Gene Fuller wrote:

I know one should not respond to his own post, but I want to follow up
with one more thing.

As far as I can tell, W8JI did not do any math or other type of analysis
to come up with the 3 ns delay. There was some surrounding discussion,
but the delay itself was simply read from an instrument.

The 'number' is read from an instrument, but it isn't at all clear
what instrument is being read or what the number represents.

So let me repeat my earlier questions.

What went wrong? Why is that number incorrect?

I think we can assume the instrument is providing a correct indication
of something. But, given the documentation provided, it is not
possible to know whether it is a correct measurement of the
propagation delay of a device under test.

73, ac6xg