On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:19:21 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

This is a misapplication of transmission line formulas. The "C" in those
formulas is the shunt capacitance per unit length between the
conductors, not a series or longitudinal capacitance as used here. In
order to use the transmission line formulas, you have to have a second
conductor and determine the C per unit length between the two
conductors. Otherwise, you (or Cecil) have to come up with some other
equations. Some of the more picky of us readers will of course then ask
for the source and/or derivation of those other equations.

Hi Roy,

Well, it (the misapplication) certainly is that. That no two numbers
agree to the same problem misses more compelling evidence that hardly
demands strict accuracy in results obtained from any formula.

In short, no "other" equations are going to prove what cannot be
generally demonstrated.

Barring startling results demonstrating how either of the two coils
offered here in evidence reveal multiple resonances, that is enough to
kill the thread without needing tedious computations.¹

Another is the howler that this is all based upon the "coil's
characteristics," and Cecileo proved the Sun orbits the moon by
employing the bed of his truck in the exact solution.² This is called
new-age math with an harmonic convergence. It was convenient of all
his reference sources to include this truck factor as a hidden
variable - accessible to only those who know the secret handshake.

Just kidding, of course.

In fact, the authors tread very lightly in the context of a ground,
mentioning it only once as a necessity for
"characterizing the impedance of a structure
at a pair of terminals" [your point]

When the speculation is that the coil presents a 1:1 replacement for
the delay of the "missing" segment of the resonant antenna, then this
premise stumbles at the starting blocks. If I shorten the whip, then
the shorthand of:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:45:06 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
The velocity factor can also be measured from the self-
resonant frequency at 1/4WL. VF = 0.25(1/f)
offers this promise:
Make a smaller inductance (reducing turns will do)
to present a higher self-resonant frequency.

VF will fall.

From this, the delay climbs
to replace the shortened whip's missing angular contribution.

The reductio-ad-absurdum is that we repeat the trimming of the whip
until the inductance disappears.³ Ironically this leaves us with a
very short mast that now resonates! If we closed our eyes really,
really hard, and wished for a coil with a very high self resonance, it
could replace the mast too.

I see new marketing possibilities for 80 and 160 Meters.

¹ ² ³ Let's see, without any deep computations I count three thread
busters here. Offering the same proviso of probable computation
errors committed here, I would point out that only one thread buster
need survive to present the obvious fate to this theory.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC