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