Roy Lewallen wrote:
So now we have a simple series circuit consisting of a generator, the
loading inductor, and the R + L or C we used to substitute for the
antenna.

No we don't, Roy. You cannot be allowed, once again, to get away with
turning a distributed network problem into a lumped circuit problem.
If you can prove me wrong with a distributed network analysis, I will
be the first to admit my mistake. If you cannot prove me wrong with a
distributed circuit analysis, that's a big clue.
--
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! =-----

David Robbins wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

So what's the answer, Dave? Is there a current phase shift through a mobile
antenna loading coil or not? Seems to me, if a coil can propagate the current
phase in zero time, that is faster than light operation.
--
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! =-----

I disagree with what you think Balanis says, not what he says. There's
quite a difference.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

So, in short, I don't disagree with Balanis.


Yes, you have disagreed with an analysis based on Balanis's
'If' and 'Ib'. You even quoted some author saying that an
antenna could not be analyzed in the manner that Balanis
proposes.

Cecil Moore wrote:

He doesn't use lumped components and probably for good reason. But
here's
the quote that allows my analysis. "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' in Figure 10.1(a)." This means that net
total
current equals If+Ib.

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Are you referring to something you emailed me? If so, I haven't received
it. I'll be glad to look at it when I do.

Yep, I've emailed it twice to you. I had to email them three times to
Yuri before he received it. Apparently, some of the new internet filters
are deleting emails.

Would you agree to cease the ad hominem attacks until you have actually
viewed the problem?
--
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! =-----

I'm sorry. If I'm bothering the readers, I'll be glad to bow out.

My postings aren't really directed to Cecil -- I know much better than
to imagine that I'll ever change his mind, and I'm a firm believer in
not wasting time on things I can't change.

No, you and the other readers are really the audience, and the whole
reason for the postings. If you and the other readers would rather I
shut up, I'll be more than happy to spend my time at more productive
pursuits.

Just let me know.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

David Robbins wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Woops, slipped through my fingers once again. My hat's off to the master.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

So now we have a simple series circuit consisting of a generator, the
loading inductor, and the R + L or C we used to substitute for the
antenna.


No we don't, Roy. You cannot be allowed, once again, to get away with
turning a distributed network problem into a lumped circuit problem.
If you can prove me wrong with a distributed network analysis, I will
be the first to admit my mistake. If you cannot prove me wrong with a
distributed circuit analysis, that's a big clue.

I'm sorry, I haven't received anything from you. If you'll send them
again, I'll be glad to take a look and to comment.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:

The difference in current between the two configurations that I sent to
you means the vertical stubs are radiating better than the horizontal
antenna which is unlikely since EZNEC doesn't show any vertical radiation.

Reg Edwards wrote:
In fact, the length of wire in the stub line needed to resonate the antenna,
plus the height of the antenna, will be of the same order as a full size
quarter-wave vertical.

BS, Reg. I have a 102 foot tall, center-loaded vertical, with a ten foot
long shorted horizontal stub in the middle to resonate it on 75m. Do you
have EZNEC? I can send you a copy of the antenna file.
--
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! =-----

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I disagree with what you think Balanis says, not what he says. There's
quite a difference.

Balanis says one can analyze an antenna based on forward and reflected
currents. You say that's not valid. Yes, you do disagree with Balanis.
--
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! =-----

David Robbins wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Aww Dave! Cecil, Dave and a few others here serve as both education and
somethimes entertainment. Go with the flow, learn something and when you
get tired stop reading the thread.

It's all good, man!