KB7QHC wirtes:
As this is your party, the burden of proof is upon you. I supplied
you with a litany of trip-points and you in fact responded to none.

I appreciate your points, some are valid, I know about them, some were off
target, some are in the area of nitpicking, when we are overlooking bigger
picture.

I explained that your previous posting was based on wrong assumptions (not
reading carefully the threads?) - the 100mA on 8A meter, measurement
techniques, etc.

I will do my tests and measurements, first I will do that on my Radiomobile, to
test the real life typical mobile situation. Next it would be to replicate
W9UCW setup with radials.

I keep getting "arguments" that are nitpicking in the .01 area of significance
vs. 50% and the facts.

I presented 7 points of proof and asked if anyone can debunk them, prove wrong,
so far not a single "overthrow".

Let me try to summarize again briefly:

The temperature test, feeling or thermal strips prove that there is not .1
difference in current accross the loading coil but around 50%.

W9UCW measured it and showed 40 - 60% differences.

W5DXO explained mechanics of the effect.

Are the FACTS in the way of coil "must" have the same current theory?

This is not enough proof that current is significantly different at both ends
of the coil rather than miniscule, hardly measureable? That IS the argument.

As has been demonstrated, there is a camp that believes the current is the
same. We know it is not and are bringing it to their attention in hope that it
will set the record and knowledge straight. If they choose not to believe it,
then let them be happy with their calculated world.

Anyone measured it yet?

Yuri, K3BU.us

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Are the FACTS in the way of coil "must" have the same current theory?

This is not enough proof that current is significantly different at both ends
of the coil rather than miniscule, hardly measureable? That IS the argument.

As has been demonstrated, there is a camp that believes the current is the
same. We know it is not and are bringing it to their attention in hope that it
will set the record and knowledge straight.

One more data point. Assuming a 102 inch base-loaded mobile antenna on 75m,
the impedance looking into the whip is around 0.5-j2000. If we assume a current
of 1.5 amp into the bottom of the coil and also out of the top of the coil,
the voltage at the top of the coil will be around 3000 volts.

With a base loaded 75m antenna, the voltage at the top of the coil should
not be extremely difficult to measure and could be viewed with an oscilloscope.
This is an experiment that I can do at reduced power.
--
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! =-----

On 06 Nov 2003 15:52:29 GMT, oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:
I explained that your previous posting was based on wrong assumptions (not
reading carefully the threads?) - the 100mA on 8A meter, measurement
techniques, etc.

Hi Yuri,

This, above, is exactly my complaint and it illustrates how you are
projecting your problem on me. It is you who is not reading carefully
because you did not respond to the issues, but rather injected this
specious comment.

I responded specifically to 100mA, I responded specifically to 8A, I
responded to how you are going to lose accuracy through scaling, I
responded specifically to how you could approach that, I responded
directly to what it would demand. You answered NONE of these
technical issues and instead made this lame complaint above. You left
me to speculate about the model - NO RESPONSE to that either. You
left me to speculate about drive level - NO RESPONSE to that either.
You describe the enormous heat issues that come with these
characteristics that have been UNRESPONDED to. Instead you dismiss
the issue of heat in the same breath as applied to a caloric based
measuring device as:
nitpicking in the .01 area of significance
Which is unsupported by any data. Obviously you find it simpler to
reject than to investigate. This is the class of argument you decry
coming from Tom, but it is consistent with the class of sneer review
common in this forum.

As I stated, please insert the stage directions [applause here] for
your scripting if you are not going to respond to the technical
comments.

What is the program? If you prefer (as shown by your more than single
participation in) these ethereal speculations of how to measure a real
infinitesimal component (a contradiction on the face of it); then
please for the sake of truth in labeling also mark your postings as
being "for entertainment only."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

OK let me take it point by point he

(Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:
I explained that your previous posting was based on wrong assumptions (not
reading carefully the threads?) - the 100mA on 8A meter, measurement
techniques, etc.

Hi Yuri,

This, above, is exactly my complaint and it illustrates how you are
projecting your problem on me. It is you who is not reading carefully
because you did not respond to the issues, but rather injected this
specious comment.


I gathered that you mixed W9UCW measurements where he set the power level going
into the antenna such, that he achieved 100 mA full deflection on his 100 mA
ammeter mounted on the bottom of the coil, then he read at the same time
deflection on the similar 100 mA meter mounted on the top of the coil, showing
40 to 60 mA deflection, depending on the band and position of the coil, quoting
some figures as I showed them in my article. What is wrong with that? Where he
went wrong? Can you elaborate?

I responded specifically to 100mA, I responded specifically to 8A, I
responded to how you are going to lose accuracy through scaling, I
responded specifically to how you could approach that, I responded
directly to what it would demand.

I was planning to do the "W9UCW thing" duplicate the setup, put my 8A meter at
the bottom of the coil, drive it to full deflection and then read the current
at the top 8A meter and expect to read somewhere between 4 - 6 A. If the Tom
camp is right and we are full of it, it should read 8A (minus fraction for all
the losses "calculated"). What's wrong with that?


You answered NONE of these
technical issues and instead made this lame complaint above.

I have not done it yet. You have technical questions about W9UCW measurements
and setup, ask him

You left
me to speculate about the model - NO RESPONSE to that either.

What model? Hardware "model" W9UCW used was 60 quarter wave radials on ground
(40m - see the picture) shorted radiator tuned to resonance with loading coil
(see picture). Normal loaded antenna.
Soft model by W5DXP was described by him.

You
left me to speculate about drive level - NO RESPONSE to that either.

I said that W9UCW set the drive level to show 100 mA deflection on the bottom
meter, to eliminate errors you worried about, can't get any better than full
scale deflection. The objective was to see the how much current decreases from
the bottom to the top of the coil. Is it +-0 as Tom camp claims or is it
significantly more like around 50% we found and claim. How is that terribly
wrong that would prove Toms are right?

You describe the enormous heat issues that come with these
characteristics that have been UNRESPONDED to.

Huh?
I mentioned heat effect, where "lousy" Hustler coil demonstrates more heat
generation at the bottom than at the top, therefore higher current at the
bottom than at the top. What's wrong with that and conclusion that there must
be more current flowing in the bottom turns than in top turns?

Instead you dismiss
the issue of heat in the same breath as applied to a caloric based
measuring device as:
nitpicking in the .01 area of significance
Which is unsupported by any data.

Huh? Can you elaborate?
What has bottom third of the coil heating up from the current (no meters) has
to do with caloric based measuring device? You stick heat sensitive strip on
the coil you will see the rapid change of colors going from the bottom to the
top. What is wrong with that?

Obviously you find it simpler to
reject than to investigate. This is the class of argument you decry
coming from Tom, but it is consistent with the class of sneer review
common in this forum.

Reject what? I said I would measure it myself, both on mobile and test set up
aka W9UCW. What am I supposed to investigate? Why the Rauchians don't get it? I
provided 7 points and asked for rebuttal or showing what was wrong with them,
can you answer them point by point, where did we go wrong?

As I stated, please insert the stage directions [applause here] for
your scripting if you are not going to respond to the technical
comments.


What technical comments? We showed what we have found, showed pictures of
reality, showed how it was done so far, what we measured, what we think is
doing it. Where is anybody showing that was wrong and they found right? Again,
if you are questioning W9UCW measurements go to him.
If you have problem with modeling programs goto Roy.

What is the program? If you prefer (as shown by your more than single
participation in) these ethereal speculations of how to measure a real
infinitesimal component (a contradiction on the face of it); then
please for the sake of truth in labeling also mark your postings as
being "for entertainment only."

Who is speculating? What truth? Modeled and calculated by those who "know"?

OK, I confess, all this is was just made up for the entertainment purposes
only, we are full of sh1t, pictures were doctored, measured data were generated
by random number generator, coils were heated up with torch, ON4UN is wrong,
Cecil is on something.
I confess that Roy, Tom, Reg, Ian et al are my heroes. I will model the loaded
coil/antenna and stick it in my antenna connector and work the world.


73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


88's
Yuri Blanarovich, K3BU
still waiting for ONE PROPER MEASUREMENT, hellooooo????
otherwise you flat earth (er equal loading coil current) believers are the ones
flying in the la-la land.

On 06 Nov 2003 19:38:27 GMT, oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:

Hi Yuri,

What is the problem with going back to a post and responding to that?
Duplicated unnecessarily, but obviously needed:
100mA on an 8 Ampere full scale 3.5 inch meter is slightly more than
1% deflection (less than the width of the needle). The 100W
excitation current levels near and through the model's solenoid
exhibit values in the 1 Ampere region or at 12% deflection for an
instrument that is arguably as accurate as 10%. This does not bode
well for a compelling exhibition of any conclusive results.

NOW, if I were wrong to presume that 100W is going to be the
excitation - is that MY fault? If we jack up the power applied
(easily within the means of an amateur so empowered, so to speak) then
that region can certainly be forced into readings of vastly improved
accuracy relative to the available metering. HOWEVER, this now
inhibits doing the full length survey because the lower section would
clearly overload the metering. You can't win for losing.

Well, you can win if you are accomplished at the bench (a rare talent
in this ivory tower where merit is weighed by angel population counts)
by modifying your metering through shunts. I will warn you, however,
it is incumbent upon you to reveal how that was accomplished, how it
was confirmed and the data to support that too. You will also have to
measure the surface temperatures and conspire to replicate them to
your metering (something that you have not really responded to) to
observe the systematic error introduced by these ever growing power
applications. This, in a sense, is a turn of "you can't win for
losing, but you can get close, but you still might lose anyway."
Given your failure to respond/correct/aknowledge forced speculations,
I had to cover many angles "implicit" in your vague specifications.
You found an error, skipped the correct guess and still did not
actually offer a hard specification.

I have not done it yet. You have technical questions about W9UCW measurements
and setup, ask him

You haven't done what? I've asked how large the radiator, how large
the coil, what size the radial field. WAS not WILL BE. All of these
are fundamental questions for specifications that supposedly are part
and parcel to your evidence and you ask ME to confirm the details?

Why do you expect this to be compelling evidence that blows Tom out of
the water? I did far more with a simple model that anyone could
review for completeness' sake. You didn't responded to that! What's
the program here?

You left
me to speculate about the model - NO RESPONSE to that either.

What model? Hardware "model" W9UCW used was 60 quarter wave radials on ground
(40m - see the picture) shorted radiator tuned to resonance with loading coil
(see picture). Normal loaded antenna.
Soft model by W5DXP was described by him.

GAD! Why do you bother to come here for support?
This all started with your avowed problem of
Significant impact on modeling software. If the stuff is not accomodated
properly, then results (mainly efficiency) are way off.
Which had already been answered before you started this thread. You
say so in your web page.

3 Days ago I offer my model that disputes Tom, supports you
inferentially and you ask "what model?" Boy how lazy.
OK, the plain vanilla radiator 93" tall (3/8" stock) in 93 segments
surrounded by 60 X 93" radials (#12 wire) ALL elevated 6" above a
real, medium ground.
SRC DATA @ 7.1MHz = 0.7995 - J 810.9 ohms
Current varies from 1A at drive point to 0 at tip

The adornment consists of this underspecified coil being decimated and
spread across 10 inches of space in the middle of the radiator with
lumped values of 30µH each. For the life of me, I don't know what
this exercise was to prove given the results:
SRC DATA @ 7.1MHz = 1.258 - J 1561 ohms
Current varies from 1A at the drive point to 0 at the tip
One variation on the first pass design is that when this current hits
the decimated inductor, the current drops to 0 a few inches before the
first inductor section and quickly develops an 180° shift over those
next few inches which persists on out to the tip. At the bottom of
the coil sections, the current again picks up to roughly 100mA
climbing to roughly 150mA at the top and then declining over the
remaining length of radiator. It would seem that anyone could craft
any assortment of conditions to support any of a dozen new theories
from this kind of legerdemain.
If there are ANY details that are wrong, I haven't seen one syllable
written by you to the matter. I would point out that nothing about
this model quoted above resonates in spite of your assertion that it
did for the hardware tested. You never read this did you?

I said that W9UCW set the drive level to show 100 mA deflection on the bottom
meter, to eliminate errors you worried about, can't get any better than full
scale deflection. The objective was to see the how much current decreases from
the bottom to the top of the coil. Is it +-0 as Tom camp claims or is it
significantly more like around 50% we found and claim. How is that terribly
wrong that would prove Toms are right?

Have you actually read any of my posts?

You describe the enormous heat issues that come with these
characteristics that have been UNRESPONDED to.

Huh?
I mentioned heat effect, where "lousy" Hustler coil demonstrates more heat
generation at the bottom than at the top, therefore higher current at the
bottom than at the top. What's wrong with that and conclusion that there must
be more current flowing in the bottom turns than in top turns?

Huh? Can you elaborate?

Yuri, it is your statement that begs elaboration. Do you have data
that supports
nitpicking in the .01 area of significance
- obviously not.

What has bottom third of the coil heating up from the current (no meters) has
to do with caloric based measuring device?

You are now removing the frog's legs to prove it is deaf?

You stick heat sensitive strip on
the coil you will see the rapid change of colors going from the bottom to the
top. What is wrong with that?

Do you know how that ammeter works? You have here, and repeatedly,
offered a description of considerable heat. The RF Ammeter works on
the basis of heat (that's why it is called a thermocouple type). It
is in close proximity to a source of heat by simple observation of the
photos offered and undoubtedly what you anticipate in repeating at
elevated power levels (more heat). What more does it take to suggest
this heat is a source of error?

88's
Yuri Blanarovich, K3BU
still waiting for ONE PROPER MEASUREMENT, hellooooo????
otherwise you flat earth (er equal loading coil current) believers are the ones
flying in the la-la land.

Still waiting for you to
1.) provide a complete specification of the
a.) radiator
b.) solenoid
c.) ground
d.) drive applied (not readings)
2.) respond to the model offered;
3.) describe the errors possibly attending all this heat.

Do I get real technical specifications OR should I be applauding?
Please tell me what form of support you expect.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
You are now removing the frog's legs to prove it is deaf?

Cricket's leg, Richard, cricket's leg.

Still waiting for you to
1.) provide a complete specification of the
a.) radiator
b.) solenoid
c.) ground
d.) drive applied (not readings)
2.) respond to the model offered;
3.) describe the errors possibly attending all this heat.

Too bad you don't hold the other side to the same standards.
One wonders why. Others asserted the positive premise. Why
is it not up to them to prove their assertions? Why is it
up to Yuri to disprove the positive assertions by others that
triggered this entire discussion? You're not prejudiced, are you?
--
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! =-----

The time I am spending arguing here, I will be better off to do my own
measurements and start to write the article. I think this is about what I
needed, I have got the picture, explanation for what are we seeing, its time to
put it all together. I will just comment on your ending comments, unless I see
any serious and measured arguments, further arguments are just running around
in circles.


Do you know how that ammeter works? You have here, and repeatedly,
offered a description of considerable heat. The RF Ammeter works on
the basis of heat (that's why it is called a thermocouple type). It
is in close proximity to a source of heat by simple observation of the
photos offered and undoubtedly what you anticipate in repeating at
elevated power levels (more heat). What more does it take to suggest
this heat is a source of error?


I know how ammeters work. I key the TX, the ammeter almost instantaneously
shows the current. W9UCW used good quality coils that would not heat up with
100 mA current. No time for coil to get red hot and fry the meters. You can see
that from the pictures.
I mentioned Hustler coil, wound with small gage aluminum wire and have
experienced heating of the bottom with no meters screwing it up or vice versa.
I put 500 W to it and saw that heatshrink tubing fried at the bottom = more
current there, no meters to show error.
So what's the horrendous heat got to do with what W9UCW measured? Try it,
measure it.
If I will do measurement I will not use Hustler aluminum coils but 1/4" tubing.
Got that?

88's
Yuri Blanarovich, K3BU
still waiting for ONE PROPER MEASUREMENT, hellooooo????
otherwise you flat earth (er equal loading coil current) believers are the
ones
flying in the la-la land.

Still waiting for you to
1.) provide a complete specification of the
a.) radiator
b.) solenoid
c.) ground
d.) drive applied (not readings)

You pick typical mobile antenna, mount the coil from half way up, pick pair of
radials or any ground, drive with what you have and see what you get. The
objective is to prove or disprove that current across the loading is not the
same, but more in the order of 50% drop with +/-10% error if you like.

2.) respond to the model offered;
3.) describe the errors possibly attending all this heat.

Do I get real technical specifications OR should I be applauding?
Please tell me what form of support you expect.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

As I said, you want to verify W9UCW measurements, contact him, I don't have ALL
the details of his experiment. I will provide that info on my setup, when I get
around to do it.

What I expected? To see if anyone else measured the current in the coils and
what they found, or if we are in error, where did we committed error and show
us where we are wrong, if we are. (no one yet)
I was looking for explanation of the effect. (thanks Cecil, makes sense)
We found that software (EZNEC) does not treat the effect properly.
We found that people learned that coil "must" have the same current and they
will not accept reality and argue to death that it ain't so, if it is.
I am happy to confirm that I was right, I found out about the effect and
reasons behind it, opened my eyes wider and got me some ideas to improve loaded
and mobile antennas. I corrected my opinion about reflected waves, I don't like
them on feedlines, but I appreciate them on the radiators now (thanks Cecil). I
found that presently we can approximate loading coil as a loading stub in the
soft modeling (thanks Cecil) to get some more meaningful results rather than
using imaginary coil. Unless someone shows that 7 points I raised are not
valid, I am happy with results of this interesting exercise.

Thanks all!

Yuri

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Unless someone shows that 7 points I raised are not
valid, I am happy with results of this interesting exercise.

Here's an interesting EZNEC result. I took the 102' loaded dipole
that was resonant on 3.76 MHz and ran it on 14.3 MHz. I repositioned
the loading coils at a current minimum point with a one ohm resistor
on each side so there is 0.03 wavelength between resistors.

--------------R1--coil1--R2-------FP--------R3--coil2--R4--------------

EZNEC sez:
Current through R1 is 0.1618 amps at -156 degrees
Current through coil1 0.09643 amps at -130 degrees
Current through R2 is 0.08098 amps at -70 degrees

In the ten degrees between R1 and R2, the current doubles and shifts
phase by 86 degrees. Can we use these results to prove there is a
phase shift through a lumped inductor? :-)
--
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 Moore wrote:
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

Unless someone shows that 7 points I raised are not
valid, I am happy with results of this interesting exercise.


Here's an interesting EZNEC result. I took the 102' loaded dipole
that was resonant on 3.76 MHz and ran it on 14.3 MHz. I repositioned
the loading coils at a current minimum point with a one ohm resistor
on each side so there is 0.03 wavelength between resistors.

--------------R1--coil1--R2-------FP--------R3--coil2--R4--------------

EZNEC sez:
Current through R1 is 0.1618 amps at -156 degrees
Current through coil1 0.09643 amps at -130 degrees
Current through R2 is 0.08098 amps at -70 degrees

In the ten degrees between R1 and R2, the current doubles and shifts
phase by 86 degrees. Can we use these results to prove there is a
phase shift through a lumped inductor? :-)

No.

It'll take a lot more than an EZNEC analysis, or back yard measurement
for that matter, to disprove theory that's been verified and used
successfully for more than a century.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Yuri, K3BU wrote:
"Are the FACTS in the way of coil "must" have the same current theory?"

Sure. Power traveling along a radiator is absorbed in resistance, both
loss and radiation resistance, so it is diminished by the time it gets
to a reflection point, the tip of the antenna. This is not like a coil
without an opportunity to radiate or which is small in terms of
wavelength.

Often an extreme example is more impressive than the mediocre. For
instance, complete reflections on a lossless line make clearer examples
of phase patterns than slight mismatches on a lossy line.

For a coil, use the example of the "normal helix antenna". At one of the
radio broadcast stations where I worked in 1949, was an operator, James
L. Davis, W5LIT who wrapped a bamboo fishing pole completely from end to
end with wire in the form af a solenoid, using it as his rear bumper
mounted 75-meter phone mobile antenna. When he modulated, the corona at
its tip echoed his voice.

Obviously, there was a huge difference in the drivepoint current (high)
of this antenna, a continuous coil, and the current at the tip (low).
The voltage was the reverse of its end currents, being high where the
current was low and being low where the current was high. J.L. Davis was
very pleased with his mobile operation.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI