On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 09:02:46 +0100, "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

The source code text, which is almost readable using non-proportional
spaced text readers, can be found in "Download Pascal source code from
here" section on the Index page.

Hi Reggie,

A fine example of coding.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

wrote:
No one I have seen has every said one tuern can't get hotter than
another turn in a loading coil.

If the current is equal at both ends, how does one turn
possibly get hotter than another turn?

It's all been explained over and over again.

Repeating a wrong answer 1000 times doesn't make it right.
And that's exactly what you do.

If the termination impedance of the coil is very high compared to
shunting impedances inside the coil to the outside world, a coil can
have phase shift in current at each terminal and it can have uneven
current distribution.

This is not caused by standing waves or "electrical degrees" the coil
replaces, but rather by the displacement currents which can provide a
path for the through currents.

It is caused by where the coil is installed in the standing wave
environment, proved on my web page at:
http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm

That the proof is accurate explains why you refuse to discuss the
technical facts surrounding it.

The problem is Cecil attributes it all to standing waves, and not to
the inductor's design.

Given the fixed design of a single inductor example, I can change
which end the current is highest by simply placing in in the proper
place in the standing wave environment, the environment that you
refuse to discuss.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
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.

That's just not true, Ian. If the distributed network model agrees
with the lumped circuit model, then the lumped circuit model is
being used in an appropriate situation. If the distributed network
model disagrees with the lumped circuit model, then the lumped
circuit model is being used in an inappropriate situation. The
distributed network model is always right when it disagrees with
the lumped circuit model. The distributed network model is a
*superset* of the lumped circuit model. To quote Dr. Corum:

"Distributed theory encompasses lumped circuits and always applies."

And before you dismiss Dr. Corum as a "crackpot", as others have,
please pay attention to the references for his peer-reviewed
paper published by the IEEE: Kraus, Terman, Ryder, Ramo & Whinnery,
Born & Wolf.

The problem is that the lumped circuit model is being used in
inappropriate situations because you and others do not understand
how standing wave current in standing wave antennas differs from
traveling wave current in traveling wave antennas. To compound
the error, none of you are willing to discuss it from a technical
standpoint. That unwillingness reeks of religion, not science.

Someone we both know and respect wonders why you are so closed
minded. I suggested he contact you by email.

If you, or anyone else, were willing to discuss the nature of
standing waves from a technical standpoint, most of the present
argument would be resolved by that discussion. I'm willing to
discuss it. Why aren't you?

It is entirely possible that I am abusing the distributed network
model, but nobody will be able to prove it unless they engage in
a discussion of standing waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Hecht forgot to put the phase difference in his formula.
It's no wonder there's no phase information in your
standing waves, Cecil, Hecht left it out.


You are mistaken. If Hecht left it out then so did Gene Fuller.
I suggest you listen to Gene when he says: Regarding the
cos(kz)*cos(wt) terms in the standing wave equation:

Gene Fuller, W4SZ wrote:

In a standing wave antenna problem, such as the one you describe,
there is no remaining phase information. Any specific phase
characteristics of the traveling waves died out when the startup
transients died out.

Phase is gone. Kaput. Vanished. Cannot be recovered. Never to be seen
again.

The only "phase" remaining is the cos (kz) term, which is really an
amplitude description, not a phase.


Not only
that, but where did he get the idea that it was sin(kx) instead
of cos(kx). I understand Hecht is a good old boy, but I'd like to
see his derivations.


Apparently, you are ignorant of the difference in conventions between
optics and RF engineering. In optics, there is no current so there is
no current changing phase at an open circuit. In optics, the M-field
changes directions but not phase. In RF engineering, a change in
direction of the H-field is considered to be a 180 degree phase shift.
Both conventions are correct as long as one understands them. Your
strange statement about Hecht above just proves your ignorance.

Whatever. I'd still like to see his derivations. In your case,
you're using the wrong equation anyway. What you really want is
Beta*l, or the radian length of your transmission line. You can
get that if you know, or can measure the usual parameters in the
transmission line impedance equation, using that equation to solve
for Beta*l. That won't prove your theory because you still haven't
shown that any one transmission line model is unique in terms of
substituting for your coil, but at least it'll give you something
to do.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

wrote in message
oups.com...

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
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.

Yuri,

No one I have seen has every said one tuern can't get hotter than
another turn in a loading coil.

For example, I can take a piece of airdux and short a single turn
anywhere in the coil. That turn and the turns around it will get very
hot, often even melting the form and discoloring the wire, even with
modest power applied in a resoant circuit.

I had my 75 watt Novice rig melt miniductor in certain spots way back
in the very early 60's.


Stop right here. We are talking about perfectly good coil (Hustler 80m
resonator) no shorts between the turns, ne end effect shorting out turns
(and if so, then both ends are the same). Perfectly good coil, with wire
insulation intact, uniformly wound, uniform wire diameter (constant
resistance) good insulation, until wire gets red hot, and covered with what
appears to be heat shrink tubing.
When I applied about 600W to it, the coil obviously started to overhead,
with obvious tapered patter of heat distribution (no shorted turn culprit)
with most intense on the bottom, slowly tapering towrds the top. No signs of
similar "melting" at the top (to blame "shorted" turn from the top cap), nor
anywhere in the middle to indicate shorted turn.
If you do not believe that this could happen, than say so and I will provide
the evidence, I will melt another coil. If you believe and can relate some
of your melting to mirror this case, than please explain what else can cause
this besides the current being SIGNIFICANTLY higher at the bottom than at
the top.
What I know from the thermodynamics, that heat rises to the top. If the
current was (almost) equal, then the coil would be heating up and starting
to melt uniformly, with actually more pronounced effect at the top, due to
the rising and adding heat from the lower part of the coil (no upside Buick
here).
So lets talk specifics of the argument and not detours, please!


