Mark Keith wrote:
The current through the coil is not the issue as far as my "camp" is
concerned.

Apparently it isn't now, but it was quite an issue for a while there.
Initially it seemed the only correct point of view was the one which
held that loading coils behave strictly as lumped inductances. Remember
that?

The issue as far as I'm concerned is: does this taper drastically
cause error in modeling compared to lumped elements?

I think the answer is essentially, no.

For me the issue was always whether current can be unequal at opposite
ends of an inductor. I find the fact that it can to be very
interesting, and I wanted to understand just how it could be so. I
guess I'm just not willing to accept the notion that just because
fundamentals such as these may be inconsequential to how well an antenna
is modeled, that they are also inconsequential to a thorough
understanding of how it works.

73, Jim AC6XG

Richard Clark wrote:
Hi Jim,

Error is a fact of life. My sieve of "does it make more than a dB
difference" is not a statement of error however.

A simple example of error is found in
That's only .02 dB off.

:-) What decimal fraction of a tenth of a Bel do you think the ratio
Pi/3 represents, Richard?

Seventy third's de AC6XG

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:11:29 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:
I find the fact that it can to be very
interesting, and I wanted to understand just how it could be so.

Hi Jim,

It is simply that Kirchhoff's laws have been corrupted in discussion.
The Kirchhoff law of current relates to the flow into and out of "a
closed surface" or a point (where any number of components' common
leads come together) and not to the components themselves (as they
have been incorrectly injected as argument). The corruption is found
in that the current law has been expressed in the language of
Kirchhoff's voltage law by nearly EVERY correspondent.

EZNEC treats loads as lumps, lumps are the metaphor for the "closed
surface" or a point. EZNEC conforms to Kirchhoff's current law, but
not the physical reality simply because in nature a load cannot
exhibit its characteristic within a point (there are no infinitesimal
capacitors or inductors). Hence a protocol was offered to decimate
the inductor and spread its characteristic across the apparent
physical space to achieve the same, virtual response of a true
inductor immersed in reality.

The result of the protocol exhibits roughly the same characteristics
offered by ON4UN's drawings (which are also approximations
themselves).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Mark Keith wrote:
The claim that this variation of current across the coil causes
drastic modeling error is what I have problems with.

Try modeling a 180 degree phase shift coil using EZNEC. (I have a
180 degree phase shift coil in my 70cm mobile antenna.) I guarantee
you will see drastic modeling errors for such an antenna.
--
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 sarcastically referred to "Yuri`s Cosine law". Yuri is right.
Current into the bottom of the coil is 0.924 A, and into the top of the
coil it is 0.383 A. Roy disappeared from the argument.
Yuri seems to have tired of the dispute too.


Yuri is not really tired of the dispute, more like he has found enough support
for what he was looking for. There are still those who do not believe that
current can be different at the ends of a loading coil, there are those who now
see that maybe "she's not flat", and then those, who new it all along - what's
a big deal. The main confirmation that I am not a F0OL (as certain guru(s)
tried to imply) has been achieved, thanks to Cecil and others I have understood
the mechanism of the phenomena. I have enough ammunition to do some of my own
testing and measurements and as I promised to write it up with other fellow
believers, 'splain it, provide facts and outline importance for the loaded
antenna design. Hopefully the modeling software will be able to capture and use
it properly for better results and understanding. And yes Virginia, it is VERY
important for the modeling. If the radiator models no change in current accorss
the coil, but there is more like 40 - 60% reduction, THAT is important, because
it will throw the whole model off if you add more loaded elements like in
parasitic arrays.

Right now I am very busy organizing Christmas Concert in NYC/NJ area
(www.computeradio.us) by 80 member Ukrainian Ensembles from Toronto. Anyone in
vicinity is cordially invited to get in tune with Christmas spirit, away from
the shopping fever. It is something to see, like small Mormon's Tabernacle
Choir.

I managed to play with new TenTec Orion rig in CQ WW and I am also working on
writing "contesters" review of the rig. Quite a performance but how "cheap" for
$3.6k radio.

So, I follow the "coil thing", I just run out of arguments, I want to do my
experiments and then put it together in a comprehensive article.

So thanks to all pros and cons, I got what I needed and this group is the best!
W8JI is WR0NG and one should take his "wisdom" with a grain of salt. His web
page has more stuff that is off.

Yuri, K3BU.us

Jim Kelley wrote:

Mark Keith wrote:
The issue as far as I'm concerned is: does this taper drastically
cause error in modeling compared to lumped elements?

I think the answer is essentially, no.

So you haven't tried to model an antenna with a 180 degree phase-
reversing coil, have 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! =-----

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:20:06 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:



Richard Clark wrote:
Hi Jim,

Error is a fact of life. My sieve of "does it make more than a dB
difference" is not a statement of error however.

A simple example of error is found in
That's only .02 dB off.

:-) What decimal fraction of a tenth of a Bel do you think the ratio
Pi/3 represents, Richard?

Seventy third's de AC6XG

It only matters if you put your lips to Pi.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Hi Jim,

Error is a fact of life. My sieve of "does it make more than a dB
difference" is not a statement of error however.

A simple example of error is found in
That's only .02 dB off.

:-) What decimal fraction of a tenth of a Bel do you think the ratio
Pi/3 represents, Richard?

Seventy third's de AC6XG

The difference between .2 and .02 is less than a dB, so that falls below
your 1 dB threshold. ;-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"So you haven`t tried to model an antenna with a 180 degree
phase-reversing coil, have you?"

Kraus` Figure 23-21(b) has phase-reversing coils used as traps. "Here
the elements present a high impedance to the coil which may be resonated
without an external capacitance due to its distributed capacitance."

Kraus` trap is a self parallel resonant circuit, not just another
inductance.

However, a center-tapped coil can make an excellent phase inverter as in
the vacuum tube type Detroit Electric Company (Delco) Buick car radios
of the late 1930`s and early 1940`s. This radio had great sound despite
limited frequency response inevitable with choke and transformer
coupling.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
Kraus` trap is a self parallel resonant circuit, not just another
inductance.

Point is that all real-world coils possess distributed capacitance
and distributed resistance as well as inductance. There is capacitance
but no capacitor in Kraus' trap. If one replaces the "phase-reversing
coil" with a phase-reversing stub, EZNEC gives the correct current
distribution.
--
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! =-----