oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich) wrote in message ...

I could buy that to an extent I guess. But say if you had a top loaded
vertical, with linear current distribution, the current across the
coil should be appx equal no matter where the coil is placed. But if
no top loading, maybe so.. MK


Top loaded vertical does not have LINEAR current distribution, that is another
simplification, fallacy. Current in the radiator has cosine distribution.

It's still fairly constant. But the degree would depend on the height
of the vertical vs the length of the top hat wires. If the hat is too
small, I doubt you would see as steady a distribution up the radiator.

At
the base, there is not much difference, just like in cosine of the angle
corresponding to the electrical length of radiator at that point.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean the current across the
coil would be more steady than if the coil were higher? Does this
include using the top loading wires?

Again, this subject of current distribution is important in optimizing the
antenna design by fine tuning the position of the loading coil in the antenna,
combination with top loading etc. Morew current flowing in the radiating part
of the antenna - the stronger the field and louder signal.

Sure. But this is old news. I beat Reg's vertload program to death
finding the best overall coil height for my mobile antenna. Basically
I ended up putting it as high as I could. Which ended up a center load
at 5 ft up, with a 10 ft whip. Or 8 ft up on a 13 ft whip when parked,
and using the "Super" mode...

The "linear" current distribution mentioned in ARRL Compendium and Antenna Book
is the simplification propagated from Belrose's 1955 QST article. It is close,
but not exact and introduces confusion as it is demonstrated by the flat earth
society.

Dunno, I've never read it. Maybe calling the distribution as "linear"
is the wrong term, but the current is still fairly steady along the
radiator in the case of the vertical with the large top hat. I'm
looking at a model of one now. The current distribution is almost like
a twin tower standing next to the vertical. There is a slight decrease
from bottom to top, but it's very small. It's still my view that the
difference in current at each end of the coil used in such a case is
fairly small. No matter where the coil was mounted.
I've never said they would be exactly the same. Seems to me I started
off by saying they could vary a bit depending on the antenna. So if
you are saying they would be close, but not exact, you seem to be
saying the same thing I said to begin with, which seems to be the same
thing Cecil is saying. ??? Crap, I'm becoming confused.... I'm not
good at playing these type games. That's why I didn't even bother
reading the "current war" over on e-ham. *Sounds* like a 598 thread
nit pick contest just judging from what I've heard... It's not "that"
important to me, being I don't see what it would do for me, even if I
found there to be a fairly large difference from each end. If you have
pertinent info which shows the current is not even close to being
constant across the coil, please enlighten us. "I guess you are
attempting to" But at this point, I think everyone is starting to
chase their tales and bark at the moon.
I'm not really seeing the point, being the art of improving current
distribution in short verticals using coil placement is old news. MK

NM5K:

At
the base, there is not much difference, just like in cosine of the angle
corresponding to the electrical length of radiator at that point.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean the current across the
coil would be more steady than if the coil were higher? Does this
include using the top loading wires?


It is roughly like this: Consider quarter wave vertical (90 degree radiator),
no coils or loading, you will get current max at the base and then diminishing
towards the end to zero. Distribution is in the form of cosine function, nice
cosine curve. Now if you would insert the coil anywhere in that radiator and
shorten it and tune it back to resonance, the current distribution accross the
coil would correspond to the "missing" portion of the radiator that coil
replaces. Efficiency of the antenna is roughly proportional to the area under
the curve. ON4UN pictures show that. Appears that the best compromise position
for the loading coil is about 2/3 from the base. Having top loading, it
"stretches" the high current carrying portion of the radiator. The lower the
loading coil is, the less difference in current drop accross the coil (cosine
function) but shortening of the more current carrying radiator - less
efficiency.

Again, this subject of current distribution is important in optimizing the
antenna design by fine tuning the position of the loading coil in the
antenna,
combination with top loading etc. Morew current flowing in the radiating
part
of the antenna - the stronger the field and louder signal.

Sure. But this is old news. I beat Reg's vertload program to death
finding the best overall coil height for my mobile antenna. Basically
I ended up putting it as high as I could. Which ended up a center load
at 5 ft up, with a 10 ft whip. Or 8 ft up on a 13 ft whip when parked,
and using the "Super" mode...


That perhaps points to some error in validity of the formula, and confirms our
findings. Experience and W5DXP reported shootout results point to reverse
dimensions, 10 feet mast and 5 ft whip, coil about 2/3 up the antenna. You want
to have as much as possible the mast length and then best compromise between
the coil inductance (properties) and remaining whip (and hat).

The "linear" current distribution mentioned in ARRL Compendium and Antenna
Book
is the simplification propagated from Belrose's 1955 QST article. It is
close,
but not exact and introduces confusion as it is demonstrated by the flat
earth
society.

Dunno, I've never read it. Maybe calling the distribution as "linear"
is the wrong term, but the current is still fairly steady along the
radiator in the case of the vertical with the large top hat. I'm
looking at a model of one now. The current distribution is almost like
a twin tower standing next to the vertical. There is a slight decrease
from bottom to top, but it's very small. It's still my view that the
difference in current at each end of the coil used in such a case is
fairly small. No matter where the coil was mounted.
I've never said they would be exactly the same. Seems to me I started
off by saying they could vary a bit depending on the antenna. So if
you are saying they would be close, but not exact, you seem to be
saying the same thing I said to begin with, which seems to be the same
thing Cecil is saying. ??? Crap, I'm becoming confused.... I'm not
good at playing these type games. That's why I didn't even bother
reading the "current war" over on e-ham. *Sounds* like a 598 thread
nit pick contest just judging from what I've heard... It's not "that"
important to me, being I don't see what it would do for me, even if I
found there to be a fairly large difference from each end. If you have
pertinent info which shows the current is not even close to being
constant across the coil, please enlighten us. "I guess you are
attempting to" But at this point, I think everyone is starting to
chase their tales and bark at the moon.
I'm not really seeing the point, being the art of improving current
distribution in short verticals using coil placement is old news. MK

Well, looking at fairly simple example of typical 40m loaded mobile model
antenna, as W9UCW used, having current vary 40 to 60% is significant, measured
differences in field strength are in order of 10 dB and that is significant. I
guess it must be like religion, you believe what you want and if the reality
doesn't matter, than let everybody be happy. But this has tremendous impact on
modeling especially in loaded parasitic arrays. If W8JI showed that Eznec
calculated current to be different by fractions and the measurements show
around 50% difference, then we have huge discrepancy and warning not to rely on
results like that.

There is too much reliance now going on modeling program results, ignoring some
realities. Some people are becoming "experts" on antennas based on modeling
results, without building one. But, even lightbulb can radiate and make some
people happy, but it is not my intention to argue with those. My goal is to
maximize the performance of the antenna and take advantage of propagation modes
for maximum results in the contests, where every fraction of dB counts.

It just amazes me that some people go to great length to speculate, calculate,
rather than go and verify the measurements and see what it REALY is. You can
see that in the threads after the articles.

What I was looking for is to see 1. if anyone else MEASURED the current in
loading coils, and what results they arrived at (and if we are wrong, then
where did we go wrong). 2. If this is right than to have modeling software
implement it with least error. I would like to use that for optimizing, say,
loaded elements for receiving arrays on low bands, optimizing mobile antennas,
loaded multielement beams, etc.

Yuri, K3BU/m

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
What I was looking for is to see 1. if anyone else MEASURED the current in
loading coils, and what results they arrived at (and if we are wrong, then
where did we go wrong). 2. If this is right than to have modeling software
implement it with least error. I would like to use that for optimizing, say,
loaded elements for receiving arrays on low bands, optimizing mobile antennas,
loaded multielement beams, etc.

Hi Yuri, try this out for your argument in the other group. Using EZNEC:

Example 1: 102' CF dipole with loading coils in the center of each arm
to cause the antenna to resonate on 3.76 MHz. I get XL=j335 ohms.

Example 2: Replace the above loading coils with series inductive stubs
hanging down. Ten foot stubs with six inch spacing between the wires is
what I used. What happens to the current across that six inch gap is obvious
from the current plot using EZNEC. Hint: There is a step function across
that six inch gap just as there will be with a six inch coil.

Then ask: Why doesn't EZNEC treat these two cases the same way?
--
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! =-----

Thank you Cecil and Fred!
(Where is Roy? We could use expert guidance in modeling the case.)

I will post your comments on eHam.net.

The analogy using stubs is excellent. That brings the question of using nice
coils, vs. stubs, vs. toroids in shortened antennas. But we will save that for
another thread with proper name.

Now watch for W8JI twisting into: "I said that all along" see him changing his
web page and become a guru who "discovered" that current accross the loading
coil in the antenna is significantly different and Yuri (et al) will remain the
idiot who can't get the things right :-)....
Happened many times before :-(

Thanks again!

Yuri, K3BU/m

As Ken, K7GCO keeps saying: "Don't they get tired of being wrong?"

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Thank you Cecil and Fred!
(Where is Roy? We could use expert guidance in modeling the case.)

I sent Roy a copy of the EZNEC file that I sent to you. Anyone else
who wants a copy of those files, send me an email.

I will post your comments on eHam.net.

Which forum/topic?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

I sent Roy a copy of the EZNEC file that I sent to you. Anyone else
who wants a copy of those files, send me an email.


I didn't get it, for direct mail take noSaddam out :-)

I will post your comments on eHam.net.

Which forum/topic?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

The article and follow up comments are at:

http://www.eham.net/articles/6512

Yuri, www.K3BU.us

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
The article and follow up comments are at:

http://www.eham.net/articles/6512

Egads, did I get the last word? (so far) That's proof of action
at a distance. I'm a thorn in the side of hams who are not even
on the same newsgroup as I. :-)
--
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 Blanarovich wrote:
There is too much reliance now going on modeling program results, ignoring some
realities.

Yuri, here is a modeling result that you might like. :-) I took a 102' dipole
and loaded it in the center of each leg with an inductive stub that made the
dipole resonant on 3.76 MHz. I added a one ohm series 'load' to each side of
the stub. Drawing one leg of the dipole, it looks like this:

----------R2-+ +-R1----------FP--- ... other half
| |
| | inductive
| | stub
+-+

EZNEC reports 0.85 amps through R1 and 0.57 amps through R2, a difference
of 33%. If one could model the inductive loading reactance as an actual
physical coil instead of a lumped single point impedance, results would
be similar to the above.

Now here is something that might blow some minds. The inductive stub
above is ten feet long. That's about 1/8WL on 20m. A 1/8WL shorted stub
equals +jZ0. The results of running the above antenna on 20m is that the
current through R1 is 185 degrees out of phase with the current through R2.
At the time when the current through R2 is flowing toward the end of the
antenna, the current through R1 is flowing toward the feedpoint. Wonder
what Kirchhoff would say about that. If you replace the stub with a coil
of the same reactance, not much changes.

Tell W8JI to stop using lumped circuit analysis when he should be using
distributed circuit analysis. :-)
--
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! =-----

Cecil wrote,

Tell W8JI to stop using lumped circuit analysis when he should be using
distributed circuit analysis. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


You know, it's against the law to kill people, Cecil. I
almost choked to death on my morning cup of
Bo Lee when I read that. :-)
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tdonaly wrote:

Cecil wrote,
Tell W8JI to stop using lumped circuit analysis when he should be using
distributed circuit analysis. :-)

You know, it's against the law to kill people, Cecil. I
almost choked to death on my morning cup of
Bo Lee when I read that. :-)

I apologize for that, Tom. If you had choked to death, would
there have been enough evidence to convict me? :-)
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP