinrich Hertz built a spark transmitter and receiver. The receiver was
just a loop with a gap which sparked when Hertz keyed his transmitter.
It was resonant at 53 MHz or near the frequencies now assigned as TV
Channel 2 in the USA. Hertz optimized his antennas for maximum
transmission distance and achieved about 30 feet.

In the last 160 years there have been many interesting antenna
developments and more are yet to come. Most are not likely predictable.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 15 Nov 2003 11:00:19 -0800, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:


|Can you tell me where I can find what the orientation of coil cross
|section does for efficiency ?

Michaels ("Loading Coils for 160-Meter Antennas", QST, April 1990, pp
28-31) might help.

|There are circular cross sections, edge wound cross sections and also
|the ribbon type that Collins uses where the ribbon is coiled on a
|adjacent coil former, why did they choose this method?

I believe the Collins ribbon inductors were designed for variability,
i.e., tunable without any sliding contacts as in roller inductors.

|I am pursuing efficiency, reduction of losses and Collins have a great
|reputation so which form is the state of the art especially with
|corner flux density.
|Another question is that if we split up an inductance into two parts
|does the form factor include the summation of inductances or does the
|distance inbetween
|where coil linkage is not fully formed affect efficiency for the
|worse.
|Discussion like this thread hopefully will enlarge our education to
|see if such things matter . Another question I struggle with is to put
|another element inside the coil where there is max flux density but
|again it can't be resolved by modeling. With the multi antenna experts
|onboard it is always a possibility that a modicom of information will
|be provided that will benefit all.
|As far as inductances, all is not known to my mind and I always would
|like to be privy to more information, and not because I want to build
|a whip

Another interesting reference is Rhea ("Filters and an Oscillator
Using a New Solenoid Model", Applied Microwave & Wireless, November
2000, pp 30-42) In a nutshell, his premise is that the classic
inductor model is in error, particularly with respect interwinding
capacitance.

Some other articles that should be read by all participating in this
thread are by Cebik.

http://www.cebik.com/amod/amod13.html

http://www.cebik.com/amod/amod14.html

Wes Stewart wrote in message . ..
On 15 Nov 2003 11:00:19 -0800, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:


|Can you tell me where I can find what the orientation of coil cross
|section does for efficiency ?

Michaels ("Loading Coils for 160-Meter Antennas", QST, April 1990, pp
28-31) might help.

|There are circular cross sections, edge wound cross sections and also
|the ribbon type that Collins uses where the ribbon is coiled on a
|adjacent coil former, why did they choose this method?

I believe the Collins ribbon inductors were designed for variability,
i.e., tunable without any sliding contacts as in roller inductors.

|I am pursuing efficiency, reduction of losses and Collins have a great
|reputation so which form is the state of the art especially with
|corner flux density.
|Another question is that if we split up an inductance into two parts
|does the form factor include the summation of inductances or does the
|distance inbetween
|where coil linkage is not fully formed affect efficiency for the
|worse.
|Discussion like this thread hopefully will enlarge our education to
|see if such things matter . Another question I struggle with is to put
|another element inside the coil where there is max flux density but
|again it can't be resolved by modeling. With the multi antenna experts
|onboard it is always a possibility that a modicom of information will
|be provided that will benefit all.
|As far as inductances, all is not known to my mind and I always would
|like to be privy to more information, and not because I want to build
|a whip

Another interesting reference is Rhea ("Filters and an Oscillator
Using a New Solenoid Model", Applied Microwave & Wireless, November
2000, pp 30-42) In a nutshell, his premise is that the classic
inductor model is in error, particularly with respect interwinding
capacitance.

Some other articles that should be read by all participating in this
thread are by Cebik.

http://www.cebik.com/amod/amod13.html

http://www.cebik.com/amod/amod14.html

Thank you for those references Wes. I really didn't expect to hear
from you again. I now have the computor program to simulate my actual
antenna so efficiency is now of major importance ,I can up my
efficiency to 50 per cent
by hanging a wire down from the dipole ends which I am not comfortable
about
and would rather aproach the coil for loss reduction and go for a beam
setup
by using the radiation efficiently by making it fully directional
stead of figure 8 form
and hopefully I can get those extracts

Reg I tried to enter your page once but I am so computor incompetant.
Looked at a tank circuit today and it was wound flat ribbon form!

Looking forward to looking at this fresh info
Many thanks to both of you
Art

Art, KB9MZ wrote:
"I can up my efficiency to 50 per cent by hanging a wire down from the
dipole ends which I am not comfortable about---."

Why would Art be uncomfortable about improving efficiency by hanging a
wire down?
Maybe he does not believe his model is correct. Maybe he doesn`t want
some directivity change that comes with hanging a wire down. Maybe there
is some physical problem with hanging a wire down.

The problem with a loading coil is increased loss. Capacitance is
usually low loss.

As Yuri, K3BU has noted, there is much to be learned from reading
ON4UN`s Chapter 9 about antenna loading even though everything regarding
vertical antennas doesn`t translate readily to horizontal antennas.

ON4UN includes horizontally polarized antennas in "Low-Band DXing". It`s
easy to read, well illustrated, and full of good references. It helps if
you want to design your own antenna because it tells why as well as how.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Reg I tried to enter your page once but I am so computor incompetant.

----------------------------------------

Art, I'm afraid there's not much hope for you then.

Why not try keeping tropical fish ? It's very relaxing although it can be
livened up by introducing just one pirana to the tank. ;o)
----
Yours, Reg

David J. Windisch wrote:
Speaking of pirhanas in the tank, this humble lurker and scribe takes this
opportunity to thank and congratulate you pirhanas posting here for driving
the likes of ... et al., right off this reflector with your feeding frenzies
over triviae, minutiae, and inconsequential stuff.

A larger question might be: Why do some (not all) of those guys stake their
reputations and egos on that very "triviae, minutiae, and inconsequential stuff"?

Some of those guys on your list disagree loud and long with each other, both
sides determined never to admit a mistake of any kind. Many list their degrees
and accomplishments as if those things are a vaccination against mistakes.

Driving a person off a public unmoderated newsgroup is impossible. What causes
people to leave this newsgroup under pressure is pride plus the heat in the kitchen.

Do you think we really need a newsgroup guru upper class whose assertions are
immune from other questioning minds?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 05:56:29 -0500, "David J. Windisch"
wrote:

|Speaking of pirhanas in the tank, this humble lurker and scribe takes this
|opportunity to thank and congratulate you pirhanas posting here for driving
|the likes of Gary Coffman, Tom Rauch, Tom Bruhns, Bart Rowlett, Steve Best,
|Bob Haviland, Roy Lewallen, Wes Stewart, Ian White, Walt Maxwell, Joe
|Reisert .... et al., right off this reflector with your feeding frenzies
|over triviae, minutiae, and inconsequential stuff.


While I'm honored to be counted among the others you speak of Dave, I
think you're not lurking often enough g.

I must say that some of us on the list are still here. I don't know
the reasons why some of the others are not regulars anymore; it could
be what you cite or it could just be the press of other things in
life. I too miss their contributions.

Nevertheless, it's just usenet and not something to be taken very
seriously or to get upset about. The thin skinned should not apply
g.

Actually, I think some of the participants in the latest thread might
be off dreaming up some experiments or new models to bring back to the
discussion. Notwithstanding the bullheadedness and wacky thinking of
some of the usual suspects, there has been some thought provoking
discussion.

Regards,

Wes N7WS

David, leaving you out as one of the possibilities responsible
for throwing out this august group Give me one instance with
names of that which you are complaining about.

Actually some of those very same names have shamed other
people to leave this newsgroup and you will notice that
some of the language on this thread has already become
harsh and vindictive. So give me a name David, since
you are the first to come forward with the proverbial stone.
I.e. one without personal sin
Art
By the way what makes you think that these people are so
brittle that they will not return ?




Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
David J. Windisch wrote:
Speaking of pirhanas in the tank, this humble lurker and scribe takes this
opportunity to thank and congratulate you pirhanas posting here for driving
the likes of ... et al., right off this reflector with your feeding frenzies
over triviae, minutiae, and inconsequential stuff.

A larger question might be: Why do some (not all) of those guys stake their
reputations and egos on that very "triviae, minutiae, and inconsequential stuff"?

Some of those guys on your list disagree loud and long with each other, both
sides determined never to admit a mistake of any kind. Many list their degrees
and accomplishments as if those things are a vaccination against mistakes.

Driving a person off a public unmoderated newsgroup is impossible. What causes
people to leave this newsgroup under pressure is pride plus the heat in the kitchen.

Do you think we really need a newsgroup guru upper class whose assertions are
immune from other questioning minds?

Art, KB9MZ wrote:
"Are you suggesting using a capacitive coupling instead of an inductor?"

The dipole is about the simplest standing wave antenna. Its system must
be resonant to allow full current in the antenna.

The best arrangement for a dipole is a centerfed balanced pair of wires
in a straight line that is self-resonant but this is only possible at
discrete frequencies.

If an antenna is too short to be resonant, it may be resonated by adding
to its inductance or its capacitance, or both, if the antenna can`t be
lengthened.

My remark was only a reiteration of common knowledge. Coils are lossy
and capacitors tend to be nearly lossless.

Cecil has shown how an all-wave system with small losses can be made
that doesn`t even require a tuner. He uses a variety of selected ladder
line lengths to maximize antenna current.

Another option is to use a balanced dipole with a balanced line
connected with the transmitter through a tuner.

Bill Orr, W6SAI has a suggestion for reducing the range of impedances
the tuner must handle. It is to make the sum of the dipole length and
the feedline length into preferred sums. These are 110, 133, 177, or 212
feet. He shows how to make the dipole, balanced line, and tuner in his
book "Wire Antennas". He calls the dipole, line, and tuner: "A Universal
H-F Antenna System", to cover 3.5 to 29.7 MHz with one antenna.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

I suppose it depends on how much the inductor radiates like an antenna.
There is no perfect coil out there.
-Mike KC0IOC

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Can I conclude from this that if I were to make a coil with more or less
inductance, then I would see a current difference between the ends of
the coil?

So tell you what. If you'll pull out your equations and calculate the
expected current difference, I'll replace the coil with one of 100 ohms
reactance and remeasure. How much current difference (magnitude andd
phase, of course) between the ends of a 100 ohm inductor at the base of
that same antenna?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

Judging by description, I would guess that there wasn't much difference.



The feedpoint of the radiator alone is 35-j185. The impedance of the
loading
toroid is 0.6+j193. Assuming perfect predictability, that gives the
antenna
system a feedpoint impedance of 35.6+j8, i.e. it is *longer* than
resonant.
That moves the current maximum point inside the toroid making the current
in and out even closer to equal. If a coil is installed at a current
maximum
point or a current minimum point, the current in and out will be the
same.
If a coil is installed at a place where the slope of the current envelope
is positive, the current will actually increase through the coil.

Roy, W7EL wrote:
"So tell you what. If you`ll pull out your equations and calculate the
expected current difference, I`ll replace the coil with one of 100 ohms
reactance and remeasure."

The challenge was directed to Cecil, but anyone can respond. The current
is a function of position along the antenna. Distribution is
cosinusoidal as Yuri said.

Yuri Blanarovich posted ON4UN`s Fig 9-22 from "Low-Band DXing".
45-degrees of the 90-degree total length of a center-loaded whip comes
from the loading coil. Current tapers cosinusoidally from 1A at the
drivepoint to 0A at the tip.

Current into the bottom of the coil is 0.924A and into the top of the
coil it is 0.383A. These are related to the cosines of 22.5-degrees and
67.5-degrees, 0,924 and 0.383.

The expected current difference in ON4UN`s example is 0.54A.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:

Roy, W7EL wrote:
"So tell you what. If you`ll pull out your equations and calculate the
expected current difference, I`ll replace the coil with one of 100 ohms
reactance and remeasure."

The challenge was directed to Cecil, but anyone can respond. The current
is a function of position along the antenna. Distribution is
cosinusoidal as Yuri said.

That's right. The distribution is the result of the superposition of
the forward and reflected currents. It's basically just one quarter of
a cycle of the standing wave pattern. When the electrical length of a
loading coil represents any significant fraction of the length of the
antenna, the superposition of forward and reverse currents at each end
of the inductor will result in different values. The difference is due
to the phase delay through the loading coil, as Cecil has explained.
Delay is an unavoidable artifact of propagation through wire - whether
it happens to be wrapped into a coil, or not.

73, Jim AC6XG

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:08:21 -0600 (CST),
(Richard Harrison) wrote:
Yuri Blanarovich posted ON4UN`s Fig 9-22 from "Low-Band DXing".
45-degrees of the 90-degree total length of a center-loaded whip comes
from the loading coil. Current tapers cosinusoidally from 1A at the
drivepoint to 0A at the tip.

Hi Richard,

First, and unfortunately, the antenna offered was never anywhere close
to 45° tall. The one Yuri posted barely stood 20° tall.

Second, Yuri's complaint centered on the notion of Modeling, not
measuring. He was making a plea to improve the accuracy and
efficiency of Modelers (all of this is EZNEC implicit, or by extension
NEC generically). Yuri never demonstrated the so-called cosinusoidal
variation in either Models or in Measurement. In fact, Yuri never
demonstrated ANY variation in current along ANY radiator.

Third, the argument of lumped or distributed circuit properties had
been answered with a protocol BEFORE the argument started. The
protocol offered every bit of correlation to ON4UN's drawings.

Fourth, this correlation did not demonstrate a slavish equality to the
so-called cosinusoidal variation, but rather demonstrated a conceptual
agreement. In fact, the Model data shows a divergence from that
curve.

Fifth, no one has bothered to demonstrate anywhere, that with the
protocol, that it is or is not born out in measurement.

Six, the differences of Models employing the protocol and those not
employing it shows about 0.5dB difference. This responds to the
original complaint of Yuri, in that no remarkable efficiencies are
gained or lost by this debate. To make matters worse, no Measure of
differences has been made to accept or dismiss this Model either.
This of course returns us to methods and accuracies, and given the
forecast of 0.5dB, the prospects of that turning into a metaphysical
freak show are more prominent than field tests resolving it in the
noise.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Six, the differences of Models employing the protocol and those not
employing it shows about 0.5dB difference.

The point you straddled in that marvelous enumeration of trivia, is that
there can be significantly greater that ".5dB" of difference in the
attributed current profiles along an antenna, due to a much greater than
".5dB" difference in some attributes of real vs. ideal loading coils.

But there's no question that it's possible to build an airplane that
flies, without understanding why if flies.

73, Jim AC6XG

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:56:28 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:
there can be significantly greater that ".5dB" of difference in the
attributed current profiles along an antenna, due to a much greater than
".5dB" difference in some attributes of real vs. ideal loading coils.

Hi Jim,

I suppose that would matter if you were putting your lips to the
radiator.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Hi Jim,

I suppose that would matter if you were putting your lips to the
radiator.

Right. But it wouldn't matter if you were putting your lips to it. At
least, not to me. ;-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Richard Clark wrote:
Six, the differences of Models employing the protocol and those not
employing it shows about 0.5dB difference.

If you would like to see more difference, try to model a 180 degree
phase-shifting coil using EZNEC.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP