Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
What's this guessing game anyway?

If you can talk an astronomer into predicting the day in 2004 when
the first level 3 solar storm will hit earth, you can discredit him
when his prediction falls through.

More thoughts from the rubber room...Lets say you, Yuri and crew are
correct and the current taper is large across the coil.
Lets say the coil is still a 1 ft long bugcatcher coil.
Lets say the current is fairly constant below the coil.
What will the real world effect be of this phenomenon?
About the same as using a shorter coil, the way I see it.
The current below the coil should still be appx the same. The coil
location has not moved. All you might see is a beginning of current
taper of appx 2-4-6 inches lower than you might normally expect. What
will be the effect of this? Hardly nada I suspect. But lets take this
to a further gross level. Lets drop the coil from 47.5% above base, to
37.5% above base. Will all surely agree this would be a worse case to
performance than any severe taper of current in the coil? What do I
see when modeling? -1.75 dbi vs -1.96 dbi. I think this discrepancy
would be as bad as you would ever see from a taper of current across a
coil. Even if the coil was a foot long or longer, as long as you don't
approach a helical antenna. I can't normally hear .21 db difference.
But lets take this even farther and use vertload. I tried an appx 10
ft antenna with a coil 1.44 m above base, with a 1.5 m stinger. The
radiating efficiency was 17.58 db using 4 ohms for ground loss, with a
1.3 db hit compared to a 1/4 wave. I then dropped the coil to 1.14 m
above base, and lengthened the stinger to 1.8 m. 15.95 db efficiency
with the same 1.3 db hit compared to a 1/4 wave. I assume this
difference to be as bad and most likely worse than any error shown
from a current taper across the coil when modeling or in the real
world.
To *me*, I find it all pretty much a non issue, and basically a turd
hunt as we call it down here in redneck country. But this is not to
say I don't admire the determination and grit of the participants
involved in this episode of "A Current Affair". But what do I
know...They don't keep me in a rubber room for nothing... MK

On 11-Nov-2003, Roy Lewallen wrote:

My apologies to everyone for taking up so much bandwidth.

73,
Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy,

Your postings are never a waste of bandwidth. I hope that you plan to publish more of the type of
experiments which you have just described. I believe your methods are brilliant examples of both
the scientific method and good engineering practice. Bravo Zulu!

KO6NO

Mark Keith wrote:
So far, your tests,
while not being a bugcatcher type coil seem to match my expectations
fairly closely.

They seem to have matched Yuri's predictions almost exactly. He predicted
a 5% reduction in current. That was very close. He predicted an 18 degree
effect. Turns out a 5% reduction in current in that area of the cosine
curve is almost exactly 18 degrees. Cos-1(.95) = 18 degrees
--
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! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:
Perhaps the statement was poorly worded. The presumption is that the
"missing degrees" of length are supplied by the coil. Do you believe this
is untrue? Realize of course, that a sufficiently simple model can fail to
describe any phenomenon which has been oversimplified in the model.

Roy's measurements verify Yuri's predictions. Assuming 1.0 amps at zero
degrees on one side of the coil, 0.95 amps out is almost exactly 18 degrees
since arc-cos(0.95)=18.2 degrees. Am I missing something?
--
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! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:

I'd like to hear an explanation for ANY current difference across a coil
that is supposedly behaving as a lumped inductor. But the test really
should be for the same type of antenna used in Yuri's discussion;

Jim, did you fail to notice that arc-cos(0.95) = 18.2 degrees?
--
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! =-----

Mark Keith wrote:
More thoughts from the rubber room...Lets say you, Yuri and crew are
correct and the current taper is large across the coil.
Lets say the coil is still a 1 ft long bugcatcher coil.
Lets say the current is fairly constant below the coil.
What will the real world effect be of this phenomenon?

Roy's measurements vindicated Yuri's prediction. Current in equals 1.0 amp
at zero degrees. Measured current out equals 0.95 amps. arc-cos(0.95) =
18 degrees. Yuri's prediction was right on. What else is there to argue
about? Even the small toroidal coil functioned exactly as predicted by
Yuri.
--
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 12 Nov 2003 10:03:40 -0800, (Mark Keith) wrote:

OK. Lets say the coil in the real world is one foot long. That is appx
1/10 of the total antenna length. Will there be any argument that max
current will occur at the coil? I hope not...

Hi Mark,

I offered an EZNEC analysis that supported (circumspectly) Yuri's
position, but he blew it off chasing rainbows. Using the protocol
(already published by Yuri) for emulating a solenoid (and not just the
contentious one point load), that solenoid is found residing on
segments 50 to 59 (spanning 10 inches):
1 W2E1 1 0.00
2 .95623 0.00
3 .9205 0.00
4 .88976 0.00
5 .86122 0.00
6 .83415 0.00
7 .80815 0.00
8 .78296 0.00
9 .75843 0.00
10 .73443 0.00
11 .71088 0.00
12 .68771 0.00
13 .66486 -0.01
14 .64229 -0.01
15 .61997 -0.01
16 .59787 -0.01
17 .57596 -0.01
18 .55421 -0.01
19 .53261 -0.02
20 .51115 -0.02
21 .48979 -0.02
22 .46853 -0.02
23 .44736 -0.02
24 .42627 -0.02
25 .40523 -0.02
26 .38424 -0.02
27 .36329 -0.02
28 .34238 -0.03
29 .32148 -0.03
30 .30059 -0.03
31 .27969 -0.03
32 .25878 -0.03
33 .23785 -0.03
34 .21688 -0.04
35 .19585 -0.04
36 .17477 -0.04
37 .1536 -0.05
38 .13234 -0.05
39 .11095 -0.06
40 .08941 -0.07
41 .06769 -0.08
42 .04576 -0.12
43 .02355 -0.21
44 .001 -4.38
45 .02202 -179.8
46 .04579 180.00
47 .0707 180.00
48 .09404 180.00
49 .11529 180.00
50 .13404 180.00
51 .14984 180.00
52 .16235 180.00
53 .17155 180.00
54 .17718 180.00
55 .17057 180.00
56 .15943 180.00
57 .15069 180.00
58 .1433 180.00
59 .13668 180.00
60 .1306 180.00
61 .12495 180.00
62 .11962 180.00
63 .11457 180.00
64 .10975 180.00
65 .10512 180.00
66 .10066 180.00
67 .09634 180.00
68 .09216 180.00
69 .08809 180.00
70 .08413 180.00
71 .08025 180.00
72 .07646 180.00
73 .07274 180.00
74 .06908 180.00
75 .06549 180.00
76 .06194 180.00
77 .05845 180.00
78 .05499 180.00
79 .05158 180.00
80 .04819 180.00
81 .04484 180.00
82 .0415 180.00
83 .03819 180.00
84 .03488 180.00
85 .03159 180.00
86 .02829 180.00
87 .02499 180.00
88 .02167 180.00
89 .01831 180.00
90 .01491 180.00
91 .01141 180.00
92 .00777 180.00
93 Open .00363 180.00

I will note a caveat that it does not prove anything by Yuri's source
of information, and as Yuri is admittedly ignorant of the details of
the physical model, I was forced to guess the model specification by
the inference of the commentary at his page, and the attending
photographs. Further, contrary to what was said, neither is it
resonant (a fact that Yuri offers no amplification too, amending data,
or confirmation nor denial), About the only thing that can be said:
"the solenoid offers a current differential."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 12 Nov 2003 11:25:25 -0800, (Mark Keith) wrote:

But lets take this
to a further gross level. Lets drop the coil from 47.5% above base, to
37.5% above base. Will all surely agree this would be a worse case to
performance than any severe taper of current in the coil?

Hi Mark,

My model took no more than a minute to offer (in comparison to the
like data already offered in response to your other post):
1 W2E1 1 0.00
2 .94658 0.00
3 .90287 0.00
4 .86518 0.00
5 .83014 0.00
6 .79686 0.00
7 .76486 0.00
8 .73383 0.00
9 .70357 0.00
10 .67393 0.00
11 .64482 0.00
12 .61614 -0.01
13 .58783 -0.01
14 .55984 -0.01
15 .53212 -0.01
16 .50463 -0.01
17 .47734 -0.02
18 .45021 -0.02
19 .42323 -0.02
20 .39637 -0.02
21 .36959 -0.02
22 .34288 -0.02
23 .31623 -0.02
24 .2896 -0.03
25 .26298 -0.03
26 .23634 -0.03
27 .20966 -0.03
28 .18292 -0.04
29 .15608 -0.04
30 .12912 -0.05
31 .102 -0.07
32 .07466 -0.09
33 .04706 -0.14
34 .01911 -0.32
35 .00929 -179.4
36 .03832 -179.9
37 .06839 180.00
38 .10011 180.00
39 .12989 180.00
40 .15719 180.00
41 .17431 180.00
42 .18799 180.00
43 .19776 180.00
44 .20299 180.00
45 .20331 180.00
46 .19816 180.00
47 .18701 180.00
48 .17804 180.00
49 .17045 180.00
50 .16365 180.00
51 .15741 180.00
52 .1516 180.00
53 .14614 180.00
54 .14097 180.00
55 .13604 180.00
56 .13133 180.00
57 .12679 180.00
58 .12241 180.00
59 .11817 180.00
60 .11405 180.00
61 .11005 180.00
62 .10614 180.00
63 .10233 180.00
64 .0986 180.00
65 .09494 180.00
66 .09134 180.00
67 .08781 180.00
68 .08434 180.00
69 .08091 180.00
70 .07754 180.00
71 .0742 180.00
72 .0709 180.00
73 .06764 180.00
74 .06441 180.00
75 .06121 180.00
76 .05804 180.00
77 .05488 180.00
78 .05175 180.00
79 .04863 180.00
80 .04553 180.00
81 .04243 180.00
82 .03935 180.00
83 .03626 180.00
84 .03318 180.00
85 .03009 180.00
86 .02699 180.00
87 .02387 180.00
88 .02073 180.00
89 .01754 180.00
90 .0143 180.00
91 .01096 180.00
92 .00748 180.00
93 Open .0035 180.00

The solenoid was dropped 10 inches between the two models.
Best gain = -15.33dBi @ 29 deg for this
Best gain = -9.52dBi @ 29 deg for the former
and in both cases, a hellacious mismatch.

I would like to have an answer to why the disparity in the state of
tune between this model and the physical model it pretends to
represent, but Yuri has steadfastly sloughed off those questions
demanding that it is my responsibility to prove his thesis right.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard KB7QHC wrote:

I offered an EZNEC analysis that supported (circumspectly) Yuri's
position, but he blew it off chasing rainbows.

I am terribly sorry, with all the mumbo-jumbo going on I didn't see the right
rainbow over the devils :-)

I have to go back and reread the thread (take a vacation :-), I guess some of
the points obvious to me that were nit picked blinded me over the diamonds
hidden. The confusion was that all I had on the W9UCW set up was what I had
published, and you assumed that was my setup/data and kept asking me about it.

I will be making snap-on current probe, which will make it easier to slide
along the element and observe the current without the disturbance to the
antenna and will be a bit different over the thermocouple meters. Just need a
bit more time.

Thanks to all those civil pros and cons, looks like we are getting ahead. If we
can implements the phenomena properly in modeling software, it should be giant
step in properly analyzing and designing loaded antennas and elements. There
are many dBs hidden there.

Yuri, K3BU/m

On 12 Nov 2003 21:23:21 GMT, oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

Richard KB7QHC wrote:

I offered an EZNEC analysis that supported (circumspectly) Yuri's
position, but he blew it off chasing rainbows.

I am terribly sorry, with all the mumbo-jumbo going on I didn't see the right
rainbow over the devils :-)

Hi Yuri,

It's fine by me to be compared to devils (munchkins in comparison to
their satanic majesty).

I have to go back and reread the thread (take a vacation :-), I guess some of
the points obvious to me that were nit picked blinded me over the diamonds
hidden. The confusion was that all I had on the W9UCW set up was what I had
published, and you assumed that was my setup/data and kept asking me about it.

If you quote a source, you are responsible for the outcome of its
challenge. It is not up to the challenger to chase down the
problematic details, and it is not your defense to say the other guy
got it wrong.

The question that leaps to mind is how are you going to replicate the
data if you were so ignorant of the original details? Even more, it
would further all discussion for you to offer a COMPLETE specification
of what you are doing (or going to do), rather than an informal ramble
around the garden with a camera.


I will be making snap-on current probe, which will make it easier to slide
along the element and observe the current without the disturbance to the
antenna and will be a bit different over the thermocouple meters. Just need a
bit more time.

This is responsive to my issue with heat - through substitution. It
doesn't completely answer it, but the data is the focus and the
reduction of error is a goal.


Thanks to all those civil pros and cons, looks like we are getting ahead. If we
can implements the phenomena properly in modeling software, it should be giant
step in properly analyzing and designing loaded antennas and elements. There
are many dBs hidden there.

Yuri, K3BU/m

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC