|
Current through coils
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:52:29 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: The present question is, "can EZNEC be trusted"? This repugnant "question" borders on, and crosses into ignorance for the sake of arguing. |
Current through coils
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: The present question is, "can EZNEC be trusted"? This repugnant "question" borders on, and crosses into ignorance for the sake of arguing. It was a rhetorical question, Richard. If the creator of EZNEC disagrees with his own creation, what does that imply? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:52:29 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: The present question is, "can EZNEC be trusted"? This repugnant "question" borders on, and crosses into ignorance for the sake of arguing. Hm. Cecil was quick to hold up EZNEC results as evidence when they seemed to support his theory. He must have come across a situation where they didn't. EZNEC can indeed be trusted. There are of course some cases where the underlying NEC calculating engines have limitations or run into numerical trouble, but those are quite well known and documented. So far, the models and EZNEC results I've seen here -- from Cecil's models and from the modified model I made -- are easily within EZNEC's capabilities and agree with known theory. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If they disagree with some alternate theory, the alternate theory is faulty. Promoters of antennas with magical properties often say that their antenna can't be modeled because the modeling programs don't "take into account" whatever magical effect they've dreamed up to justify their impossible claims. That's their way of trying to explain why modeling programs show their claims to be false. I detect the same phenomenon happening here. EZNEC and NEC are being used daily by hundreds or thousands of companies, government agencies, military groups, and universities to aid in designing antennas that work, and NEC has been in use for nearly 30 years now. We make use of them daily. EZNEC is indeed trusted, by some of the biggest and most sophisticated aerospace companies and government agencies. If anyone ever sees a significant difference between EZNEC and NEC results, please let me know so I can track down the reason. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Current through coils
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:35:40 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: The present question is, "can EZNEC be trusted"? This repugnant "question" borders on, and crosses into ignorance for the sake of arguing. It was a rhetorical question This prelude to more ignorance reveals moral equivocation. |
Current through coils
"Cecil Moore" wrote Your opinion of EZNEC is recorded for posterity on Google. Who am I to embellish it? ========================= Cecil, as usual you are being hopelessly evasive. ---- Reg. |
Current through coils
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Richard Clark wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: The present question is, "can EZNEC be trusted"? This repugnant "question" borders on, and crosses into ignorance for the sake of arguing. Hm. Cecil was quick to hold up EZNEC results as evidence when they seemed to support his theory. He must have come across a situation where they didn't. On the contrary, Roy, it was a ***rhetorical*** question to which Richard kindly responded. It is you who are disagreeing with the EZNEC results, which are your own creation. I fully agree with the EZNEC results posted below. So are you or EZNEC correct? Both you and EZNEC be correct. Please see: http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm and scroll down to the bottom. EZNEC can indeed be trusted. Glad to hear you say that, Roy. Does that imply that you cannot be trusted? (Another rhetorical question) Reckon why the EZENC results disagree with your personal postings on this newsgroup? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
Richard Clark wrote:
This prelude to more ignorance reveals moral equivocation. Actually, your naivite' in following me down the primrose path is enlightening. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
Reg Edwards wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote Your opinion of EZNEC is recorded for posterity on Google. Who am I to embellish it? Cecil, as usual you are being hopelessly evasive. I could waste my time Googling your opinion of EZNEC but why should I waste my valuable time doing that? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Does that imply that you cannot be trusted? (Another rhetorical question) Even rhetorical questions cannot cloak their repugnant character. |
Current through coils
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Does that imply that you cannot be trusted? (Another rhetorical question) Even rhetorical questions cannot cloak their repugnant character. Certainly, no repugnance or disrespect intended. Roy is presently in the unenviable position of agreeing with (EZNEC and me) or disagreeing with (EZNEC and me). Hint: rhetorical questions require no answer. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:10:15 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Certainly, no repugnance or disrespect intended. Roy is presently Couching what "appears" to be apology in a statement that projects an answer upon Roy (and quite commonly from you, anyone) is sleazy rhetoric. |
Current through coils
Richard Clark wrote:
(and quite commonly from you, anyone) is sleazy rhetoric. No matter what I say, you consider it to be sleazy rhetoric, Richard. It's not my problem. I have been telling Roy this basic technical stuff for three years or more. It's also not my problem. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
Yuri Blanarovich wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Yuri Blanarovich wrote: Yea Tom, it all started with ALL coils, it is MY theory and you can ruin MY theory. What is your theory Yuri? You didn't explain it. 73 Tom Nice twist again! (That was sarcasm and take on your comment about ALL coils) I didn't produce any MY theory. OK, so you have no theory and I assume no opinion. Good enough. 73 Tom |
Current through coils
Cecil Moore wrote: Certainly, no repugnance or disrespect intended. Roy is presently in the unenviable position of agreeing with (EZNEC and me) or disagreeing with (EZNEC and me). Hint: rhetorical questions require no answer. 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp I'm not sure what that is all about, but Cecil....there are over 550 posts in this thing now. Can you state in a few clearly written lines what you have learned or concluded? If that is too involved, that's OK. I'm just trying to understand what you point is in all of this, and where your head is at after all the posts. My conclusion for short mobile or fixed location loaded antennas is: 1.) If a loading coil has compact form and is terminated in a capacitance that presents a reasonably low impedance compared to inductor capacitance to the outside world, current taper will be minimal. As a matter of fact, it can be immeasurable. 2.) Current taper and phase shift do not correspond to the electrical degrees the loading coil "replaces", except as the physical size of the loading coil might increase stray capacitance to the outside world. 3.) Phase shift of current is anything from zero to a reasonably small number of degrees, and does not correspond to the electrical degrees the inductor replaces. 4.) There are at least two ways to get a good answer. One is by a circuit model with enough L and C sections, the other is with a wave theory approximation. Both models have limits. I think that pretty much is it. What did you conclude? Can you get it into a few clear words? I just want to see how far apart everyone still is. 73 Tom |
Current through coils
wrote:
Can you state in a few clearly written lines what you have learned or concluded? http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm (bottom of page) 1.) If a loading coil has compact form and is terminated in a capacitance that presents a reasonably low impedance compared to inductor capacitance to the outside world, current taper will be minimal. As a matter of fact, it can be immeasurable. Current taper depends upon where the coil is installed in the standing wave antenna system. It can be flat, positive, or negative. If properly placed, it can even have current flowing into both ends of the coil at the same time, i.e. a 180 degree phase shift in the currents at each end. The coil distorts the current waveform away from the pure cosine envelope presented by a 1/2 wavelength thin-wire dipole but then so does a large diameter conductor. 2.) Current taper and phase shift do not correspond to the electrical degrees the loading coil "replaces", except as the physical size of the loading coil might increase stray capacitance to the outside world. Phase shift corresponds to the delay through the coil. It can be estimated from the self-resonant frequency measurement where the delay is known to be 90 degrees. This is a common method of estimating the delay (electrical length) of a transmission line stub. 3.) Phase shift of current is anything from zero to a reasonably small number of degrees, and does not correspond to the electrical degrees the inductor replaces. My 75m bugcatcher coil occupies about 60 degrees at 4 MHz, 2/3 of the electrical length of the antenna. 60 degrees doesn't seem to meet the definition of "reasonably small". IMHO, that would qualify as "reasonably large", i.e. more than half the electrical length of the 75m mobile antenna. 4.) There are at least two ways to get a good answer. One is by a circuit model with enough L and C sections, the other is with a wave theory approximation. Both models have limits. It is impossible to get a good answer with a model that presupposes faster than light propagation through the coil with equal amplitudes and phases at each end of the coil. The error is the same as assuming such for a piece of transmission line. Dr. Corum's suggested crossover point where the lumped-circuit model fails is 15 degrees or 0.04 of a wavelength. Either the distributed-network model or Maxwell's equations must be used beyond that point in order to obtain valid results. I think that pretty much is it. What did you conclude? Can you get it into a few clear words? A 75m bugcatcher coil is a "slow wave structure" described by Ramo and Whinnery, by the IEEE Dictionary, and by Dr. Corum. The velocity factor of my 75m bugcatcher coil has been measured at ~0.017 which agrees with the published formula. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
OK, so you have no theory and I assume no opinion. Good enough. 73 Tom That just about summarizes you. You don't need theory, just go measure it as I described. The theory started with Dr. Nikola Tesla and skillfully defended by W5DXP. I don't claim to steal anybody's theory, other people came up with explanation of the effect, I am just defending it based on reality, burned coils and not coming up with "theory" that would back up wrong claims. What the hell is all the discussion about? Your misinformation on your web site, and you can't allow to get it right, because you can't possibly be wrong or admit to it. Just crap, no answer to technical questions, defending your baloney. What's your theory? RF behaves like DC in a loading coil? ANSWER the frickin questions!!! You can't, because you either don't get it or your ego doesn't allow you to get it. Pretty sad picture. I have no more to say, if you have no answers. I get better response from a brick wall. Just don't claim to be engineer or "JI Engineering". Engineers do not behave like that, they have certain code of ethics and rules on usage of term engineer and engineering. You might want to check with Georgia Engineers association. I am sorry about all this, but I just don't take a crap and for the umpteen time, it just gets too much. Man who attacked misinformation on Interned on QRZ pages is guilty of the same. K7GCO has a name for people like that: "Technical imposters". Sayonara!! Yuri, K3BU |
Current through coils
Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: Can you state in a few clearly written lines what you have learned or concluded? http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm (bottom of page) Thanks Cecil. I wanted to be sure where you were at now. We still disagree about several important points. In a few more years, there might be a resolution. 73 Tom |
Current through coils
Grow up.
wrote in message oups.com... Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: Can you state in a few clearly written lines what you have learned or concluded? http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm (bottom of page) Thanks Cecil. I wanted to be sure where you were at now. We still disagree about several important points. In a few more years, there might be a resolution. 73 Tom |
Current through coils
wrote:
Thanks Cecil. I wanted to be sure where you were at now. We still disagree about several important points. "The unwillingness of the "gurus" to answer specific technical questions is pretty disappointing." - a comment from a reader. You said you could use the lumped-circuit model to explain how the current at the top of the coil could be greater than the current at the bottom of the coil as it is at the bottom of the page at: http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm If you are technically correct, why are you so technically silent on the subject? Does the emperor have no clothes? At least a dozen of my technical questions have gone unanswered by being ignored. Lot's of readers have noticed and commented in emails to me. If you will repeat your measurements with 1/4WL added to the top of the base-loaded mobile antenna, you will start to understand the physics involved. The current taper through a coil depends upon where in the standing wave environment that the coil is installed. The lumped-circuit analysis fails for the typical 75m amateur radio mobile antenna. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
Cecil Moore wrote:
If you are technically correct, why are you so technically silent on the subject? I'm not silent. I think I've done a good job of explaining things, and I've made measurements and posted results. At least a dozen of my technical questions have gone unanswered by being ignored. Lot's of readers have noticed and commented in emails to me. So what? 1.) I told you weeks ago I'm too busy working right now to get deeply involved in this. 2.) When measurements are made, you dismiss them as "measuring current in a system with standing waves". If you will repeat your measurements with 1/4WL added to the top of the base-loaded mobile antenna, you will start to understand the physics involved. The current taper through a coil depends upon where in the standing wave environment that the coil is installed. Then why can I measure a fixed inductor location in a dfixed antenna, and range from no taper at all in current to just under 1/3 reduction in current? Does you standing wave model explain this very repeatable measurement? http://www.w8ji.com/mobile_antenna_c...ts_at_w8ji.htm The lumped-circuit analysis fails for the typical 75m amateur radio mobile antenna. I disagree. Unless we want to say so does the standing wave model. The antenna can be modelled as a series of lumped inductors with capacitance to the outside world just as well as any other method. 73 Tom |
Current through coils
Hi Tom,
You may be shocked to discover this, but it is possible that my comments have been reproduced slightly out of context. At the time, Cecil was still clinging to the notion that if someone did the measurements properly they could elicit the original phase information contained in the traveling wave components. In particular, the space and time coupling represented by the traveling wave function, cos (kz - wt), was merely hiding. He has since changed his mind, and unfortunately I seem to have become one of his quotable gurus on this topic. A major part of the ongoing debate is the careless use of "phase" as if it has a single definition. I have counted at least five different uses in this thread, all correct in their own way, and none interchangeable. I won't try to explain further. My level of understanding of phase and such matters is fully satisfactory for me. 73, Gene W4SZ Tom Donaly wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Gene is 100% correct and we all should be grateful for that posting. Neither you nor Roy have ever made a valid measurement of the delay through a coil. It is admittedly a difficult measurement to make directly. Ramo and Whinnery say it "is usually of prohibitive difficulty". I think that if Gene believes that, he should redo his math. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Current through coils
Gene Fuller wrote:
At the time, Cecil was still clinging to the notion that if someone did the measurements properly they could elicit the original phase information contained in the traveling wave components. Sorry, Gene, you misunderstood what I was saying. That's why you accidentally posted technical information that supported my side of the argument without realizing it at the time. (Remember, I said you were a genius for posting it and I thank you.) What I previously said was: If the reflected wave could be eliminated, as in a traveling wave antenna (like a terminated Rhombic) then we could measure the actual delay through a loading coil using the forward traveling wave, the only wave left in the system. Here's one leg of a terminated Rhombic: source-------------////////------------------load coil When I said the delay through a coil could be measured using a traveling wave, this is what I had in mind. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
Cecil,
Sorry, I am not telepathic. I merely accepted you at your written word, which appears to be of little worth. 73, Gene W4SZ Cecil Moore wrote: Gene Fuller wrote: At the time, Cecil was still clinging to the notion that if someone did the measurements properly they could elicit the original phase information contained in the traveling wave components. Sorry, Gene, you misunderstood what I was saying. That's why you accidentally posted technical information that supported my side of the argument without realizing it at the time. (Remember, I said you were a genius for posting it and I thank you.) What I previously said was: If the reflected wave could be eliminated, as in a traveling wave antenna (like a terminated Rhombic) then we could measure the actual delay through a loading coil using the forward traveling wave, the only wave left in the system. Here's one leg of a terminated Rhombic: source-------------////////------------------load coil When I said the delay through a coil could be measured using a traveling wave, this is what I had in mind. |
Current through coils
Gene Fuller wrote:
Sorry, I am not telepathic. I merely accepted you at your written word, which appears to be of little worth. I am often thinking faster than I can type and wind up not expressing myself very well. This time, your misunderstanding worked out to my advantage because it prompted you to post some technical facts in rebuttal to what you assumed I said. Your and Tom Donaly's technical facts were instrumental in getting my point across and I thank you both for that. You two seem to be the only ones posting who understand the physics implication of func(kx)*func(wt) Vs func(kx +/- wt). Thanks again. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
Gene, W4SZ wrote:
"A major part of the ongoing debate is careless use of "phase" as if it has a single definition." If Gene has counted at least five different uses in this thread, what are they? Phase is defined as 1) The angular relationship between current and voltage in alternating-current (a-c) circuits. 2) The number of separate voltage waves in a commercial a-c supply such as single-phase, three-phase, etc. 3) The time that has elapsed measured from some origin as a frection of one complete period of a periodic function. I don`t think the problem in the debate is that the participants don`t know the circumference of a circle is 2 pi radians or 360-degrees, or that 360-degrees equals a complete period or one wavelength. The problem is that some participants don`t admit their mistakes and hope they are unnoticed or can be hidden by plenty of nonsense. J.J. Rousseau swore to consecrate his life to the truth. So did Lucy Ball, but she recommended fibbing about one`s age. It is hard to keep a vow to be truthful but it is good for the environment. Too many here struggle for status by hook or crook and fib when the truth would work better. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Current through coils
|
Current through coils
Richard Clark wrote:
Anyway, it seems one other use of "phase" appears to be in the 90° and that part missing and presumed taken up by the coil. Hopefully, some of the myths and old wives' tales will be dispelled by my updated web page. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm |
Current through coils
Cecil Moore wrote: You are silent on the subject of how the lumped-circuit model explains more current at the top of the coil than exists at the bottom of the coil. Please share that knowledge with us. It's really very simple. It functions as a series of L or T networks with series inductance and shunt capacitance. There isn't anything new or novel about this. I think I've done a good job of explaining things, and I've made measurements and posted results. Have you made measurements with 1/4WL added to the top of a mobile antenna? No, because it is outside the boundary of the antenna being discussed. We have been talking about short loaded antennas. Not full sized antennas, not inductors that are nearly self-resonant (tesla coils), or antennas with distributed loading (helical antennas). That's an entirely different topic. Will you believe your measurements when you measure more current "flowing" into the bottom of the coil than out of the top of the coil? If the inductor is nearly self-resonant or in a mode where flux coupling is low compared to termination impedance, certainly odd things can happen. RF plate chokes commonly go into modes like that when they have large inductance to cover the bottom of HF, and have to function at upper HF also. None of this is rocket science require standing wave analysis. As a matter of fact at the first series resonance an RF plate choke can be accurately analyzed as a pair of back-to-back L networks. This stuff really isn't new or fascinating Cecil. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that standing wave current, func(kx)*func(wt) is not like traveling wave current, func(kx +/- wt). So what? The issue was actual current flowing, not reflected wave current that only would be a factor in a transient condition. It almost seems like you are claiming we cannot measure the current causing loss or causing radiation because of "standing waves". That's nonsense of course, and I'm sure most people realize it. Most people probably understand a current transformer will indeed measure current that causes radiation and heat loss. Then why can I measure a fixed inductor location in a dfixed antenna, and range from no taper at all in current to just under 1/3 reduction in current? Does you standing wave model explain this very repeatable measurement? Of course! If you measure the current taper at a point where the standing wave current slope is near zero, you will measure near zero taper. If you measure the current taper at a point where the standing wave current slope is near maximum, you will measure lots of taper. If you measure at just the right point, you will measure current flowing into both ends of the coil at the same time. That's another thing I have asked you to explain with no response. I can't explain a problem that exists only in your mind. 73 Tom |
Current through coils
Gene Fuller wrote:
Hi Tom, You may be shocked to discover this, but it is possible that my comments have been reproduced slightly out of context. At the time, Cecil was still clinging to the notion that if someone did the measurements properly they could elicit the original phase information contained in the traveling wave components. In particular, the space and time coupling represented by the traveling wave function, cos (kz - wt), was merely hiding. He has since changed his mind, and unfortunately I seem to have become one of his quotable gurus on this topic. A major part of the ongoing debate is the careless use of "phase" as if it has a single definition. I have counted at least five different uses in this thread, all correct in their own way, and none interchangeable. I won't try to explain further. My level of understanding of phase and such matters is fully satisfactory for me. 73, Gene W4SZ Tom Donaly wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Gene is 100% correct and we all should be grateful for that posting. Neither you nor Roy have ever made a valid measurement of the delay through a coil. It is admittedly a difficult measurement to make directly. Ramo and Whinnery say it "is usually of prohibitive difficulty". I think that if Gene believes that, he should redo his math. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH You're right, Gene, I'm shocked! shocked! to learn that Cecil might distort anything anyone might write. I never for a moment, though, thought there was anything wrong with your understanding. It was Cecil's understanding of your understanding that was in doubt. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Current through coils
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: You are silent on the subject of how the lumped-circuit model explains more current at the top of the coil than exists at the bottom of the coil. Please share that knowledge with us. It's really very simple. It functions as a series of L or T networks with series inductance and shunt capacitance. There isn't anything new or novel about this. Yes, there is. If you have to resort to multiple series-Ls and multiple series-Cs, then you are having to resort to the *DISTRIBUTED NETWORK MODEL* which is what I have been telling you for years. No, because it is outside the boundary of the antenna being discussed. Heaven forbid that we discuss anything outside your super narrow boundary conditions. Tom, there is a world of laws of physics outside your narrow boundaries and you were even wrong inside your own narrow boundaries. The delay through a coil is fixed by frequency and does not depend upon the electrical length of the antenna being 1/4WL (or 1/2WL). Please see: http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm That's an entirely different topic. Sorry, the laws of physics work no matter what the topic. In TX and LA, what you are doing it is called "crawfishing". When a crawfish feels threatened, it swiftly tucks tail and runs for the nearest cover. That's exactly what you are doing. Don't you guys have crawfish in GA? If the inductor is nearly self-resonant or in a mode where flux coupling is low compared to termination impedance, certainly odd things can happen. No, they are not ODD! They are the laws of physics. The fact that you think they are odd just shows your ignorance of those laws of physics. You can't seem to climb out of that bottomless lumped-circuit hole in which you live. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that standing wave current, func(kx)*func(wt) is not like traveling wave current, func(kx +/- wt). So what? Spoken like a member of the unwashed masses whom you are trying to snow. Before you embarass yourself any more, please ask Gene and Tom what that means in reality. They are on your emotional side but I doubt they will choose to support your technical ignorance. I assume you have read, "The Emperor's New Clothes"? Tom, sad to say, you have no clothes. The issue was actual current flowing, not reflected wave current that only would be a factor in a transient condition. Sorry, Tom, reflected current is a reality in a *standing wave* antenna. Why do you think they call them "standing wave antennas"? To imply that standing waves exist on a standing wave antenna only during a transient condition is, well, pathetic. This illustrates, better than anything else, why you are confused. It almost seems like you are claiming we cannot measure the current causing loss or causing radiation because of "standing waves". That's nonsense of course, and I'm sure most people realize it. What I am claiming is that the standing wave current phase doesn't contain any phase information. Gene and Tom have agreed. Why are you disagreeing with all of us? I can't explain a problem that exists only in your mind. The problem exists in reality and has been documented through the years over the past century by brilliant engineers. What is hard to explain is a solution that exists only in the mind of W8JI and nowhere else. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
Tom Donaly wrote:
I never for a moment, though, thought there was anything wrong with your understanding. Tom, are you retracting what you posted? If so, just come right out and say so. Otherwise, you are going to have to live with the reality that what you posted agrees with my side of the argument and disagrees with W8JI and W7EL. Both of you guys say there is no phase information left in the measured phase of the standing wave current. Do you wish to retract your statements? Since W7EL measured the phase of the standing wave current and drew illogical conclusions from that measurement, are you guys going to support W7EL's conclusion or support the technical facts that you posted previously? Please choose. Seems to me you are caught between supporting the irrationality of a friend or the laws of physics. Please choose the technically correct side. Ham Radio will be better served by that decision. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:49:57 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: are you guys going to support W7EL's conclusion are tears about to follow? Please choose. sounds like "The Secret Storm" Too bad newsgroups aren't accompanied to the strains of the Hammond organ - it could sell more soap or laxatives than theory. |
Current through coils
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote: I never for a moment, though, thought there was anything wrong with your understanding. Tom, are you retracting what you posted? If so, just come right out and say so. Otherwise, you are going to have to live with the reality that what you posted agrees with my side of the argument and disagrees with W8JI and W7EL. Both of you guys say there is no phase information left in the measured phase of the standing wave current. Do you wish to retract your statements? Since W7EL measured the phase of the standing wave current and drew illogical conclusions from that measurement, are you guys going to support W7EL's conclusion or support the technical facts that you posted previously? Please choose. Seems to me you are caught between supporting the irrationality of a friend or the laws of physics. Please choose the technically correct side. Ham Radio will be better served by that decision. Cecil, the cork has popped. You've finally succumbed to fantasy and solipsism to the point where your reason has failed utterly. There must be something in Texas that addles the intellect. I urge you to go climb in your old pickup, Roxinante, and drive the hell out of there. (And remember to remove the Tom Delay bumper sticker when you cross the border into Oklahoma.) Maybe, given time, you'll recover some of your understanding. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Current through coils
Isn't it about time this thread went to sleep for a long long long long
time?? New subject for possible discussion: "How does the Helix on Hamsticks contribute to improved radiation efficiency?" |
Current through coils
Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil, the cork has popped. You've finally succumbed to fantasy and solipsism to the point where your reason has failed utterly. There must be something in Texas that addles the intellect. I urge you to go climb in your old pickup, Roxinante, and drive the hell out of there. (And remember to remove the Tom Delay bumper sticker when you cross the border into Oklahoma.) Maybe, given time, you'll recover some of your understanding. The technical content of your postings supports my side of the argument, Tom. The emotional side of your argument seems to support the other side. Which do you want us to believe? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
Hi Richard,
I am not going to spend any more time on this topic, but I will answer the "5 phase" question. I am not going to try for extreme precision, so I suspect the nit-pickers will have a field day. 1. The classic relationship between current and voltage in a reactive environment. 2. The time and space connection in a traveling wave, the "kz-wt" term. 3. The amplitude shape factor in a standing wave, the "kz" term. 4. Fixed offsets that effectively show different starting times for waves. For example, "kz-wt" vs. "kz-wt-d". 5. The sign reversal every half-wave on a long antenna. This is merely a reflection of the periodic nature of a cosine function, but it is often called a "phase reversal". There are more, I am sure, but these are the ones that I specifically saw in the first 1000 or so postings in this thread. 73, Gene W4SZ Richard Harrison wrote: Gene, W4SZ wrote: "A major part of the ongoing debate is careless use of "phase" as if it has a single definition." If Gene has counted at least five different uses in this thread, what are they? Phase is defined as 1) The angular relationship between current and voltage in alternating-current (a-c) circuits. 2) The number of separate voltage waves in a commercial a-c supply such as single-phase, three-phase, etc. 3) The time that has elapsed measured from some origin as a frection of one complete period of a periodic function. I don`t think the problem in the debate is that the participants don`t know the circumference of a circle is 2 pi radians or 360-degrees, or that 360-degrees equals a complete period or one wavelength. The problem is that some participants don`t admit their mistakes and hope they are unnoticed or can be hidden by plenty of nonsense. J.J. Rousseau swore to consecrate his life to the truth. So did Lucy Ball, but she recommended fibbing about one`s age. It is hard to keep a vow to be truthful but it is good for the environment. Too many here struggle for status by hook or crook and fib when the truth would work better. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Current through coils
Gene Fuller wrote:
1. The classic relationship between current and voltage in a reactive environment. Very difficult to measure on an antenna. 2. The time and space connection in a traveling wave, the "kz-wt" term. Can be used to measure the delay through a loading coil. 3. The amplitude shape factor in a standing wave, the "kz" term. Can be used to roughly estimate the delay through a loading coil. The "wt" term of the standing wave cannot be used to measure the delay through a loading coil. 4. Fixed offsets that effectively show different starting times for waves. For example, "kz-wt" vs. "kz-wt-d". Or the difference between the phase of a traveling wave entering a loading coil and that traveling wave exiting the loading coil. 5. The sign reversal every half-wave on a long antenna. This is merely a reflection of the periodic nature of a cosine function, but it is often called a "phase reversal". The same thing happens in a transmission line with reflections. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote: Cecil, the cork has popped. You've finally succumbed to fantasy and solipsism to the point where your reason has failed utterly. There must be something in Texas that addles the intellect. I urge you to go climb in your old pickup, Roxinante, and drive the hell out of there. (And remember to remove the Tom Delay bumper sticker when you cross the border into Oklahoma.) Maybe, given time, you'll recover some of your understanding. The technical content of your postings supports my side of the argument, Tom. The emotional side of your argument seems to support the other side. Which do you want us to believe? Cecil, this reminds me of an old Groucho line that goes something like, "Who are you going to believe, me or what you see with your own eyes?" You're expecting me to believe what you thought up in your head over what Tom Rauch and Roy saw with their own eyes. This whole thing boils down to an engineering question, anyway, which is, is it possible to engineer a loading coil to be small enough at the lower end of the HF spectrum so that it can be modeled using network analysis? Tom says he can do it, and he's posted the results of his research efforts on the web. He hasn't had to rely on sophistry, selective quotations, huge numbers of irrational posts, threats, unproven theories, or anything other than numbers derived through carefully done experimentation to make his point. When you can do likewise, Cecil, you won't have to act like a lunatic to make your point, the numbers will do it for you, and the rest of us will be spared the spectacle of watching you defending, with your last breath, something you aren't willing to take the time to even fully understand. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Current through coils
Tom Donaly wrote:
You're expecting me to believe what you thought up in your head over what Tom Rauch and Roy saw with their own eyes. What they saw with their own eyes is a mistake that you apparently would never make. Roy tried to measure the delay through a loading coil using the phase of a standing wave. As I understand what you and Gene have said, that is impossible since the standing wave phase doesn't contain any useful phase information. This whole thing boils down to an engineering question, anyway, which is, is it possible to engineer a loading coil to be small enough at the lower end of the HF spectrum so that it can be modeled using network analysis? Tom says he can do it, and he's posted the results of his research efforts on the web. False, Tom has refused to use network analysis. That's the whole problem. His lumped-circuit model assumes faster than light propagation through every coil. His 3 nS through a 100 uH coil is getting very close to faster than light speed. Just today, Tom made a posting that indicates he still believes that Func(kz)*Fun(wt) is the same thing as Func(kz +/- wt). My measurements are the same as Tom's. Only one of the dozen or so measurements made by everyone had the currents equal at both ends. Please look at Figure 3 at: http://www.k6mhe.com/n7ws/Loaded%20antennas.htm And please explain again how 1 amp is equal to 0.65 amps. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com