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

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

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

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:24:07 -0400, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote:

OK one more time.

Hi Yuri,

Of all things, "one more time" is boringly trivial. Put it in your
sweetheart diary, lock that sucker up, and put it back under your
pillow. You have not adequately specified anything, and your comments
about efficiency, performance and the rest (if in fact there was
anything else) are castles in the air.

There is really no point of arguing any more here.

And yet this is the entire point of your having posted anything, isn't
it?

I will do the tests and
with help of "our campers" we will present comprehensive article on the
subject.

Why would anyone believe in a future of full disclosure when you
obviously have such difficulty with simpler topics now?

I offered very simple questions, all about very specific
characteristics of ONE antenna. This antenna was YOUR choice to
introduce the topic. This antenna was YOUR source of data for all
comments that flowed for 10000 postings ever after. You have had more
than 2 years to fill in the gaps about ONE antenna. The minimum among
these ANTENNA questions was:

1. How high?

2. What drive point Z?

3. What frequency for the combination of all elements?

Now as to the particulars of loading:

1. How long a coil?

2. How many turns in that coil?

3. How long are the radials?

Now as to your efficiency/performance claims:

1. What is the efficiency of a bare radiator without loading?

2. What is the efficiency of the loaded antenna you presented at your
page?

3. What is the performance criteria of a bare radiator?

4. What was the performance response of the loaded radiator you
presented at your page?

We roll on to test proclamations about linear loading:

1. Let's simply skip this as being obviously tainted by so much
missing information as to be irresolvable from more old wives' tales.

Everyone of these questions is easily answered with a simple number.

Everyone of these questions is commonplace discussion for technical
examination.

You have answered NONE of these questions. Or was it just one, 92
inches tall? You couldn't even get that one right because the picture
ON YOUR PAGE obviously showed a bigger one!

You apparently think you can treat us like fools and that this is
enough to prove:

What's next? Denying that there is a daylight, when the sun is out?

Yuri, you don't have the horsepower to win the race of wits.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

OK,
standby for our tests, measurements and data.
Appears that you distrust anything we have argued, but W8JI and equal
current believers need not to present similar data for your microscope.
I will chronicle my experiments and provide data that you question.
I am already washing up my 72 Buick LeSabre and cleaning antenna contacts,
sharpening my instruments and hopefully have enough accurate numbers and
answers for your questions.
Helloooo! We are arguing current distribution in antenna loading coil. Is it
always equal or can it vary? The rest is nitpicking and obfuscating the
question in question.

now really, really SK!

73 Yuri


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:24:07 -0400, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote:

OK one more time.

Hi Yuri,

Of all things, "one more time" is boringly trivial. Put it in your
sweetheart diary, lock that sucker up, and put it back under your
pillow. You have not adequately specified anything, and your comments
about efficiency, performance and the rest (if in fact there was
anything else) are castles in the air.

There is really no point of arguing any more here.

And yet this is the entire point of your having posted anything, isn't
it?

I will do the tests and
with help of "our campers" we will present comprehensive article on the
subject.

Why would anyone believe in a future of full disclosure when you
obviously have such difficulty with simpler topics now?

I offered very simple questions, all about very specific
characteristics of ONE antenna. This antenna was YOUR choice to
introduce the topic. This antenna was YOUR source of data for all
comments that flowed for 10000 postings ever after. You have had more
than 2 years to fill in the gaps about ONE antenna. The minimum among
these ANTENNA questions was:

1. How high?

2. What drive point Z?

3. What frequency for the combination of all elements?

Now as to the particulars of loading:

1. How long a coil?

2. How many turns in that coil?

3. How long are the radials?

Now as to your efficiency/performance claims:

1. What is the efficiency of a bare radiator without loading?

2. What is the efficiency of the loaded antenna you presented at your
page?

3. What is the performance criteria of a bare radiator?

4. What was the performance response of the loaded radiator you
presented at your page?

We roll on to test proclamations about linear loading:

1. Let's simply skip this as being obviously tainted by so much
missing information as to be irresolvable from more old wives' tales.

Everyone of these questions is easily answered with a simple number.

Everyone of these questions is commonplace discussion for technical
examination.

You have answered NONE of these questions. Or was it just one, 92
inches tall? You couldn't even get that one right because the picture
ON YOUR PAGE obviously showed a bigger one!

You apparently think you can treat us like fools and that this is
enough to prove:

What's next? Denying that there is a daylight, when the sun is out?

Yuri, you don't have the horsepower to win the race of wits.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:56:58 -0400, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote:
Appears that you distrust anything we have argued,

Yuri,

Arguing is only hot air suitable for inflating the sagged esteem of
guru-bashers. If you cannot present the simple characteristics of
YOUR choice of antenna, then you don't have enough wind to toot a
penny whistle.

but W8JI and equal
current believers need not to present similar data for your microscope.

Yuri, I don't need you spoon feeding me bull**** and telling me its
steak. Frankly, I can get the full specifications and details of an
antenna from anyone faster than you. Except Cecil perhaps, he would
have us believe it's BBQ steaks cooked by standing waves. In the past
4 or 5 calls for this simple data, you have offered nothing but
excuses and put-offs like:

I will chronicle my experiments and provide data that you question.

"We will see," in response would seem to be an answer only Rumsfeld
could love.

Helloooo! We are arguing.... blah blah blah

It is a pathetic corpse you are trying to prove that it still laughs
and cries; and whispers the solution to Fermat's last problem to the
nurse at night.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
standby for our tests, measurements and data.

Yuri, I don't know what you are going to prove. W8JI's
and W7EL's own measurements prove beyond any doubt that
the current at each end of the coil is NOT equal. And
the error they made in trying to measure phase using
a signal with unchanging phase is more than obvious.

What you are going to find is that the coil warps the
current profile away from a pure cosine wave as is
shown in Figure 3 at:

http://www.k6mhe.com/n7ws/Loaded%20antennas.htm

The delay through that coil is obviously NOT zero and
the currents at the ends are obviously NOT equal.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

standby for our tests, measurements and data.


Yuri, I don't know what you are going to prove. W8JI's
and W7EL's own measurements prove beyond any doubt that
the current at each end of the coil is NOT equal. And
the error they made in trying to measure phase using
a signal with unchanging phase is more than obvious.

What you are going to find is that the coil warps the
current profile away from a pure cosine wave as is
shown in Figure 3 at:

http://www.k6mhe.com/n7ws/Loaded%20antennas.htm

The delay through that coil is obviously NOT zero and
the currents at the ends are obviously NOT equal.

How do you know it's a "pure cosine wave," Cecil?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
What you are going to find is that the coil warps the
current profile away from a pure cosine wave ...

How do you know it's a "pure cosine wave," Cecil?

Because Kraus says so?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Richard Clark wrote:


You have answered NONE of these questions. Or was it just one, 92
inches tall? You couldn't even get that one right because the picture
ON YOUR PAGE obviously showed a bigger one!

You apparently think you can treat us like fools and that this is
enough to prove:


What's next? Denying that there is a daylight, when the sun is out?


Yuri, you don't have the horsepower to win the race of wits.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

If he will just post the plans to duplicate the antenna, it would give
the rest of us something to test. That would be way too easy, I guess.

tom
K0TAR