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

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
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.

As a data point, the results of modeling a coil as a lumped
inductor Vs a helical coil are NOT the same in EZNEC. EZNEC
disagrees with itself.

I am much more inclined to trust the helically modeled inductance
than the lumped inductance.

As Dr. Corum says: "Distributed theory encompasses lumped circuits
and always applies." In other words, the Distrubuted network model
is a superset of the lumped circuit model.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

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.


As a data point, the results of modeling a coil as a lumped
inductor Vs a helical coil are NOT the same in EZNEC. EZNEC
disagrees with itself.

I am much more inclined to trust the helically modeled inductance
than the lumped inductance.

As Dr. Corum says: "Distributed theory encompasses lumped circuits
and always applies." In other words, the Distrubuted network model
is a superset of the lumped circuit model.

There is no "helically modeled inductance" in Corum's work. They
specifically state that there is none. Instead, they use a substitute,
which Reg does, too, and develop their theory from there. Has it ever
occurred to you, Cecil, that just as lumped circuit analysis may not
be appropriate for everything due to its underlying assumptions, that
circuit theory may fail because you can't always reduce the electrical
world to current, voltage and length? When are you going to consider
field theory in your analysis, Cecil? It might come in handy in
any attempt to understand something as complex as a three dimensional coil.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
When are you going to consider
field theory in your analysis, Cecil?

That's a fair question, Tom. The answer is just as soon as someone
comes up with an example for which the distributed network model
fails. We have plenty of examples where the lumped circuit model
fails but not one example yet that the distributed network model
won't handle.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp