Wes Stewart wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:00:38 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

|Wes Stewart wrote:
| Sorry, I've taken all of the jabs at this tarbaby that I care to. I
| spent a lot of time preparing the paper that I published and it
| "reflects reality" as I see it, until proven otherwise.
|
|What is the name of your paper, Wes? I don't remember you
|mentioning it before. All I have seen from your postings is
|.pdf files of the work of others.

I began this thread with a pointer to:
http://www.qsl.net/n7ws/Loaded%20antennas.htm

A quick scan of your article produces nothing new. I have already
stated multiple times that the magnitude of the current into a coil
and the magnitude of the current out of the coil can have any relationship.
The magnitude of the current into the coil can be equal, less than, or
greater than the current out of the coil depending upon where it is
installed in the antenna system. If the coil is installed at a current
maximum point, a current maximum will occur in the coil. That's a
no-brainer.

Exactly what is it that you think you have proven?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Tdonaly wrote:

Cecil wrote,
EZNEC seems to model inductive stubs just fine so I have no reason to
distrust it. EZNEC fails to give the same results for an inductive stub
Vs a lumped inductive reactance because it doesn't model real-world
coils. It will not model Kraus' phase-reversing coil and gives erroneous
results when an antenna using phase-reversing coils is modeled. I have
the EZNEC files that demonstrate that fact if you would like to have them.

Cecil, you can't even give a coherent explanation of how or why Kraus
"phase reversing coil" works, or how it relates to Wes' work. I would
expect any coil would work between two half-wave dipoles, but maybe not
at the frequencies you expect, and certainly not just because Kraus
said so.

According to Kraus, his phase-reversing coil can be thought of as 1/2WL
of wire coiled into an inductance. Ideally, that makes the phase of the
current the same on both sides of the coil instead of opposite as it
would be if the coil was not there.

Tom, do you understand self-resonance? The coil between the two half-wave
elements must be self-resonant at the frequency for which the elements
are 1/2WL. A 1/2WL stub performs that function perfectly according to
EZNEC. But there is *NO* value of inductive reactance in EZNEC that will
produce the same effect as that stub. Would you like a copy of those
EZNEC files? Would you like for me to post them on my web page?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:52:25 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

|Wes Stewart wrote:
|
| On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:00:38 -0600, Cecil Moore
| wrote:
|
| |Wes Stewart wrote:
| | Sorry, I've taken all of the jabs at this tarbaby that I care to. I
| | spent a lot of time preparing the paper that I published and it
| | "reflects reality" as I see it, until proven otherwise.
| |
| |What is the name of your paper, Wes? I don't remember you
| |mentioning it before. All I have seen from your postings is
| |.pdf files of the work of others.
|
| I began this thread with a pointer to:
| http://www.qsl.net/n7ws/Loaded%20antennas.htm
|
|A quick scan of your article produces nothing new.

Fine.

Then this thread is closed.

Wes Stewart wrote:

wrote:
|A quick scan of your article produces nothing new.

Fine. Then this thread is closed.

It would be nice to know what you think I have said
that you are arguing against. It is no surprise that
a current maximum point can be located inside a coil.
That's probably why W8JI got equal magnitudes of
currents at each end of his coil during one of his
experiments. Adjust your model until maximum current
occurs at the feedpoint and then take a look at the
currents in and out of the coil.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Cecil wrote,

Dan Richardson wrote:

wrote:
I haven't been paying attention.

Obviously

The original posting made no assertions and was simply a URL
which didn't respond when I tried to access it. The subsequent
postings seemed to be concerned with radiation resistance so I
didn't even read them. How does radiation resistance affect the
loading coil discussion? It has already been proven that EZNEC's
lumped circuit model doesn't work for Kraus' real world loading
coils. What else is there to say?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


A lot. Besides, it hasn't been proven, at least not by you, that
Kraus' loading coils work the way you seem to think they do.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Cecil wrote,

Wes Stewart wrote:

wrote:
|A quick scan of your article produces nothing new.

Fine. Then this thread is closed.

It would be nice to know what you think I have said
that you are arguing against. It is no surprise that
a current maximum point can be located inside a coil.
That's probably why W8JI got equal magnitudes of
currents at each end of his coil during one of his
experiments. Adjust your model until maximum current
occurs at the feedpoint and then take a look at the
currents in and out of the coil.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP


I don't think anyone is going to fall for your attempt to make
another 500 post rant, Cecil. Adjust the model yourself,
if you think that's what it will show, and put the results on
your website.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

What the whole damn lot of you have forgotten is the electromagnetic
coupling which occurs between the antenna wire sections on either side of
the phasing coils, especially when the adjacent wire sections are supposed
to be in anti-phase with each other.

Cecil wrote,

According to Kraus, his phase-reversing coil can be thought of as 1/2WL
of wire coiled into an inductance. Ideally, that makes the phase of the
current the same on both sides of the coil instead of opposite as it
would be if the coil was not there.

Tom, do you understand self-resonance? The coil between the two half-wave
elements must be self-resonant at the frequency for which the elements
are 1/2WL. A 1/2WL stub performs that function perfectly according to
EZNEC. But there is *NO* value of inductive reactance in EZNEC that will
produce the same effect as that stub. Would you like a copy of those
EZNEC files? Would you like for me to post them on my web page?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP


If Kraus really believes that, he's as ignorant as you are. A stub is
not the same as a lumped-component tank circuit. Do the math.
By the way, Cecil, I'm surprised at you. Have you tried *EVERY*
value of inductive reactance in EZNEC? I suspect, though, that the
reason there is no value of inductive reactance that will do what a
stub does at the frequency of interest is that it's impossible due to
the principle of conservation of charge. If you can figure out why I
think that is true, then you get a star by your name.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

(PS Take your antenna, with its coil, apart, measure the resonant
frequency of each part, and get back to us with your results.)

Tdonaly wrote:
Besides, it hasn't been proven, at least not by you, that
Kraus' loading coils work the way you seem to think they do.

Kraus' phase-reversing coils work the way he says they do.
A high impedance trap blocks current if it is looking into
a low impedance because it is a high impedance. But if it
is looking into a high impedance, like a 1/2WL element, it
simply reverses the phase of the current, like a quarter-wave
shorted series stub. Would you like me to send you the EZNEC
files that demonstrate the phase reversal using stubs or
multiple sources?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Tdonaly wrote:
Adjust the model yourself,
if you think that's what it will show, and put the results on
your website.

Unfortunately, I don't have the modeling software that Wes
is using. And I have already demonstrated the effect using
inductive loading stubs modeled with EZNEC.

Reg has already said that real-world coils with Ls, Cs, & Rs,
can be treated as transmission lines. Rhea's paper on a new
solenoid model agrees with Reg. Have you ever seen a transmission
line less than 1/2WL long where the current-in is equal to the
current-out when there are standing waves present? Even in a
transmission line without reflections, the current-in is never
equal to the current-out in magnitude and phase except for
lossless lines at the N*wavelength points.

Most of this stuff is common sense for anyone who thinks that
reality should dictate the model, not vice versa. Einstein once
said that all our models are flawed.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP