Cecil Moore wrote:
John Popelish wrote:

I also note that the opening statement:

"For closewound coils, with length to diameter ratios around 5:1, a
series of fairly careful measurements have been made with the coils
arranged vertically above a ground plane, fed at the base, with a
capacitive load on the other end, and the driving frequency arranged
to be at the resonant frequency of the whole assembly."

This definitely specifies only a single frequency for the test.


Yes, a 75m mobile base-loaded antenna is a single frequency
antenna. Why are you surprised? Those guys have figured out
something that I haven't, probably because they have better
tools at their disposal than I do. They seem to have a 1%
accurate model at frequencies other than the self-resonant
frequency. I, OTOH, am only sure of my accuracy at the
self-resonant frequency due to the limited tools at my
disposal.

So I don't see how this reference
supports your claim that measuring the delay at resonance tells you
the delay at other frequencies. It also contradicts your claim about
how a standing wave makes it difficult to measure the current delay
through the coil. What have I missed?


You missed the complete point, John.
(snip)

I don't think so. Your claim is that one can use a resonant condition
to find the current delay at that frequency, and then, assume that
that delay holds for all other, lower frequencies. I am skeptical
that this is the case for any device that is not inherently a constant
delay device. I think you are assuming your conclusion. You may be
right, but you can't prove it by assuming it. You have to demonstrate
it, (or find a reference where someone else does that) to be
persuasive. I am rooting for you, because this would be a handy
technique, but I am still skeptical that it is generally applicable.