On May 14, 7:44 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
In order to get a valid measurement of the delay
through a coil, the coil needs to be loaded with
its characteristic impedance to minimize the
reflected current.

What if a 3' long stainless steel whip is loading the coil?

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
On May 14, 7:44 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
In order to get a valid measurement of the delay
through a coil, the coil needs to be loaded with
its characteristic impedance to minimize the
reflected current.

What if a 3' long stainless steel whip is loading the coil?

That makes the antenna a standing wave antenna. Here
are the characteristics of standing waves vs traveling
waves for 1/4WL of wire. The phase of standing wave
current is useless for phase measurements because it
it fixed very close to zero degrees over the entire
antenna.

http://www.w5dxp.com/travstnd.gif

Standing wave current has a negligible phase shift in
the coil or in the whip and therefore cannot be
used to measure the delay through a loading coil.
To the best of my knowledge, all attempted phase
measurements reported on this newsgroup, on current
through a loading coil have been made using standing
wave current with its fixed phase. No useful coil
delay information can come from such measurements.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On May 15, 5:42 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
On May 14, 7:44 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
In order to get a valid measurement of the delay
through a coil, the coil needs to be loaded with
its characteristic impedance to minimize the
reflected current.

What if a 3' long stainless steel whip is loading the coil?

That makes the antenna a standing wave antenna.

It makes it an antenna.

Standing wave current has a negligible phase shift in
the coil or in the whip and therefore cannot be
used to measure the delay through a loading coil.

The delay through the coil depends on inductance and capacitance.

To the best of my knowledge, all attempted phase
measurements reported on this newsgroup, on current
through a loading coil have been made using standing
wave current with its fixed phase. No useful coil
delay information can come from such measurements.

So your claim is that information about Bugcatcher coils with a load
resistor attached is more useful?

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
That makes the antenna a standing wave antenna.

It makes it an antenna.

Well, putting a load resistor on a coil is a lot like
a T2FD. :-) In fact, the way that a T2FD lowers the
50 ohm SWR is by reducing the reflections from that
load resistor.

Standing wave current has a negligible phase shift in
the coil or in the whip and therefore cannot be
used to measure the delay through a loading coil.

The delay through the coil depends on inductance and capacitance.

Yes, but the delay is not measurable using standing
wave current because standing wave current doesn't
change phase in a coil or in a wire. So far, all of
the phase measurements reported here have been using
standing wave current phase. Standing wave current
essentially doesn't change phase in a 1/4WL long
open-ended antenna.

To the best of my knowledge, all attempted phase
measurements reported on this newsgroup, on current
through a loading coil have been made using standing
wave current with its fixed phase. No useful coil
delay information can come from such measurements.

So your claim is that information about Bugcatcher coils with a load
resistor attached is more useful?

It is more useful for determining the delay through the
coil. If you were trying to measure the phase shift
through a 1/4WL stub, would you use the standing wave
current with its zero phase shift? Or would you terminate
the stub in its characteristic impedance and measure
the phase shift in the subsequent traveling wave?

Here are some recently generated graphics around which
I am going to put some words. Hopefully, they will
provide some stand alone information.

Given: http://www.w5dxp.com/openstus.GIF

How would you determine the phase shift at any point
in the open stub?

Given: http://www.w5dxp.com/openstus.GIF

How would you determine the phase shift at any point
in the terminated stub?

Note that the two stubs are identical except for one
being open and one being terminated so they have
identical traveling-wave phase shifts.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I made a posting with a mistake, canceled it, and
am reposting. If the earlier posting got through,
please ignore it.

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
That makes the antenna a standing wave antenna.

It makes it an antenna.

Well, putting a load resistor on a coil is a lot like
a T2FD. :-) In fact, the way that a T2FD lowers the
50 ohm SWR is by reducing the reflections from that
load resistor.

Standing wave current has a negligible phase shift in
the coil or in the whip and therefore cannot be
used to measure the delay through a loading coil.

The delay through the coil depends on inductance and capacitance.

Yes, but the delay is not measurable using standing
wave current because standing wave current doesn't
change phase in a coil or in a wire. So far, all of
the phase measurements reported here have been using
standing wave current phase. Standing wave current
essentially doesn't change phase in a 1/4WL long
open-ended antenna.

To the best of my knowledge, all attempted phase
measurements reported on this newsgroup, on current
through a loading coil have been made using standing
wave current with its fixed phase. No useful coil
delay information can come from such measurements.

So your claim is that information about Bugcatcher coils with a load
resistor attached is more useful?

It is more useful for determining the delay through the
coil. If you were trying to measure the phase shift
through a 1/4WL stub, would you use the standing wave
current with its zero phase shift? Or would you terminate
the stub in its characteristic impedance and measure
the phase shift in the subsequent traveling wave?

Here are some recently generated graphics around which
I am going to put some words. Hopefully, they will
provide some stand alone information.

Given: http://www.w5dxp.com/openstus.GIF

How would you determine the phase shift at any point
in the open stub?

Given: http://www.w5dxp.com/termstus.GIF

How would you determine the phase shift at any point
in the terminated stub?

Note that the two stubs are identical except for one
being open and one being terminated so they have
identical traveling-wave phase shifts.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil doesnt seem to worry about this error, but just saying it
doesn't actually mean anything without differences. What is different
about his claim and Wests'?

On May 13, 3:52 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 18:17:29 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Tedious Xerography snipped as being obviously unread by Xerographer.

Exactly what did I miss?

If you have to be taken by the hand to have it pointed out to you, you
shouldn't be doing these kind of things without adult supervision.

A

I have taken Wes's helical coil from:
http://www.k6mhe.com/n7ws/Loaded%20antennas.htm
B
and modeled it with EZNEC. ...
That coil512.EZ file can be downloaded from:

is distinctly false.

A B
Does a symbolic reply nail it down?

Cecil Moore wrote:
The delay through the coil depends on inductance and capacitance.

Yes, but the delay is not measurable using standing
wave current because standing wave current doesn't
change phase in a coil or in a wire.

But you aren't measuring it. The point is, it's calculable.

So your claim is that information about Bugcatcher coils with a load
resistor attached is more useful?

It is more useful for determining the delay through the
coil.

The fact that it doesn't give you an answer that agrees with any other
method notwithstanding.

If you were trying to measure the phase shift
through a 1/4WL stub, would you use the standing wave
current with its zero phase shift?

If I were trying to measure delay I would use pulses.

Or would you terminate
the stub in its characteristic impedance and measure
the phase shift in the subsequent traveling wave?

I would want the system to be configured in exactly the same way as I
intended for it to be used.

Given: http://www.w5dxp.com/openstus.GIF

How would you determine the phase shift at any point
in the open stub?

Given: http://www.w5dxp.com/termstus.GIF

How would you determine the phase shift at any point
in the terminated stub?

The phase shift of what, with respect to what?

ac6xg

wrote:
Cecil doesnt seem to worry about this error, but just saying it
doesn't actually mean anything without differences.

Don, I worry about any error but I don't know
what the error is and Richard C. won't tell me.
But that's just his style. Upon closer reading,
Wes's coil is closer to 7 inch diameter but
that doesn't make much difference.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Yes, but the delay is not measurable using standing
wave current because standing wave current doesn't
change phase in a coil or in a wire.

But you aren't measuring it. The point is, it's calculable.

But w8ji and w7el *are* measuring it and getting something
different from those calculations. They are reporting their
flawed measurements as technical fact. That's what the
whole argument is about. There is no way in heck to get a
3 nS delay out of a 100 turn, 10", 2" diameter coil.

It is more useful for determining the delay through the
coil.

The fact that it doesn't give you an answer that agrees with any other
method notwithstanding.

It means that the existing posted methods are invalid. And
that doesn't extend just to the side that asserts the
delay through the coil is close to zero. It also extends
to the other side who accepts the use of standing-wave
current as a valid measurement technique. *All* of the
measurements made using standing-wave current are bogus.

If I were trying to measure delay I would use pulses.

How do you know the pulsed delay is the same as the
steady-state delay? Has anyone published a delay using
pulses? I'm not saying a pulsed delay won't yield valid
results - I just don't know. If it is a DC pulse, there
would be known problems.

I would want the system to be configured in exactly the same way as I
intended for it to be used.

Then you will find it is impossible to measure the delay
through the coil during steady-state.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 15 May 2007 10:27:19 -0700, wrote:

Cecil doesnt seem to worry about this error, but just saying it
doesn't actually mean anything without differences. What is different
about his claim and Wests'?

Hi Herbert,

Yeah, I've noticed he's sloughed off your tough questions. The
differences are in the claim of having modeled Wes' helix, he did not,
it is a helix of Cecil's own invention. This is the problem of
leverage sources' credibility: use their name and discard their work
where it conflicts with your own. The differences (as I understand
your desire for actual data content) consist in the wrong pitch and
the wrong diameter. Aside from that, they are identical.

Now, how far can Cecil take a proof using this identity? All the way
within ±CSE (Cecil Standard Error, which as a numeric is 67%). The
world of theory is wide open when you cut yourself that much slack.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC