Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Based entirely on what you yourself have written, I have told you that
you don't understand something.

Are the odds zero that it might be your misunderstanding?

Please respond to this previous posting:

The testx.EZ file has been renamed to:

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/TravWave.EZ

The testy.EZ file has been renamed to:

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/StndWave.EZ

The current reported by EZNEC for TravWave.EZ contains the term
cos(kz+wt) It's a traveling wave current, clearly not the same
as a standing wave current.

The current reported by EZNEC for StndWave.EZ contains the terms
cos(kz)*cos(wt) It's a standing wave current, clearly not the
same as a traveling wave current.

Current reported by EZNEC every 10% of wire #2 is presented in
the following table. The currents are obviously very different.
The phase of the traveling wave progresses from 0 to 90 deg
in 90 deg of wire. The phase of the standing wave doesn't
progress beyond 0.11 of of degree.

% along current in current in
wire #2 TravWave.EZ StndWave.EZ

0% 0.9998 at -0.99 deg 0.9996 at 0 deg
10% 0.9983 at -9.39 deg 0.9843 at -0.03 deg
20% 0.9969 at -18.23 deg 0.9454 at -0.05 deg
30% 0.9957 at -27.59 deg 0.8843 at -0.06 deg
40% 0.9949 at -35.96 deg 0.8023 at -0.08 deg
50% 0.9945 at -44.84 deg 0.7014 at -0.09 deg
60% 0.9945 at -54.20 deg 0.5840 at -0.09 deg
70% 0.9949 at -62.58 deg 0.4528 at -0.10 deg
80% 0.9956 at -71.43 deg 0.3110 at -0.11 deg
90% 0.9965 at -80.27 deg 0.1616 at -0.11 deg
100% 0.9976 at -89.14 deg 0.0061 at -0.11 deg

Some say "current is current". EZNEC disagrees. When
reflected waves are eliminated, EZNEC indeed does accurately
report traveling wave current. EZNEC reports the current
that is there, whether it is traveling wave current or
standing wave current.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 19:51:45 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

"Richard Clark"wrote
Sounds like you have a problem following context.
....
If you can find ANYTHING in my posts on this subject to support your
statements, please quote them to the NG.

What a tedious imposition to have to repeat correspondence, but if
that is your price, then only one example in full:

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:11:20 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

The effective electrical length of a MW monople radiator determines its
resonant frequencies, and that must include the velocity of propagation
along the structure -- which is a function of the height AND width of the
radiator (mainly), and the operating frequency.

KYMN 118.60° tall 92.3 meters tall 1080 kHz

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/amq.html

The FCC recitation of these facts is one such MW monopole radiator.

We proceed to YOUR reference:
"Antenna Engineering Handbook," 2nd edition (pub. 1984), by Johnson and
Jasik
specifically to YOUR point
a function of the height AND width
which is manifest in figure 4-4.

If you cannot resolve that graph, and for others reading, it shows a
family of curves constructed on the basis of A/D which is elsewhere
described as Length over Diameter.

For a radiator of 118.60° tall the only curve passing through zero
reactance is assigned an A/D of 20. A is already known and is
118.60°. It then follows to satisfy the A/D of 20 drives the value of
D to be 5.93° which for a wavelength of 277.8 meters works out to be a
diameter of 4.58 meters (corrected from my computational error
earlier).

In EZNEC the thin wire model reveals a source Z of:
Impedance = 97.63 + J 371.5 ohms
which confirms against figure 4-4's example for an A/D=1000

I don't know the validity of forcing the radiator to the 4.58 meter
specification, but EZNEC clearly shows that move drives out reactance
with a source Z of:
Impedance = 133.8 + J 78.91 ohms
This, too, conforms to figures 4-3 and 4-4 to within acceptable limits
of error. If that offends your sense of accuracy, we can take it
outside.

I see no need to proceed further along lines that clearly follow the
precepts offered by J&J.

Now, returning to the diameter that has been proven to be necessary to
resonate this instance which you dismiss as "ridiculous examples," my
comment about seeing very few towers that exhibit this magnitude of
diameter (the size of my living room) still stands as unimpeached.

Going further into your cavalier dismissal of "ridiculous examples" we
find that there are a forest of very short antennas in service. My
link provides so many in one frequency assignment that the force of
numbers cannot be denied so simply, and certainly when lacking
technical rebuttal. Those offered such as:
WXNH 56.30° tall 540 kHz
when run through the same exercise above (YOUR reference, YOUR claims)
reveals a necessary A/D of LESS THAN 5. The simple math resounds with
the implications of necessary diameter to resonate this through (YOUR
claims YOUR quotes of):
"The effective electrical length of a MW monopole radiator
determines its resonant frequencies, and that must include the velocity of
propagation along the structure -- which is a function of the height AND
width of the radiator (mainly), and the operating frequency."

For a wavelength of 555.6 meters, that A/D resolves D to a value of
111 meters (and this arbitrary selection of A/D=5 is NOT the necessary
value it is less) or the 364 feet. I see no reason to impeach J&J by
attempting this with EZNEC for a result that is so obviously absurd in
the real world to achieve.

This absurdity reveals that it takes much more than these intellectual
shenanigans of height AND (YOUR emphasis) width to resonate a short
antenna. Please note THIS context which has been part and parcel to
these threads for more than 1000 pieces of correspondence.

Hence, the suite of recited example antennas clearly exhibit an
expressed height, in degrees, that are strictly an expression of their
physical height in terms of wavelength, and have nothing to do with
their being resonant OR non-resonant. It is equally clear that in
their service, there have been means made to resonate them, and that
does not impact their height description either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

p.s.
No, from your posts IMO it is YOU who has a problem with your reading
comprehension, and/or possibly your professional integrity.
This is an amateur forum, and I don't trade on my professional
credentials to retail them as proof. Reading comprehension is best
left to the rest to evaluate; and as many express confusion, or
difficulty with my writing, none have challenged my data. I can live
with their confusion, and justify that with a quote from Dr. Samuel
Johnson, courtesy of his biographer James Boswell:

Johnson having argued for some time with a pertinacious gentleman;
his opponent, who had talked in a very puzzling manner, happened
to say,
"I don't understand you, Sir"
upon which Johnson observed,
"Sir, I have found you an argument;
but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

Richard, Richard, Richard. Clark, that is. Shame on you. Get a grip.
Richard Fry's list simply showed that in the FCC listing, the length
in degrees is calculated on the basis of freespace speed of light. In
addition, he was pointing out that resonance is not at 90 degrees,
calculated in that manner. THAT point is supported by other data. The
FCC data didn't come into play with respect to that point. All that
was obvious to me.

Do you disagree that resonance of a monopole over a ground plane is for
a length somewhat shorter than c/(4*f(resonance))? If you do, then
let's have a discussion about THAT.

Cheers,
Tom

On 5 Apr 2006 21:05:43 -0700, "K7ITM" wrote:

Do you disagree that resonance of a monopole over a ground plane is for
a length somewhat shorter than c/(4*f(resonance))? If you do, then
let's have a discussion about THAT.

Hi Tom,

Do I disagree? Now, there's a classic line that too frequently
litters these threads.

I've offered many antennas that are spectacularly (considering their
commercial application) shorter than quarterwave (the same size, and
longer too). These shorter antennas easily embody your comment above.
Now what is the THAT that seems to bear discussing that I haven't
already covered twice? Three times is not a charm.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:11:20 -0500, "Richard Fry" wrote:

The effective electrical length of a MW monople radiator determines its
resonant frequencies, and that must include the velocity of propagation
along the structure -- which is a function of the height AND width of the
radiator (mainly), and the operating frequency.

Now, returning to the diameter that has been proven to be necessary to
resonate this instance which you dismiss as "ridiculous examples," my
comment about seeing very few towers that exhibit this magnitude of
diameter (the size of my living room) still stands as unimpeached.

Going further into your cavalier dismissal of "ridiculous examples" we
find that there are a forest of very short antennas in service. My
link provides so many in one frequency assignment that the force of
numbers cannot be denied so simply, and certainly when lacking
technical rebuttal. Those offered such as WXNH 56.30° tall 540 kHz
when run through the same exercise above (YOUR reference, YOUR
claims) reveals a necessary A/D of LESS THAN 5. The simple math
resounds with the implications of necessary diameter to resonate this...
____________

You have seized and fixated on a concept I did not generate, ie, that AM
broadcast antennas all need to be SELF-resonant, and that their L-D ratio
is the way to achieve that. Anyone referencing my statement quoted above in
this post, and thinking its does so has problems with reading comprehension.

Why don't you just accept this reality, and move on?

RF

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 06:30:50 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

Why don't you just accept this reality, and move on?

Reality? Now there's a cornpone cliché.

It should take little imagination (dull intelligence rather), once
reading the topic line these postings fall under, to accept the thread
of continuity has been about
1. Loads in
2. very short antennas whose
3. height has been expressed in degrees when
4. resonant.

There is absolutely no difference in outcome, be it an AM antenna, or
a Hamstick in the back yard.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Based entirely on what you yourself have written, I have told you that
you don't understand something.

Unless you can prove you are omniscient, Ian, the problem could
possibly be with your misunderstanding of something, not mine.

% along current in current in
wire #2 TravWave.EZ StndWave.EZ

0.28% 0.9998 at -0.99 deg 0.9996 at 0 deg
9.72% 0.9983 at -9.39 deg 0.9843 at -0.03 deg
19.7% 0.9969 at -18.23 deg 0.9454 at -0.05 deg
30.3% 0.9957 at -27.59 deg 0.8843 at -0.06 deg
39.7% 0.9949 at -35.96 deg 0.8023 at -0.08 deg
49.7% 0.9945 at -44.84 deg 0.7014 at -0.09 deg
60.3% 0.9945 at -54.20 deg 0.5840 at -0.09 deg
69.7% 0.9949 at -62.58 deg 0.4528 at -0.10 deg
79.7% 0.9956 at -71.43 deg 0.3110 at -0.11 deg
89.7% 0.9965 at -80.27 deg 0.1616 at -0.11 deg
99.7% 0.9976 at -89.14 deg 0.0061 at -0.11 deg

My EZNEC data posting proves that EZNEC correctly predicts the
differences in the traveling wave current and the standing wave
current. I'm building a new web page around those results. I have
graphed the EZNEC results and they are available at:

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/travstnd.GIF

Please note that the traveling wave magnitude looks like the
standing wave phase and the traveling wave phase looks like the
standing wave magnitude. Anyone who maintains that there is no
difference between a traveling wave current and a standing wave
current should take a long close look.

The corresponding EZNEC files are available at:

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/TravWave.EZ
http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/StndWave.EZ
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

W8JI and other unbelievers that antenna and loading coils can not be
expressed in electrical degrees, can find another example in ON4UN's Low
Band DXing book, 4th edition, page 9-47, Fig 9-58, showing loaded vertical
with mast being 40 deg. 59.6 ft. long, loading coil of 144 uH taking
(replacing radiator of) 40 deg and whip of 10 deg and 14.9 ft long, for
overall 90 deg electrical and quarter wave resonant system.
Soooo, to anyone outside of "equal current worshippers" it is obvious that
coil is replacing 40 deg worth of radiator and it would drop equivalent
amount of current across the coil that corresponds to the length of radiator
that coil replaces, because rest of the "straight" radiator FORCES IT TO
DO - because of standing wave and current.

Such a heresy!
Theeere is your sign!

Yuri, K3BU/m

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
W8JI and other unbelievers that antenna and loading coils can not be
expressed in electrical degrees, can find another example in ON4UN's Low
Band DXing book, 4th edition, page 9-47, Fig 9-58, showing loaded vertical
with mast being 40 deg. 59.6 ft. long, loading coil of 144 uH taking
(replacing radiator of) 40 deg and whip of 10 deg and 14.9 ft long, for
overall 90 deg electrical and quarter wave resonant system.
Soooo, to anyone outside of "equal current worshippers" it is obvious that
coil is replacing 40 deg worth of radiator and it would drop equivalent
amount of current across the coil that corresponds to the length of radiator
that coil replaces, because rest of the "straight" radiator FORCES IT TO
DO - because of standing wave and current.


That is not correct Yuri.

Anything from a pure inductance to a very poor distributed inductor
(like a linear loading or stub) can be used and all would have
different characteristics.

A pure inductance would have no current difference at each end. A good
compact inductor would have negligible current difference at each end,
only a long straight wire would act like the "missing antenna".

One way to prove the coil does not replace missing length is to simply
move the coil to a new location in a fixed height antenna. If the coil
looked like 40 degrees, it would resonate the antenna no matter where
it was installed.

73 Tom

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 23:22:01 -0400, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote:

it is obvious that coil is replacing 40 deg worth of radiator

Hi Yuri,

So obvious that you cannot express the accuracy necessary to resolve
the "big picture." So obvious you cannot express the actual
efficiency of having the coil there, or not having the coil there. So
obvious that it is 40 degrees, that the previously unknown accuracy
allows that to slip between 16.4 degrees and 63.6 degrees. So obvious
that if you choose just the right number, then you can resonate on
three bands with one coil. So obvious: who needs an antenna?

What is not obvious is the name of your religion.

for overall 90 deg electrical and quarter wave resonant system.

Hence my recent correspondence has anticipated just this claim - but
then that was as easy as shooting hunting partners in the face.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC