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

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

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

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:59:47 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

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.

Hi Tom,

If the mood strikes me, I will see how much effort it takes to blow
away his "efficient" antenna. Seeing how he has no answers for its
construction, I can easily impose my own choices like an high E piano
string radiator mid loaded with a squirrel cage over a radial field of
rusting springs from a burnt-out mattress. There should be room for
improvement over that using a coat hanger with distributed loads of
barn nails over the roof of a 1948 Hudson.

Hi Dave,

You never answered:
"What's your point?"
but are you having fun with loading yet?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:

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?

That's interesting. It means we don't need to use
NEC any more.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Tom,

If the mood strikes me, I will see how much effort it takes to blow
away his "efficient" antenna. Seeing how he has no answers for its
construction, I can easily impose my own choices like an high E piano
string radiator mid loaded with a squirrel cage over a radial field of
rusting springs from a burnt-out mattress. There should be room for
improvement over that using a coat hanger with distributed loads of
barn nails over the roof of a 1948 Hudson.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I would prefer a radiator made from half inch PVC filled with a dilute
sodium chloride solution. If you put a valve at the bottom, it's a snap
to adjust resonance.

tom
K0TAR