I apologize if the reason for my delay in posting measurement results is
seen as being to embarrass people. That's not at all the purpose. The
intent is simply to force people to make numerical predictions based on
their theories, rather than explaining the results after the fact. As it
turns out, Yuri is the only one confident enough of his theory to make a
numerical prediction(*). I happen to believe it's wrong, but by making
it he's earned my respect. A theory can be tested only if it predicts
results which can be tested. Whether it turns out to be right or wrong,
we learn from it. Those who've waffled and dodged the issue aren't in my
opinion worthy of the respect Yuri is.

When all this is done, I hope that readers come away with some assurance
that circuit theory does work and can be applied to antenna problems --
provided that the assumptions made for the components are valid. If all
that's taken away is a feeling that I've been doing this to try and
embarrass people, then it's been worse even than a monumental waste of
time. I really did have other things I wanted to do today besides make
antenna measurements, and I spent the time doing it only in the hope
that it would open some eyes.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

(*) I've really solicited predictions only from people who don't agree
with conventional circuit theory, and believe that there will be a
difference in current from input to output. So there are also a number
of people who agree with me that conventional circuit theory holds, but
haven't explicitly made a prediction.

Richard Clark wrote:
. . .
But such is the gamesmanship that is being conducted, from the start.
The withholding of data to embarrass correspondents is not uncommon.
Lord knows how many I've embarrassed with simpler topics (the current
crew being only a subset). However, I generally restrain my
participation such that those threads are smaller. Otherwise the
posting of:
. . .

Roy Lewallen wrote:
When all this is done, I hope that readers come away with some assurance
that circuit theory does work and can be applied to antenna problems --
provided that the assumptions made for the components are valid.

Roy, isn't everything moot after Kraus tells us that an antenna coil
can cause a 180 degree phase reversal? Plus his graph of current in
a loaded antenna that shows a step function in the current at the
loading coils? The entire purpose of this discussion was to determine
if the following statement, allegedly made by W8JI, is true or false.

"This is in any book, including the ARRL Handbook. If you look at HOW
an inductor works, the current flowing in one terminal ALWAYS equals
the current flowing out the other terminal."

That's the very clear statement that was questioned by Yuri. And you
have already proved it not to be true even with your toroidal coil.

Incidentally, given a 180 degree phase reversing coil, the current
is flowing into both ends at the same time.
--
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! =-----

Roy, W7EL wrote:
"When all this is done, I hope that readers come away with some
assurance that circuit theory does work and can be applied to antenna
problems -- provided that the assumotions made for the components are
valid."

Yes. And, there is another proviso. The reflected energy must be
considered along with the incident energy. Antenna problems are
relatives of transmission line problems.

Terman wrote of impedance in a transmission line with a reflection:
"When a reflected wave is present, the impedance will be alternately
greater and lower than the characteristic impedance, as illustrated in
Fig. 4-10."

This is also true of standing-wave antennas but is complicated by r-f
radiation from the antenna.

Early in this thread, I gave the example of W5LIT`s mobile antenna which
was all coil. It was a bamboo pole wound end to end with wire. At the
feed end its impedance was low. Approximately 90-degrees away at the tip
end, impedance was very high as indicated by the corona often produced
by the high voltage.

The current at the tip end was much less than at the feed point. The
ARRL Antenna Book shows how this can happen in Fig 6 on page 16-4 of the
19th edition.

I admire and appreciate Roy`s experimental verification of antenna
speculations and predictions. Until demonstrated, theory is only theory
and all such explanations are not necessarily so.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"---isn`t everything moot after Kraus tells us that the antenna coil can
cause a 180 degree phase reversal?"

Yes. The Kraus example is a resonant circuit of a coil which with its
inherent self capacitance which can produce a leading or lagging total
impedance, depending on frequency.

B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr. demonstrates this with a series LRC circuit
on page 108 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals".

Total impedance, Zt = R+jomegaL-J/omegaC.

Griffith tabulates ZL, ZC, and Zt for 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8 MHz.
R=30 ohms at all frequencies.

2.4 MHz, j226ZL, -265ZC, 30-j39Zt
2.5 MHz, j236ZL, -j255ZC, 30-j19Zt
2.6 MHz, j245ZL, -j245ZC, 30-j0Zt
2.7 MHz, j254ZL, -j236ZC, 30+j18Zt
2.8 MHz, j264ZL, -j227ZC, 30+j37Zt

Griffith also gives Zt in polar coordinates but I don`t need to copy
that to show that reactance can be either positive or negative in a
circuit with both inductance and capacitance.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI