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

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

BUmmer

oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich) wrote in message

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

Sure, it's called varying stinger heights, or varying capacitance. The
less stinger you have, the less current will be pulled through the
coil. Thats the way I see it anyway. 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.

2. Understanding the effect allows to better optimize the antenna performance,
be it through modeling or experimenting and measuring.

How? I don't see how we can improve over what we are using. We are
already using the optimum coil placement if we want that. Vertload can
tell you that very quickly.

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.

Huh? Top hats work well, because of a current taper across the coil?
Top hats don't model properly because of a current taper across a
coil? I'm confused...


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.

Where would I see this? Normally, I would expect the lumped coil
version to be the most efficient if quality coils are used...

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

Thats a big if though...I've already shown that the likely error from
this "taper" would most likely be so small to be unnoticed. So far, no
one has shown it to be otherwise.


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

Yuri

Thats the bottom line. But I still feel I'm already building mine as
well as they can be. MK

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