Richard Clark wrote:

Investigating Fig. 1 reveals there is no way to resolve the Vf through
shortening a coil. Only Cecil could argue there's a pony in all that
horse****, so while he's saddling himself to that mound, let's proceed
to see why his dotaged enthusiasm is ill-founded.



Wow! One of the bestest funniest paragraphs I've ever had the pleasure
of reading!

Remind me never to get on your bad side....... 8^)



Back on topic now. Was there ever any correlation between the
measurements made by Cecil and Yuri with the information and tests
performed by Tom W8JI? I had asked the question a couple times, but have
no answer yet. Maybe the message got lost.

I might be being simple here, but it seems that maybe if there was a
reasonable correlation drawn between the two instances.we could avoid
all the other junk going on.

Although getting wrapped around the axle apparently has its own
benefits to some.....

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"Michael Coslo" wrote:
Back on topic now. Was there ever any correlation between the
measurements made by Cecil and Yuri with the information and tests
performed by Tom W8JI? I had asked the question a couple times, but have
no answer yet. Maybe the message got lost.

Might have been when I was out of town. Except for a
single toroidal coil anomaly, all of the measurements
show a different magnitude of current at the two ends
of the coils. Most of my measurements have been at
the self-resonant frequency of a loading coil.

A 75m mobile bugcatcher coil is part of a standing wave
antenna with near-equal forward and reflected currents
flowing in opposite directions (phasors rotating in
opposite directions). As a result, the standing wave
current on the antenna has essentially the same phase
as the source current all up and down the antenna
*whether a loading coil exists or not*. Standing wave
current on a mobile antenna cannot be used to measure
phase shift or delay through a wire or a coil.

That standing wave current is of the form,
I = Io*cos(kx)*cos(wt), and cannot be used to determine
phase shift. So the major measurement mistakes were
not in the magnitudes, which are relatively easy to measure,
but in the phase-delay measurements, which were invalid.

The major conceptual mistake concerns standing waves,
not coils. It appears that some people didn't even realize
that they were dealing with a standing wave current on a
standing wave antenna.

The best estimates of actual delays through the coils seems
to come from the Dr. Corum IEEE paper where formulas
are given for the VF and Z0 of a coil. For the particular
coil being modeled in EZNEC, the VF formula yields
~0.02, or about 37 degrees for a 6" long coil on 4 MHz.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Cecil Moore wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote:

Back on topic now. Was there ever any correlation between the
measurements made by Cecil and Yuri with the information and tests
performed by Tom W8JI? I had asked the question a couple times, but have
no answer yet. Maybe the message got lost.


Might have been when I was out of town. Except for a
single toroidal coil anomaly, all of the measurements
show a different magnitude of current at the two ends
of the coils. Most of my measurements have been at
the self-resonant frequency of a loading coil.

That isn't the design frequency though, is it?

A 75m mobile bugcatcher coil is part of a standing wave
antenna with near-equal forward and reflected currents
flowing in opposite directions (phasors rotating in
opposite directions). As a result, the standing wave
current on the antenna has essentially the same phase
as the source current all up and down the antenna
*whether a loading coil exists or not*. Standing wave
current on a mobile antenna cannot be used to measure
phase shift or delay through a wire or a coil.

That standing wave current is of the form,
I = Io*cos(kx)*cos(wt), and cannot be used to determine
phase shift. So the major measurement mistakes were
not in the magnitudes, which are relatively easy to measure,
but in the phase-delay measurements, which were invalid.

The major conceptual mistake concerns standing waves,
not coils. It appears that some people didn't even realize
that they were dealing with a standing wave current on a
standing wave antenna.

The best estimates of actual delays through the coils seems
to come from the Dr. Corum IEEE paper where formulas
are given for the VF and Z0 of a coil. For the particular
coil being modeled in EZNEC, the VF formula yields
~0.02, or about 37 degrees for a 6" long coil on 4 MHz.


I'm not sure I have this straight. I think I understand Tom's info, yet
this has me completely baffled.

Would the short answer be that you do not find any correlation?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
Most of my measurements have been at
the self-resonant frequency of a loading coil.

That isn't the design frequency though, is it?

No, so I changed my approach. My present approach is to
take a self-resonant coil and use only part of the coil
on the *same* frequency, e.g. use half the coil as a loading
coil on the *same* frequency. That way, the velocity factor
should be roughly the same in either case.

I'm not sure I have this straight. I think I understand Tom's info,
yet this has me completely baffled.

I accept his magnitude measurements as probably accurate
and reasonable. His phase measurements were meaningless
since standing wave current phase doesn't change relative
to the source and therefore cannot be used to measure phase
shift along a wire or through a coil.

The standing wave current phase is the same from end to
end in a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole. It cannot be used to
determine the phase shift through a wire or a dipole. EZNEC
reports the same thing. This is key to understanding the
misconceptions involved and why the phase measurements were
meaningless.

Would the short answer be that you do not find any correlation?

*Nobody* has made a valid measurement of the delay through
a coil. There's nothing to correlate. One cannot use a signal
with unchanging phase to measure that delay.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:30:24 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Back on topic now. Was there ever any correlation between the
measurements made by Cecil and Yuri with the information and tests
performed by Tom W8JI?

Hi Mike,

Well, you have a serious problem embodied in your statement. Neither
Cecil nor Yuri made any measurements. Perhaps Yuri observed some
shrink tube that had charred while he was working power, but actually
that is a stretch (not shrink) as he "observed" this only after the
fact. You certainly have read enough correspondence to observe for
yourself that Yuri cannot describe any system fully, so saying there
were correlations can only come from a heated imagination (more
current in than coming out). If there have been any experimental
details made under observed conditions, we have to credit Tom.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Neither Cecil nor Yuri made any measurements.

I made self-resonance measurements on loading coils
and standing wave current measurements on a 6m dipole.
W8JI said my measurements were in error. W7EL said
my measurements agreed with EZNEC.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:12:32 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Neither Cecil nor Yuri made any measurements.

I made self-resonance measurements on loading coils
and standing wave current measurements on a 6m dipole.
W8JI said my measurements were in error. W7EL said
my measurements agreed with EZNEC.

My appologies, so you did.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
Neither Cecil nor Yuri made any measurements.

I made self-resonance measurements on loading coils
and standing wave current measurements on a 6m dipole.
W8JI said my measurements were in error. W7EL said
my measurements agreed with EZNEC.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil, Cecil, Cecil! Shame on you. When will you ever quit changing
what other people say?

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I made self-resonance measurements on loading coils
and standing wave current measurements on a 6m dipole.
W8JI said my measurements were in error. W7EL said
my measurements agreed with EZNEC.

Cecil, Cecil, Cecil! Shame on you. When will you ever quit changing
what other people say?

Replying to my measurements, here are your words and W7EL's words:

W8JI wrote on 3-16-06:
Your measurements are probably wrong. ... After we resolve the
error in current, we can move on.

I repeat: "W8JI said my measurements were in error."

W7EL replied on 3-16-06:
The measurement looks good to me. The phase is exactly what EZNEC
predicts -- constant along the wire.

I repeat: "W7EL said my measurements agreed with EZNEC."

begin quote of entire posting from 3-16-06:
************************************************** ********************
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Note that at the frequency where the dipole is 1/2WL and resonant,
it is 180 feet long and 180 degrees long so the number of feet of
wire is also the number of degrees of antenna. Here is my 1/2WL
dipole with current pickup coils installed at points 'x' and 'y' and
FP is the feedpoint,the impedance of which is 60 ohms.

------------------------------FP-------x---------------y-------

Total length is 180 feet. The distance between 'x' and 'y' is 45 feet.
Since feet = degrees in this case, the number of degrees between
'x' and 'y' is known to be 45 degrees from antenna theory. Those
45 degrees are what I am going to attempt to replace with a coil.

So I adjust the feedpoint current to one amp at a reference phase
angle of zero degrees and measure the current at 'x' and the current
at 'y'. The current at 'x' is 0.92 amp at 0 deg. The current at 'y' is
0.38 amp at 0 deg. Already I am not understanding my measurements.


Your measurements are probably wrong.

When did you measure that? After we resolve the error in current, we
can move on.


The measurement looks good to me. The phase is exactly what EZNEC predicts
-- constant along the wire. The ratio in magnitudes we'd expect depends on
the positions along the wire, not just the spacing.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
************************************************** ************************

My take on it is that Richard just loves yanking a chain that's
particularly easy to yank and will invariably respond in a way that
allows more yanking.

Everybody has long since agreed in principle; it's just that some
people remain buried so deeply in the forest that they can't see it for
all the trees. Or maybe it's that they are buried so deeply in the
pile that Richard was mentioning that they can't find the pony that's
been there all along to ride out on.

All this wave BS is just mathematical abstraction to 'splain what's
really going on anyway. If one is smart enough to actually get through
the math without making computational or conceptual errors, he's still
going to be lost if he doesn't relate it back to what it is that the
math is explaining. His loss; too bad.

Cheers,
Tom

(Hope I didn't let your secret out of the bag, Richard!)