![]() |
Current through coils
My oh my! I looked down and saw that there were many hundreds of messages
that I had not read - might have been twice that number, but I do have an automatic purge turned on. For two weeks there has been a theological discussion going on. All of this was thrashed out years ago - perhaps it was at Worms many centuries ago. A lesson from an old man: I ran a rural zoning board for 18 years, McLaughlin's rule for running the meeting was that everyone could have a say and one rebuttal after everyone had had their say. (The perversity that was sometimes exhibited at the zoning board meeting quite exceeded anything you gentle people could put forth.) Perhaps a modern equivalent that is applicable is: do not feed the trolls This is a great group. 73 Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: |
Current through coils
Gene Fuller wrote:
I have sent the files to you, as requested. It is always possible that I made a mistake in the modeling. If so, I am confident the entire world will know in short order. 8-) Ten turns per foot is not what I had in mind for modeling my 4TPI 75m bugcatcher coil and the EZNEC guideline violations are a little discouraging. I have an EZNEC file for a omnidirectional 20 dBi antenna if you would like to have it. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
Cecil,
I take your cryptic message to mean there was something wrong with the files I sent you. If that is your message then I don't understand. I just went back and checked the EZ files. The coil consists of 25 turns over a six-inch length. How does that calculate out to ten turns per foot? 73, Gene W4SZ Cecil Moore wrote: Gene Fuller wrote: I have sent the files to you, as requested. It is always possible that I made a mistake in the modeling. If so, I am confident the entire world will know in short order. 8-) Ten turns per foot is not what I had in mind for modeling my 4TPI 75m bugcatcher coil and the EZNEC guideline violations are a little discouraging. I have an EZNEC file for a omnidirectional 20 dBi antenna if you would like to have it. :-) |
Current through coils
Hohn Popelish wrote:
"I guess this depends on the official definition of "slow wave." My dictionary of electronics defines "slow-wave circuit" as: "-A microwave circuit in which the phase velocity of the waves is considerably below the speed of light. Such waves are used in traveling-wave tubes." William I. Orr wrote on page 6.11 of the 22nd edition of the "Radio Handbook": "Spaced closely around the (TWT) beam is a circuit, in this case a helix of tightly wound wire, capable of propagating a slow wave. The r-f energy travels along the wire at the velocity of light but, because of the helical path, the energy propagates along the length of the tube at a considerably lower velocity than is determined primarily by the pitch of the helix." (I think Mr. Orr probably wrote: that is determined primarily by the pitch of the helix.) I`ve seen several mentions of "slow wave" in the literature and it always meant slower than the speed of light. There is no need to limit the definition to microwaves as the coil slows the velocity across because the wave is guided by the wire wrapped around its form. The wire is longer than the coil form. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Current through coils
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil, I just went back and checked the EZ files. The coil consists of 25 turns over a six-inch length. How does that calculate out to ten turns per foot? First, thanks for sending me those files. I have never been able to generate a 4 TPI coil in EZNEC because of proximity guidelines. How did you accomplish that? Second, I thought EZNEC stored the design specifications for the latest created coil and I was mistaken about that. EZNEC must default to ten turns per foot. However, the antenna is almost 12 feet tall, not the agreed upon 8 feet. It would take a bigger coil to resonate an 8 foot antenna at 4 MHz. Bigger coil = more delay. And I'm not encouraged by those numerous EZNEC guideline violations. Download http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/SUPRGAIN.EZ for an omni-directional 20 dBi gain antenna that violates the EZNEC guidelines. Incidentally, there seems to be a bug in EZNEC. When I try to save the segmentation errors to a file, EZNEC barfs and closes. I can't get a look at all the errors so I don't know what they are. I will continue to tweak the files, like adding enough coil to bring an 8 foot antenna to resonance. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
Richard Harrison wrote:
Hohn Popelish wrote: "I guess this depends on the official definition of "slow wave." My dictionary of electronics defines "slow-wave circuit" as: "-A microwave circuit in which the phase velocity of the waves is considerably below the speed of light. Such waves are used in traveling-wave tubes." William I. Orr wrote on page 6.11 of the 22nd edition of the "Radio Handbook": "Spaced closely around the (TWT) beam is a circuit, in this case a helix of tightly wound wire, capable of propagating a slow wave. The r-f energy travels along the wire at the velocity of light but, because of the helical path, the energy propagates along the length of the tube at a considerably lower velocity than is determined primarily by the pitch of the helix." (I think Mr. Orr probably wrote: that is determined primarily by the pitch of the helix.) I`ve seen several mentions of "slow wave" in the literature and it always meant slower than the speed of light. There is no need to limit the definition to microwaves as the coil slows the velocity across because the wave is guided by the wire wrapped around its form. The wire is longer than the coil form. It seems that these references are not particularly concerned with the dimensions of the coil with respect to wavelength, or with the mode of propagation within the coil. I suspect that the term has different meanings to different specialties. |
Current through coils
Gene Fuller wrote:
I take your cryptic message to mean there was something wrong with the files I sent you. If that is your message then I don't understand. Your files contain multiple geometry proximity errors. Here is what EZNEC says about your file: http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/ezerror.GIF I started to print out the error file until I discovered it is 142 pages long. It seems to be impossible to model 4 MHz, 4 TPI coils in EZNEC without multitudes of proximity errors. Proximity errors result in gross errors in EZNEC results. I'm sorry, Gene, but the results of your simulation cannot be trusted. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Current through coils
Cecil,
As you know, generating the helix coils and using them are two separate things. I have only EZNEC version 3, which does not support automatic helix generation. However, there does not appear to be any reason why helices cannot be used in EZNEC version 3. That is what I did. I copied your wires, edited them, and re-input into EZNEC. As for the height, you asked for an 8 foot whip. I adjusted my model until I got to a 10 foot whip. As I stated, I quit at that point. If you choose to further refine the model, be my guest. I doubt that you will find the magic wormhole into the parallel universe where everything is radically different. 73, Gene W4SZ Cecil Moore wrote: Gene Fuller wrote: Cecil, I just went back and checked the EZ files. The coil consists of 25 turns over a six-inch length. How does that calculate out to ten turns per foot? First, thanks for sending me those files. I have never been able to generate a 4 TPI coil in EZNEC because of proximity guidelines. How did you accomplish that? Second, I thought EZNEC stored the design specifications for the latest created coil and I was mistaken about that. EZNEC must default to ten turns per foot. However, the antenna is almost 12 feet tall, not the agreed upon 8 feet. It would take a bigger coil to resonate an 8 foot antenna at 4 MHz. Bigger coil = more delay. And I'm not encouraged by those numerous EZNEC guideline violations. Download http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/SUPRGAIN.EZ for an omni-directional 20 dBi gain antenna that violates the EZNEC guidelines. Incidentally, there seems to be a bug in EZNEC. When I try to save the segmentation errors to a file, EZNEC barfs and closes. I can't get a look at all the errors so I don't know what they are. I will continue to tweak the files, like adding enough coil to bring an 8 foot antenna to resonance. |
Current through coils
Cecil,
I did what you "challenged", with the exception of the exact whip length. (And the version I sent had a total height of 11 feet 9 inches, which is not absurdly unreasonable.) I have to say I am surprised that it took you more than 24 hours to misinterpret what I sent (10 turns per foot) and then to blame the tools. I don't see any of the errors on my computer. There is little point of carrying this any further. You already stated that the results did not make technical sense to you and that perhaps EZNEC cannot be used for this task. I cannot repair your "technical sense", and I have no control over the capabilities of EZNEC. 73, Gene W4SZ Cecil Moore wrote: Gene Fuller wrote: I take your cryptic message to mean there was something wrong with the files I sent you. If that is your message then I don't understand. Your files contain multiple geometry proximity errors. Here is what EZNEC says about your file: http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/ezerror.GIF I started to print out the error file until I discovered it is 142 pages long. It seems to be impossible to model 4 MHz, 4 TPI coils in EZNEC without multitudes of proximity errors. Proximity errors result in gross errors in EZNEC results. I'm sorry, Gene, but the results of your simulation cannot be trusted. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com