wrote:
I took the time to carefully outline what Roy's measurements and mine
would be significantly more reliable, and I see you disregarded that
also.

You demanded that I defend my measurements so I removed them
as evidence. Now I am requesting that you defend the use of a
signal without phase to measure phase through a coil. That's
a very simple request. If one refuses such a simple request
to defend one's methods, what is one to think?

I gave up on my measurements rather than defend them. If you
don't defend yours, are you automatically giving up on them?
If no, one might then wonder why you require me to defend my
measurements while you refuse to defend yours.

Gene says standing wave current doesn't carry any phase
information. I concur. Roy says EZNEC agrees with my possibly
flawed measurements. I concur. Since EZNEC disagrees with your
conclusions about your measurements, and agrees with my conclusion
about your measurements, could your conclusions possibly be
flawed? I'm sure many readers would be interested in a
detailed explanation of exactly how to use a signal with
unchanging phase to measure the phase shift through a coil.
I certainly would be more interested in that explanation
than a boring tutorial on measurement techniques. Heck, even
the IEEE would be interested in such a unique technique and
it might even be patentable.

You could start by explaining the center graphic in the following:

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/3freq.gif

One can't help but notice your absolute silence on that subject.

I'm very disappointed in your reaction to the effort I made to help you
understand measurement techniques.

humor Reminds me of a T-shirt I saw. It read, "I'm from the
government. I'm here 'to help you'." /humor

Logical diversions are very transparent - they even have names.
That one is called "diverting the issue". The issue is not my
measurements since I have withdrawn them as evidence. Seems
that automatically makes your measurements the subject of the
discussion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp