"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