The problem is wild theories are created from small grains of truth or
factoids. It is the wild theories that people question.

I question reality that I experienced, claims to the contrary ("it can't
be") and theories rode in support of pro and con.

In an effort to support the wild claims, there seems to be an effort to
dismiss anything but the wild theories. Here is how it goes:
1.) My Hustler antenna loading coil (known to be a poor electrical
design) melted the heatshrink at the bottom

Maybe poor electrical design, but perfectly sound coil, with uniform
insulated wire, wound on perfect cylinder. It was Hustler coil with its
physical properties and heatshrink tubing over the turns that magnified the
effect and attracted my attention.

2.) This must be becuase there is only high current at the bottom of
every loading coil.


I will disregard the rest of your post as a irrelevant crap, typical of your
prior riding in on a high horse, ridiculing and pontificating. If you can
stay on the technical side of the discussion we will continue, if you can't,
then play the "guru" and we are all "stay stoooopid"!

Yuri

3.) This must be because the standing waves on the antenna all wind up
in the loading coil.

4.) This must mean all loading coils act just like they are the x
degrees of antenna they replace.

5.) This is why, no matter what we do with loading coil Q, efficiency
doesn't change much.

6.) We will write a IEEE paper about this astounding fact, since all
the texbooks about loading coils or inductors in general must be wrong

7.) Anyone who point out it is imperfections in the design of the
system that cause this must be wrong, since I saw the coil get hot

8.) Anyone who disagrees with me must think himself a guru, and be
incapable of learning or understanding how things work

9.) I know all this because the bottom of the coil gets hot in my
antenna

What's next? There is less current in a wire (coil) where wire (coil)
gets
hotter?
Thermometers don't lie, meters don't lie, even EZNEC shows it! So
wasaaaaap?

It's all been explained over and over again.

If the termination impedance of the coil is very high compared to
shunting impedances inside the coil to the outside world, a coil can
have phase shift in current at each terminal and it can have uneven
current distribution.

This is not caused by standing waves or "electrical degrees" the coil
replaces, but rather by the displacement currents which can provide a
path for the through currents.

Reg actually explained this very well, as has Roy, Tom D, Gene, Tom
ITM, Ian, and a half dozen others.

The reason you keep beating your head against the wall is you want to
think the conclusions you formed were correct.

If I wanted to design a loading coil that has virtually 100% current
taper, I could. If I wanted to design one with virtually no taper, I
could. I could actually have an antenna of a fixed height and by making
various styles of loading coils go anywhere from nearly uniform
distribution at each end of the coil to some significant taper.

The problem is Cecil attributes it all to standing waves, and not to
the inductor's design. You seem to be doing the same.

Since we won't agree with your wrong theories, you then conclude we are
saying step one is wrong and you never saw what you saw. Step one is
fine. Step two is where everything you say falls apart.

73 Tom

"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

Tom Donaly wrote:
Whatever. I'd still like to see his derivations.

"Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition, page 289.

The intensity of a light beam is associated with the E-field
so Hecht's equations are in relation to the E-field.

Speaking of the light standing wave: "The composite
disturbance is then:

E = Eo[sin(kt+wt) + sin(kt-wt)]

Applying the indentity

sin A + sin B = 2 sin 1/2(A+B)*cos 1/2(A-B)

E(x,t) = 2*Eo*sin(kx)*cos(wt)"

Hecht says the standing wave "profile does not move through
space".

I have said the RF standing wave current profile does not move
through a wire.

Hecht says the standing wave phasor "doesn't rotate at all,
and the resultant wave it represents doesn't progress through
space - it's a standing wave."

I have said the same thing about the RF standing wave current
phasor.

Hecht says the standing wave transfers zero net energy. I have
said the same thing about RF standing waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 12:07:38 -0400, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote:

Thermometers don't lie, meters don't lie, even EZNEC shows it! So
wasaaaaap?

Hi Yuri,

That's a good question. The last you had to say, two years ago, was
you were waiting for the snow to melt to provide a better measure.

It must have been a particularly long and cold winter these two years.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

No, but I got cut off the NG by AOL's dropping NGs and therefore lost touch
with the severity of the problem. Also got too busy with real life, which I
considered more important and didn't even dream that this still would be the
problem.
I though that some of the unbelievers would by now done it, saw it, realized
they were wrong and confessed. Apparently not. So I am glad to be still
around and will try to either get educated or contribute to setting the
record straight and correct the fallacies that are out there.
Sooo, nobody would try to do the experiment and SEE it, but rather keep
chasing the gay electron phasors charged with Kirchoffs through three way
intersections and blame Bush for it?

Yuri, K3BU.us

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

That's just not true, Ian. If the distributed network model agrees
with the lumped circuit model, then the lumped circuit model is
being used in an appropriate situation. If the distributed network
model disagrees with the lumped circuit model, then the lumped
circuit model is being used in an inappropriate situation. The
distributed network model is always right when it disagrees with
the lumped circuit model. The distributed network model is a
*superset* of the lumped circuit model. To quote Dr. Corum:

"Distributed theory encompasses lumped circuits and always applies."

And before you dismiss Dr. Corum as a "crackpot", as others have,

I don't intend to - that quotation is perfectly correct. It means that
in a test-case situation where the lumped model *does* apply, the
distributed model will give EXACTLY the same results.

This is the test case that I'm trying to make you apply, to check that
with a lumped-inductance load, your antenna theory predicts the correct
behaviour, namely no phase shift in the current through a lumped
inductance.

There's no problem with the distributed circuit model. There's no
problem with the lumped circuit model as a subset of that. All the
problems are with your incorrect application of those models.

The underlying problem is that you don't see the difference.


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek