To satisfy demands for disclosure of the source code of my programs I
have made the source code of program TRANCO_1 available from my
website.

It may be of interest to antagonists in the "current through coils"
civil war.

The source code text, which is almost readable using non-proportional
spaced text readers, can be found in "Download Pascal source code from
here" section on the Index page.
----
.................................................. ..........
Regards from Reg, G4FGQ
For Free Radio Design Software go to
http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp
.................................................. ..........

Reg Edwards wrote:
It may be of interest to antagonists in the "current through coils"
civil war.

The nature of traveling wave current and standing wave current
is different. Does your program take that into account?

The "current through coils" argument boils down to the ones who
understand standing wave currents in a standing wave antenna and
those who refuse to take the time to understand.

Quoting "Optics", by Hecht: "E(x,t) = 2Eo*sin(kx)*cos(wt)
This is the equation for a STANDING or STATIONARY WAVE, as
opposed to a traveling wave (Fig. 7.10). Its profile does
not move through space. ... [The phase] doesn't rotate at
all, and the resultant wave it represents doesn't progress
through space - it's a standing wave."

Until the gurus take the time to understand the nature of
standing waves in standing waves antennas, they will keep
committing the same mental blunders over and over.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Reg Edwards wrote:

It may be of interest to antagonists in the "current through coils"
civil war.


The nature of traveling wave current and standing wave current
is different. Does your program take that into account?

The "current through coils" argument boils down to the ones who
understand standing wave currents in a standing wave antenna and
those who refuse to take the time to understand.

Quoting "Optics", by Hecht: "E(x,t) = 2Eo*sin(kx)*cos(wt)
This is the equation for a STANDING or STATIONARY WAVE, as
opposed to a traveling wave (Fig. 7.10). Its profile does
not move through space. ... [The phase] doesn't rotate at
all, and the resultant wave it represents doesn't progress
through space - it's a standing wave."

Until the gurus take the time to understand the nature of
standing waves in standing waves antennas, they will keep
committing the same mental blunders over and over.

Hecht forgot to put the phase difference in his formula.
It's no wonder there's no phase information in your
standing waves, Cecil, Hecht left it out. Not only
that, but where did he get the idea that it was sin(kx) instead
of cos(kx). I understand Hecht is a good old boy, but I'd like to
see his derivations.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
Hecht forgot to put the phase difference in his formula.
It's no wonder there's no phase information in your
standing waves, Cecil, Hecht left it out.

You are mistaken. If Hecht left it out then so did Gene Fuller.
I suggest you listen to Gene when he says: Regarding the
cos(kz)*cos(wt) terms in the standing wave equation:

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.

Not only
that, but where did he get the idea that it was sin(kx) instead
of cos(kx). I understand Hecht is a good old boy, but I'd like to
see his derivations.

Apparently, you are ignorant of the difference in conventions between
optics and RF engineering. In optics, there is no current so there is
no current changing phase at an open circuit. In optics, the M-field
changes directions but not phase. In RF engineering, a change in
direction of the H-field is considered to be a 180 degree phase shift.
Both conventions are correct as long as one understands them. Your
strange statement about Hecht above just proves your ignorance.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Hecht forgot to put the phase difference in his formula.
It's no wonder there's no phase information in your
standing waves, Cecil, Hecht left it out.


You are mistaken. If Hecht left it out then so did Gene Fuller.
I suggest you listen to Gene when he says: Regarding the
cos(kz)*cos(wt) terms in the standing wave equation:

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.


Not only
that, but where did he get the idea that it was sin(kx) instead
of cos(kx). I understand Hecht is a good old boy, but I'd like to
see his derivations.


Apparently, you are ignorant of the difference in conventions between
optics and RF engineering. In optics, there is no current so there is
no current changing phase at an open circuit. In optics, the M-field
changes directions but not phase. In RF engineering, a change in
direction of the H-field is considered to be a 180 degree phase shift.
Both conventions are correct as long as one understands them. Your
strange statement about Hecht above just proves your ignorance.

Whatever. I'd still like to see his derivations. In your case,
you're using the wrong equation anyway. What you really want is
Beta*l, or the radian length of your transmission line. You can
get that if you know, or can measure the usual parameters in the
transmission line impedance equation, using that equation to solve
for Beta*l. That won't prove your theory because you still haven't
shown that any one transmission line model is unique in terms of
substituting for your coil, but at least it'll give you something
to do.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
Whatever. I'd still like to see his derivations.

"Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition, page 289.

The intensity of a light beam is associated with the E-field
so Hecht's equations are in relation to the E-field.

Speaking of the light standing wave: "The composite
disturbance is then:

E = Eo[sin(kt+wt) + sin(kt-wt)]

Applying the indentity

sin A + sin B = 2 sin 1/2(A+B)*cos 1/2(A-B)

E(x,t) = 2*Eo*sin(kx)*cos(wt)"

Hecht says the standing wave "profile does not move through
space".

I have said the RF standing wave current profile does not move
through a wire.

Hecht says the standing wave phasor "doesn't rotate at all,
and the resultant wave it represents doesn't progress through
space - it's a standing wave."

I have said the same thing about the RF standing wave current
phasor.

Hecht says the standing wave transfers zero net energy. I have
said the same thing about RF standing waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Whatever. I'd still like to see his derivations.


"Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition, page 289.

The intensity of a light beam is associated with the E-field
so Hecht's equations are in relation to the E-field.

Speaking of the light standing wave: "The composite
disturbance is then:

E = Eo[sin(kt+wt) + sin(kt-wt)]

Applying the indentity

sin A + sin B = 2 sin 1/2(A+B)*cos 1/2(A-B)

E(x,t) = 2*Eo*sin(kx)*cos(wt)"

Hecht says the standing wave "profile does not move through
space".

I have said the RF standing wave current profile does not move
through a wire.

Hecht says the standing wave phasor "doesn't rotate at all,
and the resultant wave it represents doesn't progress through
space - it's a standing wave."

I have said the same thing about the RF standing wave current
phasor.

Hecht says the standing wave transfers zero net energy. I have
said the same thing about RF standing waves.

If it's a solution to the wave equation it's o.k., Cecil, but
Hecht is still not using the case where there is a phase difference
between the two waves. If it isn't in the original equation it
won't be in the final version since they're just two ways of
saying the same thing. That's fine because it's the wrong
equation anyway for what you want, which involves impedances
and length, which you probably don't want to deal with because
you're probably under the impression they're just virtual and
not real, and so not worthy of inclusion in your theory.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
Until the gurus take the time to understand the nature of
standing waves in standing waves antennas, they will keep
committing the same mental blunders over and over.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


More astonishing than that, Until the "gurus" put their finger on the coil,
or aquarium thermometer, or RF ammeter, or infrared scope and see that the
loading coil (in a typical quarter wave resonant whip) is heating up at the
bottom, being the reality that defies their "scientwific theories why it
shouldn't" - they will keep committing the same mental blunders over and
over.

What's next? There is less current in a wire (coil) where wire (coil) gets
hotter?
Let the games begin!

Thermometers don't lie, meters don't lie, even EZNEC shows it! So wasaaaaap?

Yuri, K3BU

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
More astonishing than that, Until the "gurus" put their finger on the coil,
or aquarium thermometer, or RF ammeter, or infrared scope and see that the
loading coil (in a typical quarter wave resonant whip) is heating up at the
bottom, being the reality that defies their "scientwific theories why it
shouldn't" - they will keep committing the same mental blunders over and
over.

Yuri,

No one I have seen has every said one tuern can't get hotter than
another turn in a loading coil.

For example, I can take a piece of airdux and short a single turn
anywhere in the coil. That turn and the turns around it will get very
hot, often even melting the form and discoloring the wire, even with
modest power applied in a resoant circuit.

I had my 75 watt Novice rig melt miniductor in certain spots way back
in the very early 60's.

The problem is wild theories are created from small grains of truth or
factoids. It is the wild theories that people question.

In an effort to support the wild claims, there seems to be an effort to
dismiss anything but the wild theories. Here is how it goes:

1.) My Hustler antenna loading coil (known to be a poor electrical
design) melted the heatshrink at the bottom

2.) This must be becuase there is only high current at the bottom of
every loading coil.

3.) This must be because the standing waves on the antenna all wind up
in the loading coil.

4.) This must mean all loading coils act just like they are the x
degrees of antenna they replace.

5.) This is why, no matter what we do with loading coil Q, efficiency
doesn't change much.

6.) We will write a IEEE paper about this astounding fact, since all
the texbooks about loading coils or inductors in general must be wrong

7.) Anyone who point out it is imperfections in the design of the
system that cause this must be wrong, since I saw the coil get hot

8.) Anyone who disagrees with me must think himself a guru, and be
incapable of learning or understanding how things work

9.) I know all this because the bottom of the coil gets hot in my
antenna

What's next? There is less current in a wire (coil) where wire (coil)
gets
hotter?
Thermometers don't lie, meters don't lie, even EZNEC shows it! So wasaaaaap?

It's all been explained over and over again.

If the termination impedance of the coil is very high compared to
shunting impedances inside the coil to the outside world, a coil can
have phase shift in current at each terminal and it can have uneven
current distribution.

This is not caused by standing waves or "electrical degrees" the coil
replaces, but rather by the displacement currents which can provide a
path for the through currents.

Reg actually explained this very well, as has Roy, Tom D, Gene, Tom
ITM, Ian, and a half dozen others.

The reason you keep beating your head against the wall is you want to
think the conclusions you formed were correct.

If I wanted to design a loading coil that has virtually 100% current
taper, I could. If I wanted to design one with virtually no taper, I
could. I could actually have an antenna of a fixed height and by making
various styles of loading coils go anywhere from nearly uniform
distribution at each end of the coil to some significant taper.

The problem is Cecil attributes it all to standing waves, and not to
the inductor's design. You seem to be doing the same.

Since we won't agree with your wrong theories, you then conclude we are
saying step one is wrong and you never saw what you saw. Step one is
fine. Step two is where everything you say falls apart.

73 Tom

wrote:
No one I have seen has every said one tuern can't get hotter than
another turn in a loading coil.

If the current is equal at both ends, how does one turn
possibly get hotter than another turn?

It's all been explained over and over again.

Repeating a wrong answer 1000 times doesn't make it right.
And that's exactly what you do.

If the termination impedance of the coil is very high compared to
shunting impedances inside the coil to the outside world, a coil can
have phase shift in current at each terminal and it can have uneven
current distribution.

This is not caused by standing waves or "electrical degrees" the coil
replaces, but rather by the displacement currents which can provide a
path for the through currents.

It is caused by where the coil is installed in the standing wave
environment, proved on my web page at:
http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm

That the proof is accurate explains why you refuse to discuss the
technical facts surrounding it.

The problem is Cecil attributes it all to standing waves, and not to
the inductor's design.

Given the fixed design of a single inductor example, I can change
which end the current is highest by simply placing in in the proper
place in the standing wave environment, the environment that you
refuse to discuss.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp