Yes, I disagree with that.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Of course it doesn't account for phase shifts of current, since there
aren't any.


You seem to be disagreeing with John Devoldere's "Bible" - "ON4UN's Low
Band DXing", 3rd Edition, on page 9-34 at:

http://www.k3bu.us/loadingcoils.htm

A little thought should prove there is a current phase shift (delay)
through
the coil. Let's look at an 8 foot long center-loaded mobile antenna for
75m.
The 4 feet below the coil gives a phase shift of about 5 degrees. Assume
zero
phase shift through the coil. The 4 feet above the coil gives a phase shift
of another 5 degrees for a total of 10 degrees at the end reflection point.
It's an open circuit, so a 180 degree phase shift takes place. That puts
the
reflected current at 190 degrees. Add the 10 degrees coming back and we see
the reflected current arrives mostly out of phase with the forward current
at the feedpoint. Since the feedpoint impedance is known to be around 15
ohms,
these superposed currents cannot possibly be out of phase and must
necessarily
be in phase.

The phase shift (delay) of the current simply cannot be the same with and
without the coil.

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Yes, I disagree with that.

Then you disagree with Balanis.
--
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! =-----

I don't have Balanis. Can you provide a short quote where he states that
the current at the terminals of a two-terminal lumped component are unequal?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Yes, I disagree with that.


Then you disagree with Balanis.

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I don't have Balanis. Can you provide a short quote where he states that
the current at the terminals of a two-terminal lumped component are
unequal?

He doesn't use lumped components and probably for good reason. But here's
the quote that allows my analysis. "Standing wave antennas, such as the
dipole, can be analyzed as traveling wave antennas with waves propagating
in opposite directions (forward and backward) and represented by traveling
wave currents 'If' and 'Ib' in Figure 10.1(a)." This means that net total
current equals If+Ib.

The fact that the feedpoint current occurs at a current maximum point ties
both ends down. 'If' must traverse 90 degrees and 'Ib' must traverse 90
degrees in addition to the 180 degree phase shift due to reflection from
the open end. Besides the coil, an 8' whip gives about 22 degrees phase
shift in a round trip. Adding the 180 degree phase shift due to the open
end reflection gives 202 degrees. But we know the phase shift is actually
360 degrees. Where can the additional 158 degrees of phase shift
come from except from the coil?

Center-loaded mobile antennas are still an electrical 1/4 wavelength. If
there's no phase shift through the coil, where's the missing 158 degrees
of phase shift taking place?
--
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! =-----

So, in short, I don't disagree with Balanis.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

I don't have Balanis. Can you provide a short quote where he states
that the current at the terminals of a two-terminal lumped component
are unequal?


He doesn't use lumped components and probably for good reason. But here's
the quote that allows my analysis. "Standing wave antennas, such as the
dipole, can be analyzed as traveling wave antennas with waves propagating
in opposite directions (forward and backward) and represented by traveling
wave currents 'If' and 'Ib' in Figure 10.1(a)." This means that net total
current equals If+Ib.

The fact that the feedpoint current occurs at a current maximum point ties
both ends down. 'If' must traverse 90 degrees and 'Ib' must traverse 90
degrees in addition to the 180 degree phase shift due to reflection from
the open end. Besides the coil, an 8' whip gives about 22 degrees phase
shift in a round trip. Adding the 180 degree phase shift due to the open
end reflection gives 202 degrees. But we know the phase shift is actually
360 degrees. Where can the additional 158 degrees of phase shift
come from except from the coil?

Center-loaded mobile antennas are still an electrical 1/4 wavelength. If
there's no phase shift through the coil, where's the missing 158 degrees
of phase shift taking place?

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

David Robbins wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

So what's the answer, Dave? Is there a current phase shift through a mobile
antenna loading coil or not? Seems to me, if a coil can propagate the current
phase in zero time, that is faster than light operation.
--
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! =-----

I'm sorry. If I'm bothering the readers, I'll be glad to bow out.

My postings aren't really directed to Cecil -- I know much better than
to imagine that I'll ever change his mind, and I'm a firm believer in
not wasting time on things I can't change.

No, you and the other readers are really the audience, and the whole
reason for the postings. If you and the other readers would rather I
shut up, I'll be more than happy to spend my time at more productive
pursuits.

Just let me know.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

David Robbins wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

David Robbins wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Aww Dave! Cecil, Dave and a few others here serve as both education and
somethimes entertainment. Go with the flow, learn something and when you
get tired stop reading the thread.

It's all good, man!

Roy Lewallen wrote:
So, in short, I don't disagree with Balanis.

Yes, you have disagreed with an analysis based on Balanis's
'If' and 'Ib'. You even quoted some author saying that an
antenna could not be analyzed in the manner that Balanis
proposes.

Cecil Moore wrote:
He doesn't use lumped components and probably for good reason. But here's
the quote that allows my analysis. "Standing wave antennas, such as the
dipole, can be analyzed as traveling wave antennas with waves propagating
in opposite directions (forward and backward) and represented by
traveling
wave currents 'If' and 'Ib' in Figure 10.1(a)." This means that net total
current equals If+Ib.
--
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! =-----