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.

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

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:14:18 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

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?

Which points? You are the master at selective editing. For example
you stated:

"Your graphs show standing wave current which doesn't flow...blah
blah"

When I show otherwise, snip, gone without reply.


"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.

I have no "cohorts" here. This isn't the "Let's get Cecil" gang.


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?

I've worked with lots of PhD's. Hell I even had one working for me
and his was in Nuclear Physics from Trinity College at Oxford. He was
a lovely old guy, the quintessential Einstein type, who couldn't find
his way to the men's room without directions. Another, younger one
was so impressed with himself, it was impossible to have a
conversation with him without him saying, "When I was working on my
thesis..."

Pass him in the hall and say, "Nice day today."

He would reply, "Yes, it is but I remember a day back when I was
working on my thesis..."

Sorry, "A bunch of IEEE PhD's" impresses me less than a handful of the
guys posting here.

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:14:18 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

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?

Which points? You are the master at selective editing. For example
you stated:

"Your graphs show standing wave current which doesn't flow...blah
blah"

When I show otherwise, snip, gone without reply.


"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.

I have no "cohorts" here. This isn't the "Let's get Cecil" gang.


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?

I've worked with lots of PhD's. Hell I even had one working for me
and his was in Nuclear Physics from Trinity College at Oxford. He was
a lovely old guy, the quintessential Einstein type, who couldn't find
his way to the men's room without directions. Another, younger one
was so impressed with himself, it was impossible to have a
conversation with him without him saying, "When I was working on my
thesis..."

Pass him in the hall and say, "Nice day today."

He would reply, "Yes, it is but I remember a day back when I was
working on my thesis..."

Sorry, "A bunch of IEEE PhD's" impresses me less than a handful of the
guys posting here.


Hi Wes

The more I read your posts the more I like the way you think.

Jerry

Wes Stewart wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
"Your graphs show standing wave current which doesn't flow...blah
blah"

When I show otherwise, snip, gone without reply.

Sorry, I completely missed it. I'll go back and try
to find it.

Sorry, "A bunch of IEEE PhD's" impresses me less than a handful of the
guys posting here.

Have you looked at the articles on the web pages I posted?
Here's a funny quote, not previous quoted from:

http://www.ttr.com/corum/index.htm

"What frequency did you get in step 5? ... Is the difference
within engineering accuracy ... less than 5%? If the answer
is yes, then you may confidently use lumped-element modeling.
However, if the answer is no, then, from the halls of Valhalla,
old Wotan, himself, is thundering out over the battlements,
'#*@&%!! ... Thor, you dumdum! You CAN'T use lumped circuit
modeling!' ... [The coil has standing waves and is behaving
as a distributed resonator.]"

In case you missed it, here's what Walter Maxwell had to say
about the subject:

"If an inductance is in series with a line that has
reflections, the current will NOT be the same at both
ends of the inductor."

"Consequently, circuit analysis will not work when both
forward and reflected currents are present in a lumped
circuit."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

In case you missed it, here's what Walter Maxwell had to say
about the subject:

"If an inductance is in series with a line that has
reflections, the current will NOT be the same at both
ends of the inductor."

"Consequently, circuit analysis will not work when both
forward and reflected currents are present in a lumped
circuit."

Cecil, I really think you should let Walt speak for himself. You have
a history of distorting facts and taking statements out of context, and
may be discrediting Walt. Walt is too nice a person for me to stand by
and let that happen.

If anyone really thinks that as a stand-alone statement, it is not
correct. I suspect he didn't get the full story or wasn't following a
discussion closely, or you have snipped something out of context. It's
very easy to take small areas out of context and make it seem like
someone is saying something they are not.

Any circuit analysis will work so long as the load impedances used in
the analysis are the same as the load impedances presented at that
point by an antenna.

The behavior of any small two-terminal component REQUIRES currents to
be essentially equal. It's only when the component has a third
significant path to the outside world that currents can be unequal.

If I have a small capacitor, current flowing in one lead is equal to
current flowing out the other and the phase of each current is exactly
equal. Same for an inductor.

That's not a guess, that's a rule of how things always behave.

I'm wondering if the real problem is some people spend too much time
with transmission lines and antenna and not enough time with circuit
components, and become rusty?

In any event, you do enough damage to people's reputations Cecil.
Please leave Walt alone. He will speak for himself if he likes.

73 Tom

wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
In case you missed it, here's what Walter Maxwell had to say
about the subject:

"If an inductance is in series with a line that has
reflections, the current will NOT be the same at both
ends of the inductor."

"Consequently, circuit analysis will not work when both
forward and reflected currents are present in a lumped
circuit."

Cecil, I really think you should let Walt speak for himself.

Sorry, I don't care what you think. You and I (and Walt)
know exactly who distorted the facts.

If anyone really thinks that as a stand-alone statement, it is not
correct. I suspect he didn't get the full story or wasn't following a
discussion closely, or you have snipped something out of context. It's
very easy to take small areas out of context and make it seem like
someone is saying something they are not.

Those are Walt's exact words, not mine. If you don't believe me,
send him an email and ask him.

The behavior of any small two-terminal component REQUIRES currents to
be essentially equal. It's only when the component has a third
significant path to the outside world that currents can be unequal.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Your lumped-circuit model presupposes that
the currents are equal so you are begging the question. YOU
CANNOT USE YOUR MODEL TO PROVE ITS OWN PRESUPPOSITIONS. I see
you haven't yet read what Dr. Corum had to say on that subject.

http://www.ttr.com/corum/index.htm

If I have a small capacitor, current flowing in one lead is equal to
current flowing out the other and the phase of each current is exactly
equal. Same for an inductor.

Sorry, that's just not true for inductors. In the real world,
there is a traveling wave current delay through the coil that
can easily be measured on the bench. That delay converts
directly to a phase delay. You are simply mistaken, hoodwinked
by your lumped-circuit model, which presupposes the proof of
what you say above. You are once again, begging the question
and assuming the proof without having proved anything.

That's not a guess, that's a rule of how things always behave.

BS, Tom. That's a rule from a model known to fail in the
presence of standing waves. Models existing in your mind
don't dictate reality. It is supposed to be just the opposite.

I'm wondering if the real problem is some people spend too much time
with transmission lines and antenna and not enough time with circuit
components, and become rusty?

The real problem is that you are looking for your keys under
the streetlight instead of in the dark where you lost them.

The real problem is that you are doing the same thing as the
naive ham who tries to measure feedpoint impedance with an
ohm-meter.

The real problem is that you are using a tool known to fail
under the conditions in which you are trying to use it.

THE LUMPED-CIRCUIT MODEL FAILS IN THE PRESENCE OF STANDING WAVES!
I know that. Walt knows that. Dr. Corum knows that. A number
of lurkers on this newsgroup know that. Nikola Tesla obviously
knew that in his 1897 patent application.

In any event, you do enough damage to people's reputations Cecil.
Please leave Walt alone. He will speak for himself if he likes.

Please mind your own business. I have Walt's permission to
quote his stuff. If he ever asks me to stop quoting him, I will.
One wonders if your attitude would be different if Walt agreed
with you? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp