"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

wrote in message
oups.com...

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.


Stop right here. We are talking about perfectly good coil (Hustler 80m
resonator) no shorts between the turns, ne end effect shorting out turns
(and if so, then both ends are the same). Perfectly good coil, with wire
insulation intact, uniformly wound, uniform wire diameter (constant
resistance) good insulation, until wire gets red hot, and covered with what
appears to be heat shrink tubing.
When I applied about 600W to it, the coil obviously started to overhead,
with obvious tapered patter of heat distribution (no shorted turn culprit)
with most intense on the bottom, slowly tapering towrds the top. No signs of
similar "melting" at the top (to blame "shorted" turn from the top cap), nor
anywhere in the middle to indicate shorted turn.
If you do not believe that this could happen, than say so and I will provide
the evidence, I will melt another coil. If you believe and can relate some
of your melting to mirror this case, than please explain what else can cause
this besides the current being SIGNIFICANTLY higher at the bottom than at
the top.
What I know from the thermodynamics, that heat rises to the top. If the
current was (almost) equal, then the coil would be heating up and starting
to melt uniformly, with actually more pronounced effect at the top, due to
the rising and adding heat from the lower part of the coil (no upside Buick
here).
So lets talk specifics of the argument and not detours, please!


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

I question reality that I experienced, claims to the contrary ("it can't
be") and theories rode in support of pro and con.

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

Maybe poor electrical design, but perfectly sound coil, with uniform
insulated wire, wound on perfect cylinder. It was Hustler coil with its
physical properties and heatshrink tubing over the turns that magnified the
effect and attracted my attention.

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


I will disregard the rest of your post as a irrelevant crap, typical of your
prior riding in on a high horse, ridiculing and pontificating. If you can
stay on the technical side of the discussion we will continue, if you can't,
then play the "guru" and we are all "stay stoooopid"!

Yuri

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

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
"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?

If you're looking for an argument, you're looking in the wrong place.

Nobody denies the raw evidence, like the fact that some loading coils
get hotter at the bottom than at the top... and the fact that some other
coils don't (or nowhere near as much).

There are good explanations for everything you see. But the only valid
explanations are the ones that account for *all* the facts about *all*
types of loading coils.

The argument is specifically about Cecil's attempts to explain the
evidence, using his own particular ideas about "standing wave antennas".
He makes it kinda work for the cases he wants to think about, but in
other cases it gets things fundamentally wrong - and that isn't good
enough.



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

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
The argument is specifically about Cecil's attempts to explain the
evidence, using his own particular ideas about "standing wave antennas".
He makes it kinda work for the cases he wants to think about, but in
other cases it gets things fundamentally wrong - and that isn't good
enough.

That's just not true, Ian. If the distributed network model agrees
with the lumped circuit model, then the lumped circuit model is
being used in an appropriate situation. If the distributed network
model disagrees with the lumped circuit model, then the lumped
circuit model is being used in an inappropriate situation. The
distributed network model is always right when it disagrees with
the lumped circuit model. The distributed network model is a
*superset* of the lumped circuit model. To quote Dr. Corum:

"Distributed theory encompasses lumped circuits and always applies."

And before you dismiss Dr. Corum as a "crackpot", as others have,
please pay attention to the references for his peer-reviewed
paper published by the IEEE: Kraus, Terman, Ryder, Ramo & Whinnery,
Born & Wolf.

The problem is that the lumped circuit model is being used in
inappropriate situations because you and others do not understand
how standing wave current in standing wave antennas differs from
traveling wave current in traveling wave antennas. To compound
the error, none of you are willing to discuss it from a technical
standpoint. That unwillingness reeks of religion, not science.

Someone we both know and respect wonders why you are so closed
minded. I suggested he contact you by email.

If you, or anyone else, were willing to discuss the nature of
standing waves from a technical standpoint, most of the present
argument would be resolved by that discussion. I'm willing to
discuss it. Why aren't you?

It is entirely possible that I am abusing the distributed network
model, but nobody will be able to prove it unless they engage in
a discussion of standing waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
The argument is specifically about Cecil's attempts to explain the
evidence, using his own particular ideas about "standing wave
antennas". He makes it kinda work for the cases he wants to think
about, but in other cases it gets things fundamentally wrong - and
that isn't good enough.

That's just not true, Ian. If the distributed network model agrees
with the lumped circuit model, then the lumped circuit model is
being used in an appropriate situation. If the distributed network
model disagrees with the lumped circuit model, then the lumped
circuit model is being used in an inappropriate situation. The
distributed network model is always right when it disagrees with
the lumped circuit model. The distributed network model is a
*superset* of the lumped circuit model. To quote Dr. Corum:

"Distributed theory encompasses lumped circuits and always applies."

And before you dismiss Dr. Corum as a "crackpot", as others have,

I don't intend to - that quotation is perfectly correct. It means that
in a test-case situation where the lumped model *does* apply, the
distributed model will give EXACTLY the same results.

This is the test case that I'm trying to make you apply, to check that
with a lumped-inductance load, your antenna theory predicts the correct
behaviour, namely no phase shift in the current through a lumped
inductance.

There's no problem with the distributed circuit model. There's no
problem with the lumped circuit model as a subset of that. All the
problems are with your incorrect application of those models.

The underlying problem is that you don't see the difference.


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

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
I don't intend to - that quotation is perfectly correct. It means that
in a test-case situation where the lumped model *does* apply, the
distributed model will give EXACTLY the same results.

Ian, you know nothing is "EXACTLY" the same. All you can say is that
the two models give acceptably similar results within a certain range
of accuracy.

To paraphrase Roger Whittaker: "'EXACTLY' is for Children Spinning
Daydreams".

This is the test case that I'm trying to make you apply, to check that
with a lumped-inductance load, your antenna theory predicts the correct
behaviour, namely no phase shift in the current through a lumped
inductance.

:-) That's like proving there's no loss in a lossless transmission
line, Ian. Please send me a 100 uH lumped inductance and I will
run some tests on it and report back to you. What do you want to
bet the lumped circuit model will be wrong?

Some people have a problem with their model trying to dictate reality.
You seem to have fallen into that trap. Allow me to raise my voice.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN REALITY AS A LUMPED INDUCTANCE!!!!

The lumped circuit model is an approximation to reality. It has
been patched numerous times as situations came up that it could
not handle. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work.
Since the distributed network model is a superset of the lumped
circuit model, if there is ever any disagreement between the two
models, the distributed network model wins every time.

The test is not whether the distributed network model yields the
same results as the lumped circuit model. The test is whether
the lumped circuit model yields the same results as the
distributed network mode. That's what the argument is all about.
The distributed network model is the GOLD standard. The lumped
circuit model is just a pale approximation to reality.

There's no problem with the distributed circuit model. There's no
problem with the lumped circuit model as a subset of that. All the
problems are with your incorrect application of those models.

That may be true, but we will never know until you (and others)
recognize the difference between standing wave current and
traveling wave current as explained in my other posting. But
in case you missed it, here is a one wavelength dipole fed 1/4
WL from the right end. ///// is a 90 degree loading coil.

------A------B-/////-D-------------fp-------------

The current at B is measured by an RF ammeter at one amp. The
current at D is measured by a similar RF ammeter at zero amps.
I can provide an EZNEC model if you like. How does your lumped
circuit model explain those measured results?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
I don't intend to - that quotation is perfectly correct. It means
that in a test-case situation where the lumped model *does* apply,
the distributed model will give EXACTLY the same results.

Ian, you know nothing is "EXACTLY" the same. All you can say is that
the two models give acceptably similar results within a certain range
of accuracy.

NO!

Reality is not on trial here. We are examining your model which is
attempting to describe reality. In a test case where the loading is
DEFINED to be lumped inductance only, agreement with the lumped-circuit
model must be mathematically EXACT.

If one model is a true subset of the other, then as we come closer and
closer to the idealized test case, all the extra terms in the bigger
model will tend to zero leaving only the subset model. In the limit, the
agreement is indeed exact.

(For example, to take up your earlier mis-statement, circuit theory for
DC is a true subset of circuit theory for AC/RF. Set "w" (omega) to zero
and you're left with only the DC relationships. But there is no
discontinuity - as w gets smaller and smaller there is no sudden jump to
a whole new theory. When w is exactly zero, we expect exact mathematical
agreement with DC theory... and of course we get it.)

We do not expect any real-life loading coil to behave exactly like a
lumped inductance, so we cannot physically construct a perfect test
case. But we can envisage a perfect test case in order to test the
model; and for that, we are entitled to demand exact results.

I'm sorry, but all this is Scientific Method 101. Most people don't need
to understand this stuff in detail; though if they do, most people can
also appreciate the compelling logic of it.

You have put yourself in a position where you do need to understand
scientific logic in some detail, and follow the rules that logic lays
down... but you don't.

This is the test case that I'm trying to make you apply, to check
that with a lumped-inductance load, your antenna theory predicts the
correct behaviour, namely no phase shift in the current through a
lumped inductance.

:-) That's like proving there's no loss in a lossless transmission
line, Ian. Please send me a 100 uH lumped inductance and I will
run some tests on it and report back to you. What do you want to
bet the lumped circuit model will be wrong?

Some people have a problem with their model trying to dictate reality.
You seem to have fallen into that trap. Allow me to raise my voice.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN REALITY AS A LUMPED INDUCTANCE!!!!


No, of course there isn't. It is either an approximation or - as in this
case - a simplified situation that we can use to check whether theories
make sense.

Remember, it is your theory that we're trying to test. The challenge is
for you to show that your particular application of the distributed
circuit model works correctly.

In a test case where the loading coil comes closer and closer to
behaving like a lumped circuit, your model must do the same as all
successful distributed models do. All the complications must drop away,
giving closer and closer agreement to the behaviour of an antenna loaded
by pure inductance only. In the limit where the loading is pure lumped
inductance, the agreement must be mathematically EXACT.

I am sure this can be done using a standing wave analysis for a
coil-loaded antenna. I am equally sure that you have not achieved that.



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

"Ian White GM3SEK" wrote in message
...
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
"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?

If you're looking for an argument, you're looking in the wrong place.

Nobody denies the raw evidence, like the fact that some loading coils get
hotter at the bottom than at the top... and the fact that some other coils
don't (or nowhere near as much).


So what is the reason? Isn't the higher current through the same resistance
wire cause of more heat development? We now why and Cecil explained it.
Depends where the coil is placed in the antenna and its place on the cosine
current distribution curve. It has been shown epxerimentally and also by
EZNEC when modeled properly as solenoid or loading stub. Yea, the "other"
zero size coils don't show that, EZNEC confirms that.

There are good explanations for everything you see. But the only valid
explanations are the ones that account for *all* the facts about *all*
types of loading coils.

We are talking about typical loading coils in typical antennas, no need to
go to "all" that would skew that and "prove" it ain't so.

The argument is specifically about Cecil's attempts to explain the
evidence, using his own particular ideas about "standing wave antennas".
He makes it kinda work for the cases he wants to think about, but in other
cases it gets things fundamentally wrong - and that isn't good enough.


As far as I see, it is not just Cecil's own idea or discovery, he attempted
to explain the obvious effect and in the process found that there is more
support and standing wave theory by others. So we have an effect, and (close
enough) explanation and way of modeling it (close enough), but have a bunch
of people that cling to "she's flat".

Yuri, K3BU/m


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