Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:

Cecil is unable (and believes it is
impossible) to determine the net charge in the volume containing the
coil as a function of time (to within a constant, at least), even
though the the wires in which we know the currents are the only way for
charge to get in and out of that volume.


THERE IS NO RF BATTERY STORING ENERGY! THERE IS ZERO LONG TERM
ACCUMULATION OF CHARGE! Neglecting losses, energy in exactly equals
energy out over the long term.

The fact that 2 amps of standing wave current exists at the bottom of
the coil and 1.4 amps of standing wave current exists at the top of
the coil doesn't imply any long term accumulation of charge. Long
term accumulation of charge in a coil is impossible.

Cecil,

I believe the long term average current is also zero. Therefore all of
these coils and antennas are totally inert. Problem solved.

It is a mystery why the discussion randomly switches from degrees of
phase and nanoseconds of time delay to long term averages, RMS, and
"net" something or other.

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.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

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

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. :-)

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

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.

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

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Better.

As I said, earlier, This thread has drawn me back to re-reading "Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". If you haven't read it, I
highly recommend it.

Here is a passage that jumped out at me, last night.

"The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure
Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something
you don't actually know. There's not a mechanic or scientist
or technician alive who hasn't suffered from that one
so much that he's not instinctively on guard.
That's the main reason why so much scientific and mechanical
information sounds so dull and so cautious.
If you get careless or go romanticizing scientific information,
giving it a flourish here and there, Nature will soon
make a complete fool out of you. It does it often enough anyway
even when you don't give it opportunities.
One must be extremely careful and rigidly logical
when dealing with Natu one logical slip and an entire
scientific edifice comes tumbling down. One false deduction
about the machine and you can get hung up indefinitely."

More at:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~stuga...ntena nce.pdf

John Popelish wrote:
"The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure
Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something
you don't actually know."

Hmmmm, anyone we know?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Popelish wrote:

"The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure
Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something
you don't actually know."


Hmmmm, anyone we know?

Potentially everyone you know.

Oh wait...

We really don't know anyone.
We only pretend we do.

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