Return-Path: Received: (qmail 51617 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2005 19:49:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore01.plus.net) (192.168.71.1) by ptb-mailstore03.plus.net with SMTP; 1 Mar 2005 19:49:20 -0000 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1D6DOG-000AM2-KY for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:50:48 +0000 Received: from [192.168.67.1] (helo=ptb-mxcore01.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1D6DO9-000AKC-8o for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:50:37 +0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1D6DOe-0002KB-CH for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:51:08 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1D6DMP-0003tq-Eg for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:48:49 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1D6DMN-0003sf-FL for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:48:47 +0000 Received: from mta203-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.146]) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D6DML-0001g7-4J for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:48:47 +0000 Received: from pop1-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.240]) by mta203-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20050301194830.IXFO21916.mta203-rme.xtra.co.nz@pop1-rme.xtra.co.nz> for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:48:30 +1300 Received: from quaycustomer ([210.86.83.14]) by pop1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20050301194830.EJZ7985.pop1-rme.xtra.co.nz@quaycustomer> for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:48:30 +1300 Message-ID: <004d01c51e98$ec121f00$c401a8c0@quaycustomer> From: "Vernall" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <6.1.0.6.2.20050301115700.03662eb0@mail.casema.nl> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:57:37 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: domain of xtra.co.nz designates 210.86.15.146 as permitted sender X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=failed,none Subject: LF: Re: Current "lost" in loading coil Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Dick PA0SE and others, I believe a good way to analyse why more current goes in the bottom of the coil than comes out the top is to resolve the current in to in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) components. RF ammeters or other sampling current meters display the resultant (R) current (which equals the square root of [I squared plus Q squared]). The I current eventually does some radiating (from the whole antenna system) and the Q current feeds the parasitic capacitance (and is a low loss even though it can not be eliminated). The actual mechanism is lots of small Q currents distributed up the coil, some between turns and some to the environment, so the above simplifies these currents to a single equivalent value of Q at the bottom of the coil. Using 10% as a difference between I and R currents, the Q current calculates as being some 46% of I or some 42% of R. The values are quite sensitive to the observed ratio of bottom to top resultant currents, and the value of Q is quite a significant current. What I'm not so sure about is how to tune in practice for best far field radiation from the antenna, and whether that condition gives a resistive input at the bottom end of the coil. If my above above suggestion is a valid way of working, then it would seem that a secondary matching network could be needed to cater for the Q current? 73, Bob ZL2CA > To All from PA0SE > > Several amateurs have found that the current at the bottom end of the > loading coil is higher than at the top (aerial side) of the coil. > In my station the difference is of the order of 10%. > > William, PA0WFO, has a large coil of 8 mH and a 23 m long wire as aerial. > He measures 1.5 A at the bottom of the coil en 0.6 A at the top. > My theory is that the "lost current" flows via the capacitance of the coil > to its surrounding (even a metal object in free space has capacitance). > > The current at the bottom of the bottom of the coil divides between the > capacitances of coil and aerial. > > I suggested to William he measure the capacitance of the coil and of the > aerial. For the coil he found 150 - 200 pF, depending upon the position of > the coil and for the aerial 210 pF. > But these values do not explain the large difference in current at bottom > and top of the coil. > > In a transmitting aerial the current increases going from the end of the > radiator towards the coil. > > Now to my question: does this increase in current also occur in the > winding of the coil? My feeling is that the current at the beginning and > end of a coil should be the same; apart from the current that flows via its > capacitance to the surrounding. > > I also have read that the coil should be considered as an aerial with a > length equal to the length of the coil. But on 2 km > that would be an extremely small aerial, reckoned in wavelength. So > radiation by the coil must be negligible. > > There are certainly experts on the reflector who know the answers. I > welcome their views. > > 73, Dick, PA0SE > > >