Current through coils
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
If you don't understand accumulation of charge in *every* AC and RF
circuit then there is little hope that you will ever get to an
understanding of the now-infamous "current through coil" problem.

I understand the movement of charge within a cycle, Gene. But
it is irrelevant to the discussion and just another one of
your strawmen erected as a diversion away from the relevant
issues. Why do you think such a transparent diversion
would work?

During a cycle, energy is obviously exchanged between the
E-fields and H-fields. For a 1/4WL antenna, that means
migration from end to end. But everything being discussed
so far are RMS values. EZNEC reports and displays RMS values
of current. All of the measurements reported so far were
RMS values.

There is no net storage of energy in the coil based on the
product of the RMS voltage and the RMS current. Everything
about RMS standing wave current can be understood simply by
superposing the RMS values of forward and reflected current.

func(kx+wt) + func(kx-wt) = func(kx) * func(wt)

You were the one who posted that information. I don't
think you quite realized what a boost that was for the
distributed network model. The lumped circuit model has
no provisions for accomodating the above equation and
presupposes faster than light propagation.

Your next logical diversion will probably be - trying to track
the position and velocity of an individual electron in an
antenna. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current through coils
 

Cecil,

Your response shows you don't understand, or more likely, you are faking
a non-understanding. Charge storage is virtually equivalent to voltage.
Are you suggesting that there is no RMS voltage in these configurations?

And as to your point about my "boost" of the distributed model: I am
neither boosting nor de-boosting any particular model. I don't believe
there is another person participating in this thread who is claiming one
model trumps the other, except you. Each model has its place, but that
place is dictated only by mathematical convenience. It could be really
tedious to set up complex problems with the less convenient model, but
that does not mean it cannot be done.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

If you don't understand accumulation of charge in *every* AC and RF
circuit then there is little hope that you will ever get to an
understanding of the now-infamous "current through coil" problem.


I understand the movement of charge within a cycle, Gene. But
it is irrelevant to the discussion and just another one of
your strawmen erected as a diversion away from the relevant
issues. Why do you think such a transparent diversion
would work?

During a cycle, energy is obviously exchanged between the
E-fields and H-fields. For a 1/4WL antenna, that means
migration from end to end. But everything being discussed
so far are RMS values. EZNEC reports and displays RMS values
of current. All of the measurements reported so far were
RMS values.

There is no net storage of energy in the coil based on the
product of the RMS voltage and the RMS current. Everything
about RMS standing wave current can be understood simply by
superposing the RMS values of forward and reflected current.

func(kx+wt) + func(kx-wt) = func(kx) * func(wt)

You were the one who posted that information. I don't
think you quite realized what a boost that was for the
distributed network model. The lumped circuit model has
no provisions for accomodating the above equation and
presupposes faster than light propagation.

Your next logical diversion will probably be - trying to track
the position and velocity of an individual electron in an
antenna. :-)

Current through coils
 

If you guys want to see Cecil in action in other forums,
look at his behavior in this thread:

http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard....T;f=5;t=115870

This is obviously a deeply personal issue with Cecil, and has nothing
to do with science or trying to communicate.

No matter what happens here, Cecil will run off someplace else and
report everyone supports him and give some personal argument why. I
suspect that is becuase he really hasn't a leg to stand on technically
and he knows it.

73 Tom

Current through coils
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Your response shows you don't understand, or more likely, you are faking
a non-understanding. Charge storage is virtually equivalent to voltage.
Are you suggesting that there is no RMS voltage in these configurations?

Gene, everyone knows that an inductor stores energy during part
of a cycle and gives up that same energy, minus losses, during
the other part of the cycle. That knowledge is irrelevant to
the present discussion. Your attempt at a diversion is more than
transparent. Why don't you discuss the real issues?

I don't believe
there is another person participating in this thread who is claiming one
model trumps the other, except you.

I suspect those people know when the lumped circuit model fails.
Your own posting about standing wave current phase proved that
W7EL's phase measurements were meaningless. Here's what you said:

Regarding the func(kx)*func(wt) standing wave current term:

Gene Fuller, W4SZ wrote:
In a standing wave antenna problem, such as the one you describe, there is no
remaining phase information. Any specific phase characteristics of the traveling
waves died out when the startup transients died out.

Phase is gone. Kaput. Vanished. Cannot be recovered. Never to be seen again.

The only "phase" remaining is the cos (kz) term, which is really an amplitude
description, not a phase. The so-called "phase reversal" in longer antennas is
not really about phase either. It is merely a representation of the periodic
sign reversal seen in a cosine function.

That is technical fact. Thanks for stating it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current through coils
 

wrote:
This is obviously a deeply personal issue with Cecil, and has nothing
to do with science or trying to communicate.

Technical facts *are* a deeply personal issue with me. So I ask
you the same question he When are you going to correct the
technical errors on your web page? The delay through a 75m
mobile bugcatcher coil is tens of degrees, not faster than the
speed of light. Your chosen model has you hoodwinked into
assuming the proof. Its presuppositions cannot be used as proof
of anything which is all the proof you have ever presented.

Please note that nobody has made valid measurements of the delay
through a loading coil. The closest thing to a valid measurement
presented thus far is the EZNEC simulation on my web page at:

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm

which I updated just this morning. I'm hoping some objective person
will make the traveling wave measurements and report them here. And
I'm willing to predict it won't be the people defending the lumped
circuit model for fear of what they will measure.

No matter what happens here, Cecil will run off someplace else and
report everyone supports him and give some personal argument why. I
suspect that is becuase he really hasn't a leg to stand on technically
and he knows it.

Neither you, not anyone else, has been able to poke a hole in the
distributed network/reflection model. Wonder why that is? When
there is a disagreement between the distributed network model
and the lumped circuit model, the distributed network model
wins every time because that is prima facie evidence that the lumped
circuit model has ceased to function under the given conditions.

Why are your postings so lacking in technical content?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current through coils
 

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:42:12 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

We can assume zero displacement current without much changing anything.

You can also guarantee the injected slop, then you can roll back on
your heels and utter "not much is changed."

This has all the irony of Galileo fighting for his right to mumble:
"If we assume we revolve around Mercury....
then that's close enough isn't it?"
Vatican:
Less than 59% error, fer sure. Is that your final answer?

Exactly the same thing happens along a transmission line with

All of your claims of accuracy fall wildly short of "exactly." ;-)

If you would use the proper model and you will not need to resort
to any magic displacement current which is just a patch on a gaping
hole in the flawed lumped-circuit model.

Let's see, this logic flows from the original misapplication of
Kirchhoff's laws, forcing them onto the lumped load, and then blaming
the lumped load for its poor application.

Thread buster umpty-ump.

Current through coils
 

wrote:
I suspect that is becuase he really hasn't a leg to stand
on technically and he knows it.

I asked you to discuss the technical issues associated
with:

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/1WLDIP.GIF

- so I'm not the one avoiding discussion of the technical
issues.

Would it help if I paid you a fee to discuss those technical
issues?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current through coils
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Everything about RMS standing wave current
can be understood simply by
superposing the RMS values of forward and reflected current.

Boing!

You might want to think about that sentence for a while.

Current through coils
 

Please note that nobody has made valid measurements of the delay
through a loading coil. The closest thing to a valid measurement
presented thus far is the EZNEC simulation on my web page:

=======================================
Dear Antagonists,

Why go to the great hazardous trouble of measuring it when it can
easily be calculated from physical dimensions of the coil.

Velocity V = 1 / Sqrt( L * C ) metres per second

where L and C are henrys and farads per metre.

Therefore Seconds Delay = Coil Length in metres / Velocity.

OK, I admit it's an approximation because coil turns couple one part
of the 'line' to another a short distance away. It is not unconnected
with proximity effect. This does not occur in a normal transmission
line. But the approximation holds.

See and amuse yourselves with program TRANCOIL.
----
.................................................. ..........
Regards from Reg, G4FGQ
For Free Radio Design Software go to
http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp
.................................................. ..........

Current through coils
 

John Popelish wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Everything about RMS standing wave current
can be understood simply by
superposing the RMS values of forward and reflected current.

Boing!

You might want to think about that sentence for a while.

Let me rephrase. Everything about RMS standing wave
current can be understood simply by superposing the
values of the forward and reflected current phasors
whose phasor length is (usually) represented by their
RMS values.

The phasor arrow length is customarily the RMS value
of the phasor so the superposition of phasors turns out
to result in an RMS value. That's what I meant.

When EZNEC says the source current is 1.0 amp at zero
degrees, that is an RMS value. If the source voltage
is 50 volts at zero degrees, multiplying voltage by
current will yield the power input, i.e. 50 watts.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp