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