wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
But you have already started what I am asking, Tom. You
measured a voltage phase shift of 60 degrees through a
100uH coil at 1 MHz. The current is known to lag the voltage
through a coil so the current phase delay is more than 60
degrees. I wouldn't be surprised to see it at 120+ degree
lag in the current. So your own experiment proves you are
wrong. How do you get away with such behavior without
anyone noticing?.

The only thing worth noticing is you are misrepresenting facts.

I measured current with a small current transformer, and current at
each end of the inductance was, as close as my two-channel vector
voltmeter will resolve, equal in phase and equal in level.

Here are your words cut and pasted from qrz.com.

"By the way, I swept S12 phase with my network analyzer on a
100uH inductor a few hours ago while working on a phasing
system. The phase shift through that series inductor was about
-60 or -70 degrees on 1 MHz, ...

S12 is a voltage parameter. So did the coil show a "-60 or
-70 degrees" voltage phase shift or not? Where does it say
anything about "current with a small current transformer"
in your posting? Last time I looked, a 100uH inductor was
not a small current transformer. I assumed a current
phase shift at first and you jumped on me about that. Now
you say it was a current phase shift after all. If you want
to be quoted correctly, you need to stop fibbing.

Here's what I think happened in context. You were trying to
prove Kraus wrong with his assertion that a 180 degree
phasing coil can be thought of as 1/2WL of wire wound
into a coil. You failed to realize that your posting was
supporting my other point about phase shifts through coils.
So you accidentally posted results that supported my side
of the argument. Your lumped-circuit model predicts zero
phase shift. My distributed network model predicts considerable
phase shift. Your experiment yielded considerable phase shift
and now you seek to deny it. However, it is there in all
its glory on qrz.com for all to see. So feel free to deny it.

The only thing worth noticing is you are misrepresenting facts.

I never misrepresent facts as I understand them to exist. The
fact that you absolutely refuse to engage me in a technical
discussion speaks volumes. If I were wrong, you would simply
engage me and prove me wrong with a technical argument as you
have so many others. But If I am right, I fully understand your
reluctance to engage me in a technical discussion.

You can start the technical discussion by explaining the
EZNEC results on my web page:

http://www.qsl.net/qrzgif35.gif

Why are all you gurus so reluctant to discuss that topic?
I have asked you guys to respond to that graphic at least
half a dozen times and got only one weak reply. Why the
silence?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp