Well, let's start with Yuri's emphasized and cogent assertion:
"The current in a typical loading coil in the shortened antennas
drops across the coil roughly corresponding to the segment of the
radiator it replaces. "

We have:
1. A shortened antenna;
2. a loading coil;
3. a current drop across the loading coil;
4. a 1:1 relation between loading coil and
"the segment of the radiator it replaces."

What follows is a weave of contradictions, shortfalls and analysis
that whacks the funny bone with a slide rule.

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:39:23 -0500, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote:
The case was of electrical quarter wave vertical radiator (as loaded mobile
antenna) and that the current is distributed, varying across the coil as I
have experienced, W9UCW has measured and Cecil has explained.

So far, nothing has changed to the assertion from Yuri's page at the
top of this post. However, leaning on Cecil for support is....

Well, that can, and did, go anywhere - you need to bring your own
vaseline and don't expect a kiss afterwards.

************************************************** ***********

What about point 4 above:

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:56:19 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
When the speculation is that the coil presents a 1:1 replacement for
the delay of the "missing" segment of the resonant antenna, then this
premise stumbles at the starting blocks.

Nobody said anything about a 1:1 replacement. That was just
somebody's strawman.

Well, now we have a name put to the strawman.

But wait! Is this quoted sneer beyond redemption? True to the
ability to believe three impossible things before brunch, we can find
contradictions within the encompass of one skull:
"number of degrees occupied by the coil in the above examples is
estimated to be ~60 degrees since the self-resonant frequency of
the coil is approximately 9 MHz. A very rough estimate of the
electrical length of the coil can be obtained using an arc-cosine
function on the standing wave current amplitudes."

Of course his vulgar usage of language that announces brilliant
logical conclusions is fraught with problems.

************************************************** **************

What about point 3 above:

"is it possible to have 1.29 amps of current "flowing" into the
bottom of the coil and 2.068 amps "flowing" out of the top? Of
course not!"

The "logic" of this rather emphatic assertion is what most would take
as a roundhouse to the chin of cordiality. Cecil, in his usual style
has sacrificed results to teach a lesson. Unfortunately this is part
and parcel to his rather frequent impeachment of his own references.
"A poor carpenter blames his glue-gun."

Yuri, with testimony like this, you have a trusted friend by
comparison in Tom.

************************************************** **************

What about point 1 above:

"78" base mast (including spring and mount) with a 38" top whip
(including 12" of alum. tubing for adjustment)"

HOWEVER, the same source also states:

"92" mast"

with absolutely no discussion of the stinger shown in the photograph.
This is a pretty poor specification given the calories expended in
emotionally developed "theories."

For the purpose of further discussion, it appears the "intent" of the
specification has two sections, each 92" tall.

************************************************** **************

What about point 2 above:

"using a HI-Q coil (openwound airdux, 2 1/2"d)" with 60 turns

This, too, is a pretty poor specification because I could only guess
at the turns count, and to me, the meters look like standard 3½" panel
mounts which would make this a 4" coil instead.

For the purpose of further discussion, it appears the "intent" of the
specification is a 60 turn coil of 2½" diameter.

************************************************** **************

Beyond one simple inclusion:

"radial field (60)"

Nothing more is offered in way of specifying the radials. This, like
the examination of the coil, is fraught with issues.

For the purpose of further discussion, it appears the "intent" of the
photograph supplied with boards in the grass, that this field's radius
is 92"

************************************************** **************

A search of Yuri's page reveals no frequency specification, simply
band assignments.

For the purpose of further discussion, it appears the "intent" of the
article is with a resonant system built from the presumptions offered
above and facts gleaned from the article, and this frequency is
established as:

7.225 MHz

************************************************** **************

EZNEC reports that the current just beneath the load:

1.0044 @ -0.91°
and at the top of the load:
.80128 @ -1.08°

Best gain report is:

-1.37dBi @ 28°

************************************************** **************

There are further complications. The report at Yuri's page also mixes
in discussion of currents with the coil/meters at various positions
(unspecified except in general) with the notable inclusion of:

"(with hat) and reresonating"

which is a leap of faith in coming to terms with just one issue.

In other words:
1. Is the hat always present;
2. what size is the hat;
3. how is reresonating accomplished.

************************************************** **************

As a variation, I simply tossed the coil, replaced it with a straight
wire section, and added 10 distributed loads of 69µH.

This last was a bear to wrestle into resonance by adjustment. Along
the way there were reports of negative resistances until I passed
through them to find the lowest practical reactance (for me, that is
1/10th of the real resistance).

The currents across the 10 loads showed a wild variation of up to 10:1
however, the current in the segment before the first loaded segment

1.1802 -0.21°
and the current in the segment after the last loaded segment
.99314 @ 179.79°
is roughly similar to the coil model above.

Best gain response of:

-1.02dBi @ 30°

************************************************** **************

As a further variation, I tossed out 9 of the 10 loads, and set the
remaining load at 16.5µH

The current into/out of this load is barely remarkable against the
general decline of current readings leading up to or away from it.

Best gain response of:

-1.65dBi @ 28°

************************************************** **************

Net result, greatest variation in antenna gain = 0.63dBi

Average variation in antenna gain = 0.315dBi imperceptible by
definition.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
"The current in a typical loading coil in the shortened antennas
drops across the coil roughly corresponding to the segment of the
radiator it replaces. "

4. a 1:1 relation between loading coil and
"the segment of the radiator it replaces."

Sorry Richard, Since you deliberately distorted what Yuri said,
everything else you say is irrelevant. What is it about "roughly"
that you don't understand? "Roughly" could mean +/- 50% accuracy.

Why do you guys feel you have to distort everything in order to
win a technical argument? If you are so technically correct, just
give us the technical facts and skip the deliberate distortions.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:48:11 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Since you deliberately distorted what Yuri said,

The Hammond Organ's notes swell to "As the World Turns"

everything else you say is irrelevant. What is it about "roughly"
that you don't understand? "Roughly" could mean +/- 50% accuracy.

You don't really know, do you? ;-)

As I see both my name and Roy's on his page as positive role models,
and that this post you didn't read bears on specifics instead of with
your fantasies, I will let Yuri speak for himself about the merit of
my work.

"BFD" ida "Before Final Decision", n'est ce pas?

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...

Well, let's start with Yuri's emphasized and cogent assertion:
"The current in a typical loading coil in the shortened antennas
BIGSNIP of a howler

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:57:04 GMT, "David J Windisch"
wrote:

"BFD" ida "Before Final Decision", n'est ce pas?

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
.. .

Well, let's start with Yuri's emphasized and cogent assertion:
"The current in a typical loading coil in the shortened antennas
BIGSNIP of a howler


Hi David,

I would have thought so on its completion. However, the problem of
the poor specification has given rise to the prospects that Yuri's
vertical was never resonated by the loading coil at all. I find it
strange that I had to wade through a ton of verbal chatter to glean
minutiae such as:

"(with hat) and reresonating"

where the coil had been moved throughout the length of the radiator
and the system "reresonated" back in the shack. The long and short of
this was I struggled to make the antenna resonant in the 40M band, and
achieved it with yet another shortfall of specification. The coil
itself was barely mentioned except for its diameter.

Sure, a picture was provided, but those meters that I used to scale it
look very much like 3½" panel mounts and are as wide as the coil. By
using them as a benchmark, I reckoned the coil for being 20" long at 4
turns per inch. Later, when I accepted the "reported" coil diameter
of 2½", I forgot to shorten the coil to 10" and increase the pitch to
6tpi. Needless to say results need to be revisited, but the only
change will be on the wrong side of the decimal point for those
"debating" the matter.

When thread lengths get to be 500+ the participation has long ceased
to be about any technical content.

Like those who argue that POS EZNEC reports erroneous results when
they use it wrong; this is basically the story of the man who went to
the doctor to complain:
"It hurts when I do this!"
Doctor:
"Stop doing that."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC