"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