"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"Mrs.Nugatory's, The Minimum's, G3VKI's, M3OSN's and Mick Hunter's
Obsession" wrote in message ...
This discussion is about the comments.....
" Conversely, the (wanted) signal
currents (on the outside of the inner and inside of the outer) cancel
out
the magnetic fields they form in the coil and thus don't see it as an
inductor."
.....which discuss non-existent fields.
The containment of the wanted fields within the coaxial cable is another,
different,
discussion.
So you don't have a better explanation, fair enough why didn't you just
say so?
Until you come up with something better, mine seems to be the one in game.
Once again Chippenham is a Foot in Mouth, technical knowledge exclusion
zone..................

So, you are unable to explain your assertion and resort to rather silly and
infantile
interjections in a forlorn attempt to divert attention?

You said the following.....
" Conversely, the (wanted) signal
currents (on the outside of the inner and inside of the outer) cancel out
the magnetic fields they form in the coil and thus don't see it as an
inductor."
.....which discusses non-existent fields.

Unless you now justify your own remarks you will lose face.

No amount of bluster, spin-doctoring, side-stepping, bull****ting and
downright lying
from you will hide the fact that you are losing face.

I will be more than happy to reply with an explanation once you offer a
first explanation
of yours of your assertion quoted above. You made an assertion, I replied
with an assertion.
You want an explanation from me, you start with your own explanation

Over to you.....

(The clock is ticking, your face is reddening)