Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Everybody seems to understand how a coil works.
Crucially, you don't. The main property of a "coil" is inductance,
and at the most fundamental level you do not understand what
inductance does.

Please stop the mind fornication, Ian.

I am simply telling you straight. If you find the implications
disturbing beyond the import of my actual words, that is beyond my
control.

I understand how a coil works
and I agree with you how a coil works in a lumped circuit or a traveling
wave environment. It's obvious that our basic disagreement is NOT about
coils but is, instead, about standing waves.

Our basic disagreements are about coils *and* current *and* their
behaviour when standing waves are present. There's no point in switching
the discussion to cover only part of those topics.


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

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
I am simply telling you straight. If you find the implications
disturbing beyond the import of my actual words, that is beyond my control.

You are trying to tell me what I think when you have no clue
as to what I am thinking. Excuse my French, but that is called
mind-****ing, Ian. Please cease and desist from that practice.
The only ethical and honest thing you can say about my postings
is, "it seems to me that you are saying or thinking such and such ..."

Our basic disagreements are about coils *and* current *and* their
behaviour when standing waves are present. There's no point in switching
the discussion to cover only part of those topics.

Not switching the discussion to the only salient point of disagreement
will obfuscate the discussion. If that's what you want to do, then
your reasons for doing so are quite obvious, and readers are likely
to assume that you are not interested in technical facts at all but
more interested in preserving your omniscient guru status through
obfuscation.

So the real question is: Why have you avoided responding to my
tabular current posting based on EZNEC's take on traveling wave
current Vs standing wave current? Some may assume from that lack
of response that you are afraid to address the technical facts
as are W8JI and W7EL.

If you guys are so right, why are you afraid of discussint the
technical issues that I have posted?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
I am simply telling you straight. If you find the implications
disturbing beyond the import of my actual words, that is beyond my
control.

You are trying to tell me what I think when you have no clue
as to what I am thinking. Excuse my French, but that is called
mind-****ing, Ian. Please cease and desist from that practice.
The only ethical and honest thing you can say about my postings
is, "it seems to me that you are saying or thinking such and such ..."


I have no interest whatever in the workings of your mind. My only
interest is in what you say to the outside world.

Based entirely on what you yourself have written, I have told you that
you don't understand something. If you cannot handle that, and regard it
as an attempt to invade your mind, then this whole thing has gone way
too far.


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

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

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

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.



It certainly *is* possible to make a correct analysis of a short
coil-loaded antenna in terms of forward, reflected and standing waves of
current.

My objections are only about errors in Cecil's specific attempt to do
it.

This particular problem is a small hole in our jigsaw puzzle of human
knowledge. It would certainly be worthwhile to craft a new piece, and to
have the satisfaction seeing it fit exactly into place.

But jigsaw puzzles have unbreakable rules: a new piece must fit EXACTLY
into the gap that it fills; and everywhere around its edges, the picture
MUST join up EXACTLY. If it fails to fit exactly and in every detail,
then it isn't the right piece.

All the surrounding pieces of existing knowledge about antenna
engineering fit neatly together to make a solid picture. We can see the
big picture, and that we're only trying to fill a very small gap.

That big picture is made up from only a very few primary colors. They
can blend together to give infinite hues and subtleties, but everything
comes from mixing those same few primary colors which DO NOT CHANGE.

The 'primary colors' of antenna engineering are a few fundamental
physical facts that DO NOT CHANGE from one piece of the puzzle to the
next. (Out at the far edges of the puzzle, the advances of 20th-century
physics have shown that classical physics is part of an even bigger
picture than we'd imagined - but in doing so they have confirmed where
the rules of classical physics still CAN be applied. That includes the
whole of electrical and electronic engineering, except for what happens
inside semiconductor devices. Regarding antennas, Einstein's equations
include and clarify Maxwell's equations, and quantify the margins of
error in this area of classical physics. This confirms that antenna
engineering indeed CAN be completely and accurately understood using
classical physics, because the margins of error are too small to affect
any practical observations.)

Returning to this particular gap in the picture of antenna engineering,
concerning short loaded antennas, we can see that it's only a small gap.
It is surrounded by large areas of existing knowledge that interlock
solidly and completely. That means we can be confident there will be
nothing different or special happening inside that gap.

When trying to fill any gap in our existing knowledge, that piece of
advance information - that the same fundamentals will apply - is a
tremendous help. Or it should be... the trouble starts when someone
tries to ignore that fact, or worse still, tries to fight it.

It is also important to note that there are already several other ways
of thinking about loaded antennas that DO fit perfectly into the puzzle.
There are many alternative ways to think about any particular piece, and
as long as they fit with reality all around them, they are
interchangeable.

Cecil wants to try a method based on forward, reflected and standing
waves, and that's just fine. As i said, I'm sure it can be done. The
existing knowledge that such a theory must fit includes: what travelling
and standing waves are; what electric current is; what inductance does;
how real-life coils are different; and how things change when circuits
become physically large enough to make electromagnetic coupling
important (so we begin to call them antennas).

But Cecil's new piece for the puzzle uses new and special definitions
and properties for electric current, inductance, and travelling and
standing waves - they are not the same as in all the surrounding pieces.
To me, that is absolute proof that his new piece doesn't fit. He has
bent the rules to make it resemble the correct shape, but the colors
don't match.

Exactly why it doesn't fit remains a matter for debate. But I am
fundamentally sure of the *fact* that it doesn't.


(Will be away from the screen now until about Tuesday.)



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