Tom Donaly wrote:
You were wrong. Now you've changed the subject to
a half wave dipole, attributing to Roy a position he would never take.

On the contrary, Roy described his procedure in detail. I
then applied Roy's exact procedure to a 1/2WL dipole to see
if the procedure is valid for finding the delay through a
straight wire. Just as I suspected, the change in the phase
of the current is mostly unrelated to the number of degrees
in the antenna wire. Therefore, Roy's procedure is invalid and
cannot be used to measure the delay through a loading coil.

He made very accurate, very meaningless measurements - as did
w8ji. The primary current on a monopole, loaded or not, is of
the form I = Imax*cos(kx)*cos(wt). The amplitude is solely
a function of kx. The phase is solely a function of wt.
At any instant of time, the phase is the same all up and down
the wire including through the loading coil. Roy once verified
that is what EZNEC reports.

So the question remains: How did Roy use the current on a
standing-wave antenna, which doesn't change phase relative to
any other point on the entire antenna, to calculate the delay
through a loading coil or through a wire? The phase at the
bottom of the coil and the phase at the top of the coil are
always the same no matter what the delay through the coil.
Those phases are the same as the feedpoint phase and the phase
close to the tip top of the antenna within a very few degrees.

That's an old, stupid trick a woman might use in a domestic argument,
but it won't work here. I know you have a pathological need to
win every argument (you ought to talk that over with your analyst) but
that's no reason anyone should waste time agreeing with you.

Hurling ad hominem attacks will not help you in a technical
argument, Tom. Please use electronic theory and mathematics
to prove me wrong.

Will Rogers said, "Be sure you are right and then go on ahead."
I'm sure I am right.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com