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