On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 17:51:48 GMT, "Cecil Moore"
wrote:


"Wes Stewart" wrote
if you go he

http://www.k6mhe.com/n7ws

and look at either Note 1 or 2 and then look at figures 1 and 2 this
might change your mind about the current distribution.

Nobody is disputing the current rise through a coil. In fact, I have
been pointing it out. The coil does distort the current away from
the nice cosine envelope of a 1/2WL thin wire dipole.

Why do you persist at doing this?

My post was in response to someone else and you feel it necessary to
jump in with the same old bafflegab.


Your graphs show standing wave current which doesn't flow. (Its
phase angle doesn't rotate.) Therefore, the magnitude of the standing
wave current can be any value depending upon where it is located in
the system. Wes, please take a look at http://www.qsl.net/qrzgif35.gif
to find out why standing wave current can have any value and is thus
unimportant. EZNEC plots the current in much the same way that
you have. So are the EZNEC results wrong and yours right? The
fact is that a standing wave current plot is close to meaningless.
Why are we continuing to discuss standing wave current?

Well, I certainly hope that EZNEC plots the current the same. If you
would have read all that I wrote in the reference, you would have see:

"The models were "built" using MultiNEC invoking EZNEC 3.0 (now 4.0)
or double-precision NEC-2 as the calculating engines. The following
graphics were all generated with MultiNEC."

Among the other nice things that MultiNEC does is interface to many
other analysis programs, EZNEC being my preferred one, and gives some
other ways to present -the same data- in other forms. The data in the
figures are EZNEC-calculated-data.

Clearly, you were too busy trying to frame an argument to actually
read what I wrote.


What we need to plot is the forward traveling wave current and
the reflected traveling wave current which are the two components
of your standing wave current graphs. Do you have any simulation
software that will plot the forward current and reflected current?
Nobody is going to understand what is really happening until we
get a plot of those two component waves or at least an estimated
graph of the underlying superposed currents.

"We" need to plot no such thing. You may have such a need; I do not.


In fact, how about your best estimate of a graph of forward and
reflected currents through the coil including phase shifts? Only
then are you likely to understand what we are talking about..

If "we" includes you and me, I will never understand what "we" are
talking about, although I am pretty sure what "I'm" talking about.

Now, I've got to get back to something important; building a playhouse
for my granddaughter.

wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
But you have already started what I am asking, Tom. You
measured a voltage phase shift of 60 degrees through a
100uH coil at 1 MHz. The current is known to lag the voltage
through a coil so the current phase delay is more than 60
degrees. I wouldn't be surprised to see it at 120+ degree
lag in the current. So your own experiment proves you are
wrong. How do you get away with such behavior without
anyone noticing?.

The only thing worth noticing is you are misrepresenting facts.

I measured current with a small current transformer, and current at
each end of the inductance was, as close as my two-channel vector
voltmeter will resolve, equal in phase and equal in level.

Here are your words cut and pasted from qrz.com.

"By the way, I swept S12 phase with my network analyzer on a
100uH inductor a few hours ago while working on a phasing
system. The phase shift through that series inductor was about
-60 or -70 degrees on 1 MHz, ...

S12 is a voltage parameter. So did the coil show a "-60 or
-70 degrees" voltage phase shift or not? Where does it say
anything about "current with a small current transformer"
in your posting? Last time I looked, a 100uH inductor was
not a small current transformer. I assumed a current
phase shift at first and you jumped on me about that. Now
you say it was a current phase shift after all. If you want
to be quoted correctly, you need to stop fibbing.

Here's what I think happened in context. You were trying to
prove Kraus wrong with his assertion that a 180 degree
phasing coil can be thought of as 1/2WL of wire wound
into a coil. You failed to realize that your posting was
supporting my other point about phase shifts through coils.
So you accidentally posted results that supported my side
of the argument. Your lumped-circuit model predicts zero
phase shift. My distributed network model predicts considerable
phase shift. Your experiment yielded considerable phase shift
and now you seek to deny it. However, it is there in all
its glory on qrz.com for all to see. So feel free to deny it.

The only thing worth noticing is you are misrepresenting facts.

I never misrepresent facts as I understand them to exist. The
fact that you absolutely refuse to engage me in a technical
discussion speaks volumes. If I were wrong, you would simply
engage me and prove me wrong with a technical argument as you
have so many others. But If I am right, I fully understand your
reluctance to engage me in a technical discussion.

You can start the technical discussion by explaining the
EZNEC results on my web page:

http://www.qsl.net/qrzgif35.gif

Why are all you gurus so reluctant to discuss that topic?
I have asked you guys to respond to that graphic at least
half a dozen times and got only one weak reply. Why the
silence?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Roy Lewallen wrote:

wrote:
The problem with people doing work to verify this is even if several
people measure something, Cecil will ignore results.

Indeed. Or alter his interpretation to fit the data.

I can't help but point out that you guys are refusing to engage
me in any technical discussion and refusing to respond to my
technical quotes. All you do is engage in desperate ad hominem
attacks hoping that your guru status will prevail. That's a pretty
good indication that you have already lost the technical argument
and know it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
. . .
"... - no wave interferrence and no standing waves can be
present on lumped elements. The problem has been that many
experimenters working with self-resonant helices have
PURSUED THE CONCEPT OF COIL SELF-
CAPACITANCE WITHOUT REALLY UNDERSTANDING
WHERE THE NOTION COMES FROM OR WHY IT WAS
EVER INVOKED BY ENGINEERS. For that, they will have
to go read R.W.P. King's wonderful old book, "Electromagnetic
Engineering, McGraw-Hill, 1945. ... On page 465, the Harvard
Professor points out that, for coils whose *wire length* exceeds
1/6 wavelength, ...'an adequate representation of the reactance
of a coil with a nonuniformly distributed currentr is NOT
POSSIBLE in terms of a coil with a uniform current [a lumped
element inductance] ...' Period. Resonant FIELDS present
surprises to engineers with limited training."

Certainly sounds like he is talking about you, Tom. "Electronic
Engineering" was written before you were born. Why are you
ignorant of the technical facts presented in it?

I have this book. The condition for the quoted result isn't simply that
the length of wire in the coil be adequately long, but also that the
coil be wound loosely enough so that the coupling between turns is poor
enough to allow a particular nonuniform current distribution. It applies
to a "loosely wound helix." The quote is within a section titled
"'Lumped' Constants in Near-zone circuits", which contains a detailed
analysis of just what conditions can cause an inductor to have unequal
input and output currents, but primarily how the currents can be unequal
even in the absence of an external field. In particular, the author
describes an inductor in which the coupling between turns isn't
sufficient to force equal currents at the coil ends. Qualitatively, this
should be pretty obvious: If we begin with a long wire (in terms of
wavelength), the current will vary along its length. As we wind it into
a loose coil, mutual coupling between turns will create inductance and
make the current more uniform, but with a distribution still resembling
that of the straight wire. It's this situation that the quotation
applies to -- an inductor so loosely wound that its current distribution
resembles a straight wire more than an inductance. He does go on to say
that if the winding is tighter but still not ideal, the resulting
non-uniform current, which has a different distribution (greater at the
center than at the ends), can be modeled by means of a lumped self
capacitance. Only if we have perfect coupling between turns (as a toroid
very nearly represents) will we truly have equal currents at input and
output, for the reasons Tom recently explained. This is the idealized
inductance which some of the contributers to this discussion are having
trouble understanding.

The mathematical treatment in King is quite complex. But nowhere does he
mention any traveling, reflected, or standing current, power, or energy
waves, or that an inductance behaves any differently in an antenna than
in a lumped circuit. It simply isn't necessary or relevant to explaining
the operation of either an ideal or non-ideal inductor. Nor does he
dispute the fact that the currents into and out of an ideal inductance
are equal. And of course there's no mention of the mysterious "resonant
fields" which probably do surprise engineers, as does the metaphysics
being promoted here.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Gene Fuller wrote:
* I have done a number of "peer reviews" for IEEE and AIP publications
as well as other publications. I have seen comments from the other
reviewers. In general peer review is better than nothing, but in many
cases it doesn't mean diddly.

Translation: If they don't agree with Gene Fuller, they don't mean
diddly. :-)

* No one is his right mind would think that a Tesla coil with a
gazillion closely spaced turns is equivalent to a bugcatcher coil.

On the contrary, Gene, my 75m bugcatcher meets the minimum
definition of a Tesla coil on 9-10 MHz where it is 1/4WL
self-resonant, i.e 90 degrees. It is a good 78 degrees on
75m which is not all that far from its self-resonant point.

* You are waaaay too hung up on the subject of standing waves vs.
traveling waves.

So uttered by the priest of the high-and-mighty lumped-constant
religious sect. :-) The lumped-circuit model is known to fail in
a standing-wave environment. Anyone using it in a standing-wave
environment is doomed to failure. Those are known facts. What
is it about those statements that you don't understand?

At any point in an antenna, such as the loaded monopole discussed here,
there is simply a current, not a traveling wave or a standing wave.

Gene, if you want to assert that the current on a standing wave
antenna is not a standing wave, be my guest. The standing wave
on a 1/2WL dipole is why it radiates broadside. If it were a
traveling wave, it would be an end-fire. Standing wave current
is NOT traveling wave current and vice versa. I'm not even sure
that "standing-wave current" even meets the definition of
"current". If it's not flowing, is it really current? It appears
to me to be more of a wet dream than anything real.

If
you could examine the antenna microscopically at a single point you
would find electrons sloshing back and forth.

But we are not interested in Brownian motion, are we? We are
only interested in the net charge flow and that is zero on a
standing wave antenna with equal coherent currents flowing
in opposite directions.

You could not tell if the
current was represented by a standing wave or a traveling wave.

Say what? If voltage/current maximums/minimums exist, then a
standing wave exists. Admittedly, if you were an individual
electron, you would have trouble discerning the difference.
But Gene, if you really are an individual electron, please
explain to the group how you manage to depress the keyboard
keys?

It is just plain silly to argue that a standing wave is totally inert
and does not flow back and forth.

Where did that word, "inert", come from? Not from me. Do I
smell a straw man arising?

When you have equal magnitude coherent waves flowing in opposite
directions in a wire, do you really want to assert that there is
a net charge flow or a net current flow along the wire? If so, be
my guest and please prove it.

* Distributed or network models are mathematically convenient for
treating complex problems. However, they add precisely zero new
information to the underlying physical reality described by Maxwell's
equations.

Exactly correct!

They offer no new physics beyond lumped models.

Exactly incorrect. Lumped-circuit models are a subset of distributed-
network models. Distributed-network models are a subset of Maxwell's
equations. Lumped-circuit models are known to fail in the presence
of standing waves. That is what the whole argument here is about.
Some people have adopted the lumped-circuit model as their religion
and they will attempt to put anyone who disagrees with them under
house arrest, as happened to Galileo, e.g. W7EL has 'ploinked' me
and uses his guru status to take unfair potshots at me from time
to time.

What we have on this newsgroup is a gang of junk yard dog gurus who
don't care if they are right or wrong. They just attack anyone who
disagrees with their postings whether right or wrong. (It's not ad
hominem when it's the truth and any knowledgeable person following
this discussion recognizes that as the truth.)

I would like to request that everyone stop the ad hominem attacks,
(me included), and engage in a civil gentlemanly technical
discussion. If I am so wrong, I should be easy prey for 4+
distinguished gurus. OTOH, if I am right, I understand the reluctance
to engage me on a technical level and fully understand the ad hominem
attacks to be a face-saving necessity. So which will it be? The
response to my technical quotes and assertions has, so far, been
underwhelming. Shouldn't half a dozen omniscient gurus be able to
dispatch a mere mortal grasshopper?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Wes Stewart wrote:
Why do you persist at doing this?

My post was in response to someone else and you feel it necessary to
jump in with the same old bafflegab.

This is a public forum. Why do you not respond to my posting on
a technical level instead of resorting to an ad hominem attack?
I have tons of technical references to support my position.

Clearly, you were too busy trying to frame an argument to actually
read what I wrote.

I only respond to portions I disagree with, Wes. Why can't
you and I have a simple, point by point, technical discussion?

"We" need to plot no such thing. You may have such a need; I do not.

You, nor your cohorts, are likely to understand what's really
happening until you take a look at the individual underlying
currents that superpose to form the standing wave current which
doesn't flow at all since its phase angle is fixed at zero degrees.

Isn't a bunch of IEEE PhD's saying that "the lumped-circuit model
fails in a standing-wave environment", enough evidence for you to
consider that they know what they are talking about?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Roy Lewallen wrote:
It applies to a "loosely wound helix."

Please define the point at which a "loosely wound helix" with
a varying current turns into this lumped-circuit device that
forces equal currents through the coil. Is a 75m bugcatcher
coil a "loosely wound helix" or a "lumped-circuit"?
(My 75m bugcatcher coil is about 1/6 wavelength of wire.)

Only if we have perfect coupling between turns (as a toroid
very nearly represents) will we truly have equal currents at input and
output, for the reasons Tom recently explained. This is the idealized
inductance which some of the contributers to this discussion are having
trouble understanding.

Unfortunately, an idealized inductance is like a lossless transmission
line - it exists only in the human mind. What I would like to know is
what is the real-world phase shift through your toroidal inductor when
there is only a traveling wave (no standing wave). We can then use
the laws of reflection physics to determine what effect that phase
shift has on the amplitude of the standing wave current which is the
phasor sum of the forward current and reflected current. I'm actually
going to make those measurements as soon as I get off my old lazy ass.

Seems to me that although a toroidal current pickup may not have the
same magnitude characteristics because of variations in the permeability,
the phase would suffer no such effects. Am I correct on that point?
I'm somewhat handicapped in having no current probes for my 100 MHz
Leader and acquiring them would put a big dent in my Social Security
check. :-)

What I am toying with is a 6m rhombic. I could run it as a terminated
traveling-wave antenna or unterminate it and have a standing-wave
antenna. I could move all kinds of coil(s) up and down the the elements
to place them at nodes or loops or in-between and take measurements.
What do you think?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Here are your words cut and pasted from qrz.com.
"By the way, I swept S12 phase with my network analyzer on a
100uH inductor a few hours ago while working on a phasing
system. The phase shift through that series inductor was about
-60 or -70 degrees on 1 MHz, ...

S12 is a voltage parameter. So did the coil show a "-60 or
-70 degrees" voltage phase shift or not?

It did. Just as I posted here it did.

Where does it say
anything about "current with a small current transformer"
in your posting?

It didn't. As I kept telling you in that thread, I didn't want to talk
to you until you were able to make a post without resorting to personal
attacks. I also told you I was busy with work, and didn't have time to
deal with the same old circular arguments with you.

Last time I looked, a 100uH inductor was
not a small current transformer. I assumed a current
phase shift at first and you jumped on me about that. Now
you say it was a current phase shift after all. If you want
to be quoted correctly, you need to stop fibbing.

Please stop trying to blame your mistakes on me! It's not my fault you
assumed more than you read! I've been telling you all along current at
each end of ANY small inductor has the same phase. I've been telling
you all along I didn't want to talk to you until you learn to behave.

Don't accuse me of lying because you made up a theory and it is dead
wrong! It isn't MY fault you painted yourself in a corner by adjusting
your theories to suit what you thought was said, when it wasn't even
said.

Here's what I think happened in context. You were trying to
prove Kraus wrong with his assertion that a 180 degree
phasing coil can be thought of as 1/2WL of wire wound
into a coil. You failed to realize that your posting was
supporting my other point about phase shifts through coils.

"Here's what I think" is correct Cecil. In your mind Cecil, it's always
all about the other guy failing, being wrong and knowing better, or
being dishonest.

So you accidentally posted results that supported my side
of the argument. Your lumped-circuit model predicts zero
phase shift. My distributed network model predicts considerable
phase shift. Your experiment yielded considerable phase shift
and now you seek to deny it. However, it is there in all
its glory on qrz.com for all to see. So feel free to deny it.

Anyone can read anything. I'd wager you anything you like multiple
people on this list can make a small current transformer, measure
current at each terminal of a compact inductor, and find the phase of
current essentially the same at each end.

It isn't about me Cecil. It isn't about Kraus. It isn't about QRZ. It
isn't about Roy or anyone else. It's all about how a two terminal
inductor acts! That can be proven over and over again, and it will
always come out the same. Neither you nor I can change how things work.

I never misrepresent facts as I understand them to exist. The
fact that you absolutely refuse to engage me in a technical
discussion speaks volumes.

It does indeed. If you stayed away from personal attacks I would
converse with you. I've told you that over and over again. People who
say things on Internet they wouldn't say face to face wear on my
nerves. I find it very difficult to remain civil when reading constant
personal attacks.

If I were wrong, you would simply
engage me and prove me wrong with a technical argument as you
have so many others. But If I am right, I fully understand your
reluctance to engage me in a technical discussion.
You can start the technical discussion by explaining the
EZNEC results on my web page:

1.) We really can't have a good conversation until you stop the
constant personal attacks, and until we agree on a few basics.

2.) You claim Roy measured current that doesn't flow. That area needs
addressed.

3.) You also claim significant current phase shift exists between the
terminals of a compact inductor operated well below self-resonance.

It's very simple to measure current and voltage and the phase
relationships in a two terminal device and prove you are wrong.

Trying to divert the issue to me not following your commands and orders
just won't go far.

The current flowing into one end and out of the other end of a small
lumped inductor operated far below self-resonance is essentially equal
in both phase and amplitude. You say it isn't, I say it is, and I can
prove it beyond any doubt to any open minded person.

I say I can easily build a loading coil that acts the same way. I can
replace 40 or 60 degrees of electrical height with an inductor that has
virtually no phase shift in current between the two terminals, and
virtually the same current level. I can prove that also.

I'm just not sure I can prove anything to someone who thinks a current
transformer measures current that doesn't flow!

73 Tom

Hi Cecil

I have a HP8405A Vector Voltmeter I'll give you and even pay the shipping
if that is of any help with the measurements.

Jerry



"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
Roy Lewallen wrote:
It applies to a "loosely wound helix."

Please define the point at which a "loosely wound helix" with
a varying current turns into this lumped-circuit device that
forces equal currents through the coil. Is a 75m bugcatcher
coil a "loosely wound helix" or a "lumped-circuit"?
(My 75m bugcatcher coil is about 1/6 wavelength of wire.)

Only if we have perfect coupling between turns (as a toroid very nearly
represents) will we truly have equal currents at input and output, for
the reasons Tom recently explained. This is the idealized inductance
which some of the contributers to this discussion are having trouble
understanding.

Unfortunately, an idealized inductance is like a lossless transmission
line - it exists only in the human mind. What I would like to know is
what is the real-world phase shift through your toroidal inductor when
there is only a traveling wave (no standing wave). We can then use
the laws of reflection physics to determine what effect that phase
shift has on the amplitude of the standing wave current which is the
phasor sum of the forward current and reflected current. I'm actually
going to make those measurements as soon as I get off my old lazy ass.

Seems to me that although a toroidal current pickup may not have the
same magnitude characteristics because of variations in the permeability,
the phase would suffer no such effects. Am I correct on that point?
I'm somewhat handicapped in having no current probes for my 100 MHz
Leader and acquiring them would put a big dent in my Social Security
check. :-)

What I am toying with is a 6m rhombic. I could run it as a terminated
traveling-wave antenna or unterminate it and have a standing-wave
antenna. I could move all kinds of coil(s) up and down the the elements
to place them at nodes or loops or in-between and take measurements.
What do you think?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

wrote:
Please stop trying to blame your mistakes on me! It's not my fault you
assumed more than you read! I've been telling you all along current at
each end of ANY small inductor has the same phase.

Please define "small" in terms of the number of degrees of phase
shift measured using a traveling wave signal.

Don't accuse me of lying because you made up a theory and it is dead
wrong! It isn't MY fault you painted yourself in a corner by adjusting
your theories to suit what you thought was said, when it wasn't even
said.

Your diversions are comical and obvious, Tom. Thanks for
the laugh.

If you stayed away from personal attacks I would converse with you.

Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot. Tom, your personal attacks are legend
throughout the internet and world wide web. I know hams who
are too terrified to respond to you even when you are wrong.

1.) We really can't have a good conversation until you stop the
constant personal attacks, and until we agree on a few basics.

Hard to accomplish since you define being proven technically wrong
as a personal attack.

2.) You claim Roy measured current that doesn't flow. That area needs
addressed.

Please explain how a net current with a fixed constant
non-rotating phase can possibly flow. Please explain
how a wire with 1 amp flowing in one direction and 1 amp
flowing in the other direction supports a net charge flow.

3.) You also claim significant current phase shift exists between the
terminals of a compact inductor operated well below self-resonance.

Please define "compact" in terms of the number of degrees
of phase shift measured using a traveling wave.

It's very simple to measure current and voltage and the phase
relationships in a two terminal device and prove you are wrong.

I've got many technical references that disagree. If you can do
that, why haven't you done that?

The current flowing into one end and out of the other end of a small
lumped inductor operated far below self-resonance is essentially equal
in both phase and amplitude.

Please define "small" as the number of degrees of phase shift
measured using a traveling wave.

You say it isn't, I say it is, and I can
prove it beyond any doubt to any open minded person.

Here, you are just out and out lying since I never said that.
Want to bet $1000 that you can prove I ever said that? I didn't
think so. What is with this compulsion you have to lie about
what I have said? Can't you win a technical argument without
lying?

I say I can easily build a loading coil that acts the same way. I can
replace 40 or 60 degrees of electrical height with an inductor that has
virtually no phase shift in current between the two terminals, and
virtually the same current level. I can prove that also.

I seriously doubt that. Please measure the phase shift using a
traveling wave through any coil that accomplishes that function.
I suspect you are being fooled by the current loop located inside
the coil and the fact that you have been ignorantly been measuring
the net standing wave current which is essentially irrelevant.

I'm just not sure I can prove anything to someone who thinks a current
transformer measures current that doesn't flow!

I explained it to you, Tom, in another posting. If you don't
understand it, you need technical help. At a fixed point on a wire
(where no net current or net charge is flowing) that is experiencing
a constant exchange of H-field energy with E-field energy every
cycle, a toroidal pickup coil will certainly report the results of
that orthogonal energy exchange between the fields even though there
is no lateral flow of net current or net charge. That's why a
standing-wave dipole radiates broadside and a traveling-wave
dipole is an end-fire. What school did you say you attended?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp