now that you guys have had fun with Q... how about trying the practical
aspects of the originally stated problem? how would the described element
loading compare with, lets say, a 40-2cd element? bandwidth? coupling
between yagi elements?? losses?

"K7ITM" wrote in message
oups.com...
That (your afterthought) is much more like it. Thanks.

After all, this is NOT a thread about Q, it's a thread about the
effectiveness of different two-terminal devices for use in inductively
loading a linear radiator. In that case, the measured impedance, that
is, the measured X and R, of the two-terminal device is indeed what
matters. Given that we need a particular X, a high ratio of measured X
to measured R is advantageous, since the R term represents
dissipation. Maybe we should invent a new term and define it thus:

Xiddle = X(measured)/R(measured)

where Xiddle is to be pronounced "Ziddle," and rhymes with "piddle."
Or, we could just use the shorthand that W8JI elected to use AND DEFINE
in his posting: Q=X(meas)/R(meas).

Just as you say, Q is only an intermediate on the path to something
more interesting. It works for me if someone wants to offer a slightly
non-standard definition, so long as the definition is clear, as it was
to me from W8JI's post.

Thanks for mentioning the Black Country. It was an education for me to
look it up. Spring is trying to gain a toehold here, but it's a bit
tenuous. Got up to a couple feet of new snow in the hills over the
weekend.

Cheers,
Tom

(PS--where do you find gardens that grow "Q meters"? Or are they the
things that invade the garden to try to eat the qms?)

Just a second afterthought.

The measured impedance of a 2-terminal device tells you next to
nothing about it. It certainly does not tell you the Q.

To find anything useful about it, it is necessary to shift frequency
and make a SECOND measurement.

So we return, yet again, to a pair of independent measurements or
calculations in order to obtain a ratio.

A ratio has two degrees of freedom. I just love that phrase. I/ve been
waiting for years just to mention it.
----
Reg.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:07:41 -0000, "Dave" wrote:

how would the described element loading compare

Hi Dave,

Without some expression of what you might find acceptable, or
unacceptable, comparisons are condemned to vagueness, or extreme
elaboration.

with, lets say, a 40-2cd element?

Approx. the same;

bandwidth?

Approx. the same;

coupling between yagi elements??

Greater, forcing a different geometry.

losses?

Approx. the same.

There is nothing in your question that breaks new ground, and
substituting equivalent components really only shuffles a few design
parameters. Such shuffling may entail considerable tedium in
implementation details, but you say nothing of what passes for good or
bad. We could equally rend the correspondence bandwidth here into the
equivalent tedium of quoting the partial dB differences - that has
been good for more than a thousand posts so far.

One of our infrequent correspondents here would substitute metal
tubing for bamboo wrapped with metalized mylar film. He couldn't
expect any gain in this swap, nor could we point out any considerable
loss; but let's face it, the market is not rushing to build antennas
this way because there is no economic nor technical justification.

Thus, the only advantage is one of marketing. If you cannot quote a
gain advantage, you can at least argue conservation because you are
doing Green DXing with Bamboo elements and recycled weather balloons.

So it comes down to a familiar question: What's your point?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

:-)

How nice it is to have modern instruments which cover a wide range of
frequencies in one simple measurement setup, display the results in any
of an array of formats, and even store the measurement results for use
in a variety of analysis programs.

(Sometimes, it's even nicer to just escape from them altogether.)

Cheers,
Tom

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:06:45 -0400, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote:

As far as acting as loading element, it is another form of (real life)
loading inductance, so it is similar to loading coil, but worse performer
in
the loaded Yagi situation. Have look at the end of my article
http://www.k3bu.us/loadingcoils.htm

Hi Yuri,

Now, when we actually "look" at the design at your link, we find we
don't know much about:

Here is the information from my web site as described by Barry, W9UCW:

"Here are some actual measurements of current below and above loading coils.
92" mast, using a HI-Q coil (openwound airdux, 2 1/2"d) with small
thermocouple type meters mounted on the insulated coil support. First for
40m, moving the coil in the mast from base to center to top (with hat) and
reresonating.
Base --100ma below & 66ma above
Center --100ma below & 45ma above
Top --100ma below & 37ma above

Then, same test but for 30m
Base --100ma below & 75ma above
Center --100ma below & 60ma above
Top --100ma below & 52ma above

On a long, skinny 160 resonator with 25pf of top hat and whip, mounted on an
8' mast, I read 100ma below and 65ma above the coil.

Because of the constant claim that this must be due to the fact that the
coil is so big compared to a wavelength, I measured the in and out current
on a TOROIDAL loading coil used on a 20m mobile antenna. It was a 78" base
mast (including spring and mount) with a 38" top whip (including 12" of
alum. tubing for adjustment).
Below --100ma & Above --79ma
When I moved the coil to the top of the mast and made a horizontal "X" top
hat to resonate it back on the same freq, I got
Below --100ma & Above --47ma

So, It happens even in a totally shielded loading coil with miniscule power
going thru it! Kirchoff has no laws about current being the same on both
ends of inductors. His current law is about one POINT in a circuit and his
voltage law is about a closed loop."
.... and some significant difference W9UCW in field strength measured between
the base and center loading coil:

"The actual difference in signal strength between top and base loading of a
9' antenna is about 16 db (measured) on 75m, but Tom calculates 8db on 160.
That's because he assumes the same current in the coil. Actually it's worse
on 160 than 75."



1. How tall the antenna is (never said);

He said - 92" simulating mobile whip.

2. How long the radials are (never said);

Radials laid on the ground are non resonant, doesn't matter much, but there
were enough of them (I remember him mentioning at least 32)

3. How many turns in the coil (have to squint and count and hope);

Coild is of good quality (aka Texas Bugcatcher), what is important that it
was adjusted to bring antenna to 90 electr. degrees - RESONANCE.

4. How long the coil is (you gotta guess);

Same as 3, in each test, enough to resonante on band of test (40, 30, 80)

5. What frequency this resonates at (well, actually it doesn't say it
resonates anywhere);

Ham bands 40, 30, 80 and 160 is where they measured the currents.

6. What the drive point Z is (as if that mattered)

Not important as long as antenna is resonant on frequency in question. The
power was adjusted to show 100 ma full scale on the bottom of the coil and
read on the same type of meter on the top.

But we do know that some one can find
7. The current into the coil and;
8. The current out of the coil;
9. which according to breathless reports makes all the difference in
the world,


Picture of REALITY vs. phasors, distributed baloney, pink electrons, bla,
bla ... why it "could not be".
More appropriate assesment would be "significant", which you can judge by
his comment about 16 dB vs. 8 dB "calculated" by W8JI
Anyone can duplicate the test and verify the results and claims, instead of
displaying their ignorance of reality.

until
10. I threw away that trash coil, replaced it with a distributed load
(aka shorted transmission line) and boosted the performance.


And you did that, and measured it, right?
It has been proven in real life and measurements that "trash" coil performs
better in the loaded Yagi design that loading stub (distributed load). It
has been done, described and measured by at least three happy owners of
modified KLM 2 or 3 el. loaded Yagis on 80. Improved gain and pattern, F/B.

Interesting that the "problems" with loading coils and same current
affcionados "know it" based on their (faulty) theories. W8JI attributes his
mental state to others to "prove" his "right" which will end up being big
egg in his face.

Interesting, that question about loading stubs has "matured" to this also,
instead of providing some answers for David.
This is my last contribution to this thread.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

73 Yuri, K3BU

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:03:56 -0400, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote:

Now, when we actually "look" at the design at your link, we find we
don't know much about:

Here is the information from my web site as described by Barry, W9UCW:

This is still insufficient even for a partial description.

"Here are some actual measurements of current below and above loading coils.
92" mast, using a HI-Q coil (openwound airdux, 2 1/2"d) with small

92" does not agree with other numbers offered.

snip

On a long, skinny 160 resonator

The coil shown is no such thing.

with 25pf of top hat and whip

I frankly don't accept the description of "25pf of top hat and whip"
because there is absolutely no supporting discussion, measurements, or
modeling. This is "blue sky" reporting.

, mounted on an
8' mast, I read 100ma below and 65ma above the coil.

An 8' mast equates to 92" mast which leaves no room for a whip, that,
or the whip is unspecified.

snip
a 20m mobile antenna. It was a 78" base
mast (including spring and mount) with a 38" top whip (including 12" of
alum. tubing for adjustment).

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your published page. It is
bad enough to fight for details with one obscure design, to then
australian tag match for two obscure antennas.

snip

1. How tall the antenna is (never said);
He said - 92" simulating mobile whip.

This is incorrect from the your statements offered above. The ANTENNA
is larger, that much is obvious.

2. How long the radials are (never said);
Radials laid on the ground are non resonant, doesn't matter much, but there
were enough of them (I remember him mentioning at least 32)

This does not answer the question.

3. How many turns in the coil (have to squint and count and hope);
Coild is of good quality (aka Texas Bugcatcher),

This does not answer the question.

what is important that it
was adjusted to bring antenna to 90 electr. degrees - RESONANCE.

The coil is stock, there was no adjustment made, that is quite
obvious. Further, nothing was resonated. This page's material came
from a jury-rigged set-up for a kangaroo court proof. The antenna was
not resonated the tuning was performed in the shack. Twist enough
knobs to jimmy a current was the name of the game here.

4. How long the coil is (you gotta guess);

Same as 3, in each test,

This does not answer the question.

enough to resonante on band of test (40, 30, 80)

Yuri, you are ****ing on our legs and telling us it is raining. One
coil, one mast, one whip, does not resonate on three bands. You guys
were twisting knobs, not resonating a radiator with a load.

5. What frequency this resonates at (well, actually it doesn't say it
resonates anywhere);

Ham bands 40, 30, 80 and 160 is where they measured the currents.

Impossible, the coil is much to small for such a small radiator to
resonate in 160M band, the rest of these claims are equally invalid by
the simple observation of the content at your page and the poor
responses to technical questions above.

6. What the drive point Z is (as if that mattered)

Not important as long as antenna is resonant on frequency in question.

This is simply your way of saying you don't know and you couldn't find
out. Further, nothing was resonant - it would take far more details
that you don't have to make it happen. Again, you just don't know.

until
10. I threw away that trash coil, replaced it with a distributed load
(aka shorted transmission line) and boosted the performance.


And you did that, and measured it, right?

Yes.

It has been proven in real life and measurements that "trash" coil performs
better in the loaded Yagi design that loading stub (distributed load). It
has been done, described and measured by at least three happy owners of
modified KLM 2 or 3 el. loaded Yagis on 80. Improved gain and pattern, F/B.

And they aren't here are they? Tell us the found the missing WMD and
that would make them real heroes.

This is my last contribution to this thread.

You over-rate it considerably. No doubt we will hear more on this,
but that won't be contribution either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Kirchoff has no laws about current being the same on both
ends of inductors. His current law is about one POINT in a circuit ...

But Yuri, a lumped circuit inductance is a point so it must
have the same current on each side of that point. :-)

It is interesting that, although any coil can be positioned
in the standing wave environment such that the current at
each end of the coil has the same magnitude, only *ONE* of
the many measurements showed the same current at both ends.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

OK one more time.
We had argument about current in antenna loading coils, one bunch says it is
different, another bunch says it is, has to be the same, no way can it be
different.

Instead of trying to verify the reality on real antennas, with real, typical
hardware and measure it or show that there is something wrong with what we
so far presented, we see "theoretical reasons" why it can't be and
nitpicking on tangents leading to la-la land, instead of hitting the "meat"
of the argument.
Suit yourself. No one said that W9UCW did all the different band experiments
with the same setup in the picture. He showed one picture, proof that
current CAN be different at two ends of a loading coil, which W8JI and his
worshippers claim it CAN NOT BE.
Show us your setup, description and details showing that in all cases
current IS ALWAYS (or almost) the SAME!

There is really no point of arguing any more here. I will do the tests and
with help of "our campers" we will present comprehensive article on the
subject.
I would like to thank you all, including "current nonbelievers" for their
opposition, because they highlighted how much misinformation (50 years) and
false "science" is out there and helped us to understand the depth and
reasons for the current in the loading coil behavior, and especially for the
need to set the record straight and help to improve the modeling of loaded
antennas.

The rest will be reported on my web site, which I will consolidate and bring
up to date in the next few days at www.K3BU.us Then you can nitpick or
provide critique. There is no point in arguing, when Cecil asks why is there
higher current at the top of the coil and "unbelievers" are mum or keep
rattling off their but, but, but...
IT IS STANDING WAVE CURRENT and VOLTAGE along the resonator, get it?
What's next? Denying that there is a daylight, when the sun is out?

73 +
Yuri, K3BU

K7ITM wrote:
:-)

How nice it is to have modern instruments which cover a wide range of
frequencies in one simple measurement setup, display the results in any
of an array of formats, and even store the measurement results for use
in a variety of analysis programs.

(Sometimes, it's even nicer to just escape from them altogether.)

Cheers,
Tom


It's not quite so nice, though, when you develop a psychotic addiction
to measuring which sends you to the poorhouse for buying expensive
equipment, and to the therapist for treatment of your
obsession.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
IT IS STANDING WAVE CURRENT and VOLTAGE along the resonator, get it?
What's next? Denying that there is a daylight, when the sun is out?

The problem as I see it is that the lumped circuit folk have
no way of knowing when their model has failed them and it is
known to have a failure range. The only way I know of verifying
their model's results is to compare it to the distributed network
model results (or Maxwell's equations) to see if it agrees. That
is something they have proven unwilling to do so they are
really shooting in the dark. In particular, using a signal
containing no phase information to try to measure the phase
shift through a coil and then continuing to report it as a valid
result is really strange. They apparently atill haven't realized
that superposition doesn't preserve all of the information in the
two original waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp