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:

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:36:59 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

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

Roy:

You and a handfull others are on my "must read" list. Keep up the good
work!

Jack K8ZOA

Roy and Cecil -- I find your posts most informative -- ignore the flack.
Keep up the good work -- valuable sources

--
73 From The Keyboard
===============
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
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! =-----

I disagree with what you think Balanis says, not what he says. There's
quite a difference.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I disagree with what you think Balanis says, not what he says. There's
quite a difference.

Balanis says one can analyze an antenna based on forward and reflected
currents. You say that's not valid. Yes, you do 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! =-----