"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 10:32:08 -0400, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote:

Now consider larger
error from the wrong assumption or calculation caused by wrong current
magnitudes and distribution.

Hi Yuri,

Why is it that you can say this so often, and yet never put a number
to it?


Experience, my dear, experience.
If I am capabl;e of writing to you, I don't have to put number on it, how
many letters of alphabet I master.

What is the error? You also speak of efficiency. What is the
efficiency?

Stick in the EZNEC and find out if you can't sleep without numbers.
Anyone who looks at current distribution curves can see that there is a
difference. No need for lawyers and precise numbers. If only this was the
problem, then I would give you answer to 4 decimal places. You have greater
problem with "gurus" not getting the big picture (or pretending to).

Very simple questions. Technically based. Selected because they seem
to be of supreme importance to you, and yet you don't seem to have a
handle on the situation.

I have the handle on it, appreciate the magnitude and with time there will
be some numbers.
Cecil posted files, anyone who is hang up on numbers can get them from the
EZNEC if properly defined, instead of poking needles.
We are having problem with people admitting there could be difference in the
current across loading coils, and here the "problems" is what is the error?

So lets stick to the big problem and fuggettabout detours and nitpicking.

Yuri, K3BU

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

K7ITM wrote:

You really think so, Cecil?? I saw through it the first time you
posted it. As an EZNEC and NEC2 user, I know that not only the current
magnitude, but also its phase, is reported. I knew that what you
posted about it was incorrect. I don't see Roy's comment as agreeing
with you at all, but completely disagreeing. You said that it only
gave amplitude information, when in fact it gives phase and amplitude.

Again, no quote from me. I have no idea to what you are responding
or even if you are responding to something I said today or last year.

I didn't say EZNEC doesn't give phase information. I said there is
no phase information in the phase information that EXNEC gives.
What is it about Gene's posting that you don't understand?

Regarding the cos(kz)*cos(wt) term in a standing wave:

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

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
We are having problem with people admitting there could be difference in the
current across loading coils, and here the "problems" is what is the error?

Actually, the problem is more elementary than coils. Everyone
seems to understand coils installed in circuits.

The ignorance seems to be of the nature of the physics involved
in standing waves, whether on a wire or on a coil or in free
space. So I have switched the discussion to where it belongs,
to a discussion of standing waves, with or without coils,
with or without wires.

I offered the following example which the gurus refuse to touch
with a ten foot pole. One wonders why. The transmission line is
lossless and BB is a black box.

Source-------a-BB-b-----------c-BB-d---------open circuit

The current at 'a' is measured at one amp.
The current at 'b' is measured at zero amps.
The current at 'c' is measured at zero amps.
The current at 'd' is measured at one amp.
What's in the black boxes?

Would you believe ZERO responses from the gurus?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
We are having problem with people admitting there could be difference in the
current across loading coils, and here the "problems" is what is the error?
So lets stick to the big problem and fuggettabout detours and nitpicking.
Yuri, K3BU


Yuri,

Rather than playing like Cecil and making words for others, please post
the dates and statements made by people who say current cannot be
uneven at each end of a coil.

Show us where that is said with an exact in context quote, don't pull a
Cecil and invent something that you expect us to blindly accept as the
truth.

It would help if we knew what you were talking about.

73 Tom

Cecil Moore wrote:
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
We are having problem with people admitting there could be difference
in the current across loading coils, and here the "problems" is what
is the error?

Actually, the problem is more elementary than coils. Everyone
seems to understand coils installed in circuits.

The ignorance seems to be of the nature of the physics involved
in standing waves, whether on a wire or on a coil or in free
space. So I have switched the discussion to where it belongs,
to a discussion of standing waves, with or without coils,
with or without wires.

I offered the following example which the gurus refuse to touch
with a ten foot pole. One wonders why. The transmission line is
lossless and BB is a black box.

Source-------a-BB-b-----------c-BB-d---------open circuit

The current at 'a' is measured at one amp.
The current at 'b' is measured at zero amps.
The current at 'c' is measured at zero amps.
The current at 'd' is measured at one amp.
What's in the black boxes?

Would you believe ZERO responses from the gurus?


In an Internet discussion, everybody has the right to attempt to switch
the discussion away from the point.

Everybody else has the inalienable right not to follow them.


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 16:47:05 -0400, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote:
Very simple questions. Technically based. Selected because they seem
to be of supreme importance to you, and yet you don't seem to have a
handle on the situation.

I have the handle on it, appreciate the magnitude and with time there will
be some numbers.

Hi Yuri,

So, after all these years, you have more grief than numbers. You
cannot give us the accuracy necessary to resolve this, and you haven't
got a number to call efficiency. The solution has long been offered,
so this must be more a matter of personality than technicality.

So lets stick to the big problem and fuggettabout detours and nitpicking.

You haven't told us how "big" problem is, and with more tears than
numbers, "big" seems to be an emotional measure. You would get more
traction hiring professional mourners for this wake. At least we
could count them to see how important the corpse was.

To this point there seems to be only one mourner, and a Texas cowboy
spitting in his face and calling it the refreshing dew of early
spring.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Popelish wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Please give us the equation for "ordinary AC voltage or current".


The simplest (without a reference phase) would be cos(wt). The
standing wave function contains this term, with a modifier to tell you
how amplitude varies with position. But at any point, cos(wt) times
some amplitude describes the ordinary AC voltage or current swing.


But please notice that cos(kx+wt) is different from that term.
The only time they are the same is if 'x' = 0. Is 'x' always
equal zero? No. All your equation tells us is that whatever
current it represents, it is always in phase with the reference
source at 'x' = 0. So your equation is too simple to be useful.
Please try again.

Thanks for agreeing with me. I said every bit of this in words added
as modifiers to cos(wt).

EZNEC must take those within a cycle currents and voltages into
account to come up with the amplitude values.


"Must" or "does". I have no idea.

At a given point the traveling wave phasor doesn't rotate, either.


On the contrary - at any given point 'x', the traveling wave
phasor is rotating with respect to the source phasor.

That is not what the formula says. Pick and X and you get a constant
phase angle with respect to the zero degree reference. Pick a point
on a standing wave, and you get a constant phase angle (one of two,
180 degrees apart). If one rotates, so does the other. of one does
not rotate, neither does the other, at that point.

That's what makes it different from a standing wave phasor
which doesn't rotate with respect to the source phasor.

I disagree. There are differences, but that is not one of them.

Phasor rotation only applies to the phase change over length for a
traveling wave.

No, that's wrong. Take another look at cos(kx+wt). Holding 'x'
at a constant value, the phase keeps on changing.

No. the kx term is the phase term. Pick and X and the phase (with
respect to the zero phase reference freezes. The wave continues to
unfold in time, but with that fixed phase relationship to the phasor
reference.

The traveling
wave phasor is rotating with respect to the source.

Not at a point. at any point, there is a fixed phase relationship
withe the phasor zero degree reference.

The standing
wave phasor is not rotating with respect to the source, just
as Hecht says speaking of standing waves: "The resultant
phasor is E1 + E2 = E ... Keeping the two [traveling wave]
phasors tip-to-tail and having E1 rotate counterclockwise as
E2 rotates (at the same rate) clockwise, generates E [total] as a
function of 't'. ... It doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant
wave it represents doesn't progress through space - it's a
standing wave."

The standing wave is a mathematical concept that represents the super
position of a pair of waves that are going someplace. It represents a
case where two equal energys are being delivered in two opposite
directions, so no net energy moves. But waves continue to travel.

You really need to get you a copy of Hecht's "Optics". It the
best treatment of standing waves that I have ever seen - also
best at superposition and interference explanations.

I don't need this reference. I have a form grasp of traveling waves
and their superposition.

You don't add superposed RMS values to get the resultant RMS value.

Sure you do. Current #1 is an RMS value at angle 1. Current #2
is an RMS value at angle 2. The superposition is:

RMS#1*cos(A1) + RMS#2*cos(A2) = RMS(total)

That is not adding, that is scaled adding (with a possibility that one
or both scaling factors are negative). Do you get negative total RMS
current, if both cos(A) terms are negative?

There is no discussion of RMS envelope values.


Where have you been? The currents displayed by EZNEC are RMS
envelope values. The antenna currents plotted in Kraus and
Terman are RMS envelope values. The currents measured at the
top and bottom of the coils by W8JI and W7EK are RMS envelope
values.

I didn't mean that no one is dealing with RMS values, I meant that no
one disagrees (is discussing) RMS values. It is not a point of
contention.

I am waiting for you to realize that you can measure the phase shift
of each of the traveling waves that superpose in a standing wave
process that includes a coil (or any other network) by using only the
RMS amplitude envelope, with no reference to phase, in an EZNEC
simulation or a real experiment. That was the whole point that began
this discussion, wasn't it?


Yes, I said that months ago but nobody would buy the argument.
Over those months, I have given countless examples proving that
to be true. Everyone just ignored those technical facts as they
have ignored 95% of the technical content of my postings only
to concentrate on the 5% containing feelings or bad humor.

Now, measure the phase shift of that coil ...


Sorry, the coil is obviously not the problem. Everyone understands
how a coil works.

When did everyone agree on that? Last time I looked, you were
claiming that one could use the self resonant frequency as a way to
predict the phase shift through a coil at other frequencies (to some
rather open tolerance) with the assumption of constant time delay.
And then you tested (with EZNEC) a coil in a one way wave situation
and demonstrated a 5 to 1 change in time delay over a rather small
frequency range, then you dropped the subject of coils and claim we
are all talking about some mystery of standing waves. It is hard to
keep up.

What everyone doesn't understand is how standing
waves in a wire work.

That is a pretty broad claim, unless you are really speaking for yourself.

That will be my topic of discussion from now
on. But feel free to continue the coil topic with anyone else.

Okay. I won't mention "bug catchers" any more in posts responding to
you. Glad that's over. ;-)

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:31:53 -0400, John Popelish
wrote:
Glad that's over. ;-)

"The triumph of hope over experience"

John Popelish wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
So your equation is too simple to be useful.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

No - thank you for agreeing with me that your equation is too
simple to be useful. :-)

That is not what the formula says. Pick and X and you get a constant
phase angle with respect to the zero degree reference.

But that phase angle is not zero as it is for standing waves.
You seem to be talking in circles. How can the phase shift
between the traveling wave and the source reference ever be
zero at a point 90 degrees away from the source? If it cannot,
then you have evidence that the traveling wave is NOT identical
to the standing wave as evidenced by their different equations.

Last time I looked, you were claiming
that one could use the self resonant frequency as a way to predict the
phase shift through a coil at other frequencies (to some rather open
tolerance) with the assumption of constant time delay.

Where have you been? I gave up on that idea long ago. I even posted
a Dr. Corum quote to that effect. You obviously need to look more
often.

Let's cut to the bottom line. You seem to believe that standing wave
current is identical to traveling wave current. If that's your point,
just say so. Otherwise, please tell us the difference between the
standing wave current and the traveling wave current which seems
obvious to me from the equations.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Since EZNEC has been mentioned so much lately, it's appropriate to point
out that it's able to calculate the current at all points along a
helically modeled loading inductor with what I believe to be very good
accuracy. And it does it without any use or knowledge of presumed
traveling voltage or current waves.

Yet, EZNEC reports the difference in standing wave current and
traveling wave current better than you do.

EZNEC correctly reports the phase of the standing wave current to
be essentially zero all up and down a 1/2WL dipole using small wire.

EZNEC correctly reports the phase of the traveling wave current to
be the number of degrees away from the source in a traveling wave
antenna.

EZNEC clearly recognizes the difference between standing wave current
and traveling wave current. Yet you tried to use standing wave current
with its unchanging phase to measure the phase shift through a coil.
Standing wave current doesn't even change phase through 45 degrees
of wire. Why would you expect it to change phase through 45 degrees
of coil?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp