Richard,
If your current is different at the ends of the coil, you're an angel.


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.

The point of the original argument was: is the current the same or different at
the ends of the typical coil in loaded antenna. I will reiterate the exercise:
I knew it was different from my "heat tests with Hustler", W8JI countered "you
dummy, it can't be" (in a nutshell :-), ON4UN showed graphically how, W9UCW
chimed in "it is, I measured it, here is some data", Cecil theorized it, W8JI
chorus "calculated" it can't be.

My point is that I argued that current is different, not how precisely I can
calculate or offer calculated "proof", the first order was to convince
unbelievers that there is a difference and let them loose to figure out why
(Cecil shined light on it) and then to properly apply formulas and figures so
we can model it.

So when I say that I want to do MY measurements, I am not after exactly
duplicating W9UCW measurements and test, I just want to pick, first my mobile
antenna (practical situation) and then similar setup what Barry used - nice 60
radial ground plane and various loaded radiators and see what (formulas,
software) comes close to reality. We are already seeing some path, and with
sliding current probe I believe I can get more data along the radiators and we
can see how does it jive with Barry's and with calculations and modeling. So
again, I am not after replicating Barry's laboratory. If what we are saying is
true, than it doesn't matter how fat the coil is, where it is within the
limits, more data from various situations will help us to correlate the
procedures. My goal was to convince unbelievers (and as we can see, there are
plenty), well, to show that current in a typical loading coil's ends IS
DIFFERENT (it is up them to believe it or not).

This wasn't on the level of scientific conference paper, but more like a street
fight - who is right and why are you ridiculing me (us) if I am (we are) right.
Now roll your slide rule blades out and lets do the stage two, fine tune the
"theory" and put some good numbers on IT.

So she's round after all? Should we change thread name now?

Yuri, K3BU.us

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
So when I say that I want to do MY measurements, I am not after exactly
duplicating W9UCW measurements and test, I just want to pick, first my mobile
antenna (practical situation) and then similar setup what Barry used - nice 60
radial ground plane and various loaded radiators and see what (formulas,
software) comes close to reality.

Why bother, Yuri? Roy proved your predictions to be right on. His physically
small inductance had almost exactly an 18 degree effect just as you predicted.
--
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! =-----

Why bother, Yuri? Roy proved your predictions to be right on. His physically
small inductance had almost exactly an 18 degree effect just as you
predicted.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



I want to see how well can we track modeling, and what is the proper way to
model the inductors and "force" the Eznec et al to tell the truth?

Back to the behavior of coils and RF current distribution, isn't the same thing
happening in a PI tank of amplifiers? At one end we have hi impedance (tube
side) low current, at the antenna end we have low impedance high current?
Another case when current across the coil CAN be different?

Yuri, K3BU.us

On 13 Nov 2003 04:21:58 GMT, oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:
I want to see how well can we track modeling, and what is the proper way to
model the inductors and "force" the Eznec et al to tell the truth?

Hi Yuri,

This is the problem of framing the question. The choice of a lumped
component in EZNEC (as I understand it) is entirely your choice, just
as is the choice in the number of radials to put under an antenna. If
the lumped component is inappropriate (just as would be a non
representative ground system or incorrect choice of ground models)
that is the consequence of your bad choice. Your page already offers
the solution for a solenoid, a simple protocol that fits the situation
you presented and to which you identified and presented Tom as
performing inappropriately. In other words, he did not practice the
protocol, and so it seems, neither have you.

This returns us to the adequacy of actually framing the specification
(instead of the question). Can you present a format for testing BOTH
the physical model and the software model that allows the software
model to be accurate? To this point, no. Not knowing the particulars
that lead to the data offered, and then comparing to a poor model was
in fact no proof at all. That data, and even my model barely
reconcile to any of but one possible fact: a current differential
across a long solenoid (something that Roy has not dismissed even if
that answer has been projected upon him by theory spinners). It
conforms to your thesis, but it hardly proves it (simply because it
inverts your expectations shown in this so-called data).

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. You condemned
Tom for his poor work, and yet he is the only one to offer a working
value; and if the lack of resonance in my model is any indication, it
is an entirely wrong value, but to this point it is the ONLY specific
value offered by ANYONE. What value is this data, your proof, if you
cannot provide such a fundamental characteristic?

OK, so you are going to abandon it as anecdotal and replace it with
your own effort. Do you have an estimated value for such fundamental
issues as the size of the radiator, the solenoid, its value, its
placement, the ground system? It took me less effort to spin up a
model than write this missive. What overwhelming problems do you
dwell on such that this discussion goes mute?

I am puzzled how you can demand that others perform the benchwork when
you cannot present the problem for them to examine. Roy opened a new
thread doing just that, and the sneer review pointed out it was not
the same (as what?). Of course it wasn't, no one has any but the
barest of details. His inductor was too small and in the wrong place
to accept as a valid representation of the issue goes the rebuttal;
but it proved you right by conforming to all the particulars. Now if
that doesn't hold the record for self-contradiction, I am sure it will
be eclipsed tomorrow. That was an exercise in framing the answer, a
practice of the cut-and-paste theorists that speed read through their
bibles looking for a passage in greek that corresponds to their view
of the world.

When these threads turn to examining "the truth," it is more than
obvious that such a pursuit is bogged down from the beginning and not
necessarily due to an artifact of any tool as it is of the mind.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard wrote,


On 13 Nov 2003 04:21:58 GMT, oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:
I want to see how well can we track modeling, and what is the proper way to
model the inductors and "force" the Eznec et al to tell the truth?

Hi Yuri,

This is the problem of framing the question. The choice of a lumped
component in EZNEC (as I understand it) is entirely your choice, just
as is the choice in the number of radials to put under an antenna. If
the lumped component is inappropriate (just as would be a non
representative ground system or incorrect choice of ground models)
that is the consequence of your bad choice. Your page already offers
the solution for a solenoid, a simple protocol that fits the situation
you presented and to which you identified and presented Tom as
performing inappropriately. In other words, he did not practice the
protocol, and so it seems, neither have you.

This returns us to the adequacy of actually framing the specification
(instead of the question). Can you present a format for testing BOTH
the physical model and the software model that allows the software
model to be accurate? To this point, no. Not knowing the particulars
that lead to the data offered, and then comparing to a poor model was
in fact no proof at all. That data, and even my model barely
reconcile to any of but one possible fact: a current differential
across a long solenoid (something that Roy has not dismissed even if
that answer has been projected upon him by theory spinners). It
conforms to your thesis, but it hardly proves it (simply because it
inverts your expectations shown in this so-called data).

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. You condemned
Tom for his poor work, and yet he is the only one to offer a working
value; and if the lack of resonance in my model is any indication, it
is an entirely wrong value, but to this point it is the ONLY specific
value offered by ANYONE. What value is this data, your proof, if you
cannot provide such a fundamental characteristic?

OK, so you are going to abandon it as anecdotal and replace it with
your own effort. Do you have an estimated value for such fundamental
issues as the size of the radiator, the solenoid, its value, its
placement, the ground system? It took me less effort to spin up a
model than write this missive. What overwhelming problems do you
dwell on such that this discussion goes mute?

I am puzzled how you can demand that others perform the benchwork when
you cannot present the problem for them to examine. Roy opened a new
thread doing just that, and the sneer review pointed out it was not
the same (as what?). Of course it wasn't, no one has any but the
barest of details. His inductor was too small and in the wrong place
to accept as a valid representation of the issue goes the rebuttal;
but it proved you right by conforming to all the particulars. Now if
that doesn't hold the record for self-contradiction, I am sure it will
be eclipsed tomorrow. That was an exercise in framing the answer, a
practice of the cut-and-paste theorists that speed read through their
bibles looking for a passage in greek that corresponds to their view
of the world.

When these threads turn to examining "the truth," it is more than
obvious that such a pursuit is bogged down from the beginning and not
necessarily due to an artifact of any tool as it is of the mind.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC



Hi Richard,
it's obvious that the purpose of these discussions among
the pathologically competitive is not to reveal truth, but to enhance the
reputation for
infallibility of the professional egos involved. (I'm not writing of you, Roy,
or Keith.)
For those of us who like to lurk, such discussions can be entertaining, but are
essentially worthless, since they usually only consist of pronouncements
from on high unaccompanied by anything resembling logic or proof. Some
baseless technical rhetoric can be thought-provoking, however, just as some
religious beliefs are. Too bad most of it isn't.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On 13 Nov 2003 06:02:50 GMT, (Tdonaly) wrote:

For those of us who like to lurk, such discussions can be entertaining, but are
essentially worthless, since they usually only consist of pronouncements
from on high unaccompanied by anything resembling logic or proof. Some
baseless technical rhetoric can be thought-provoking, however, just as some
religious beliefs are. Too bad most of it isn't.

Hi Tom,

Quite true. On the other hand, there is always an element of
substance to be investigated, or to reinvigorate long unexercised
issues. You said as much, but I don't mind putting some work into
these things to test the perspective of their impact.

The issue of lumped versus distributed loads has enough of that
perspective to merit discussion. It is too bad it is attended with
such a circus mentality. Further, it also illustrates how poor
planning, testing, and specification can seriously prejudice an
outcome. Even if the topics are specious, it can be shown that their
conclusive proofs are often spun from sheer imagination or frauds (aka
fractal claims). These tests of logic are often more important than
the lack of substance (look at all the folderol of photons, tachyons
and such metaphysical guff).

For instance, it motivated Mark to enquire into how much effect moving
the solenoid could have (which my model confirmed in its own tortured
way). It has also motivated Yuri to perform measurements with more
care to details and greater coverage (not just two data points). Roy
emerged to do some bench work (he may yet change his mind, but I
suppose that is stretching my luck ;-)

All fairly typical behaviors for our supposed avocation; but growing
rarer with the haughty attitude that mental gymnastics can answer it
all. To this point I've finished viewing one of Robert Pease's Online
seminars (Use and Mis-use of Amplifiers) and his single thumped home
admonition was to "Eschew SPICE."

For those who want the straight skinny from a battle hardened bench
designer, I recommend his online work at:
http://www.national.com/rap/
on the other hand, for those looking for cut-and-paste greek
citations, they will be put against the wall. :-)

Where's my bazooka?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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?
Take typical mobile antenna, or from info by W9UCW, resonate it on particular
ham band with inserted inductance, calculate the value and you got it. Then
check the resonant frequency, if it is not what you are aiming for, readjust
the inductance or stinger length.

Again, our first to step was to answer the question: is it the same or more
like around 50% difference. If we agree that it isn't, then we go and
investigate and try to fit the calculations and correlate specific setups.
W9UCW took his appart (doen some time ago), I have right now my 72 Buick
LeSabre with Hustler masts, coils and some home brewed coils. I can provide
dimensions, coil inductances for those who want to calculate Hustlers. Other
stuff I have to make, time permitting.

Are we merging?

Yuri

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Back to the behavior of coils and RF current distribution, isn't the same thing
happening in a PI tank of amplifiers? At one end we have hi impedance (tube
side) low current, at the antenna end we have low impedance high current?
Another case when current across the coil CAN be different?

A PI tank is a three or four terminal network so the difference is
understandable. The basic problem seems to be in considering the coil
in an antenna to be a two terminal lumped component when it really
is a 2+ terminal network including attenuated reflections, displacement
currents, and multiple paths to ground.
--
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! =-----

Yuri, K3BU wrote:
"My point is that I argued that current is different, not how precisely
I can calculate or offer calculted proof."

The 19th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book included a CD-ROM containing a
program to optimize whip loading. The book also has a section on loading
coil design.

Network analysis may be inapplicable, but the simple argument that the
current is likely different at the two ends of an antenna loading coil
is elegantly made by Fig 6 on page 16-4 of the 19th edition of the ARRL
Antenna Book. It shows a simple whip over a ground plane as an
equivalent circuit of distributed inductance and capacitance. It`s
obvious that capacitance near the feedpoint bleeds current to ground
which is thus unavailable at inductance further from the feedpoint. The
antenna is, unlike a transmission line, unbalanced. Some energy escapes
the confines of the antenna, and isn`t all available from temporary
storage to travel on its path along the antenna away from the feedpoint.
Decline of current in the loading coil is plotted in the figure.

Yuri`s point is proved. Look at Fig 6. The picture is worth a thousand
words.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Yuri`s point is proved. Look at Fig 6. The picture is worth a thousand
words.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI



Yes, but then on page 16-7 Fig 10 they show that current across the coil is
constant, which situation I analyze in my article at www.K3BU.us as an error
being perpetuated since 1955 by Belrose.

W8JI used this picture to "see, it is constant" :-)

I wonder if 20th edition has the same stuff. I haven't got new book yet.

Yuri