Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Hi Dan,

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:23:49 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

The "delayed" current travels through the 53 foot coil from end to end in
1.615m/3*10E8 m/s = 5.4 nsec just as it would a straight 53 foot wire.

Agree?

Not particularly.

The current is
merely delayed by the length of the coil which is 5.4 nsec. The phase of the
current in the standing wave has no relationship the the lag of a traveling
sinusoidal wave.

Agree?

Not particularly.

If you agree with both of the above, then you will agree that Cecil is
right.

And this last statement is so disconnected from those that introduce
it as to create a real paradox. You might want to review Cecil's math
(yes, I know, it hardly is worth the effort) to ask yourself how you
two come to different solutions and yet you both agree.

My agreeing is hardly of consequence, and I don't see it as
validating/invalidating the complete discussion of the technical
issue. Throwing math at a problem whose premise is so obviously
faulted (revealed through rather simpler means) is like using Quantum
Mechanics to balance your checkbook. The results may seem compelling,
but it really takes much less effort that is far more satisfying and
isn't nearly so open to a raft of unstated issues (expressed by Jim in
practical measurement considerations, and observed by Gene as
omissions in W8JI's system description).

To put it bluntly, it isn't a math problem.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

"AI4QJ" wrote in
:


"Owen Duffy" wrote in message
...
"AI4QJ" wrote in
:

...

Calculates DC resistance of wi

Now, 18 AWG wire is .00751 Ohms/foot. At 53 feet,

R(L) = 0.398 Ohms


And proceeds to use DC resistance of wire to analyse performance at
RF:

Phase angle: tan(theta) = 3600/0.398 = 9045

What is the skin depth of 18AWG wire at 4 Mhz? How does that affect
resitance? Quadruple? Even if, how does that affect arctan(theta)?
Answer: gauranteed to easily round up to 90 degrees.

It does appear that you knew the outcome you wanted, you expected the
phase angle to be close to 90°, but instead of being honest that it was
an assumption, you used an incorrect development and then say it doesn't
matter anyway.

Not an unfamiliar technique!

Owen

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 02:21:08 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

The phase is changed, resulting in 62.5 nsec delay with respect to
voltage but the current and voltage both travel at approx. c. This cannot be
changed. It is basic physics and I agree, it is not a "real" math problem,
just fundamental common knowledge. Furthermore, the standing wave is created
by reflections. In this case, fields generated by lentz's law are
effectively cancelled out so the delay is not longer present. The value of
62.5nsec is in the same order of magnitude as Cecil's values and it is
common to arrive at the same result using different means; they tend to
confirm that each is correct (like checking a proof as in QED).

Hi Dan,

As to Quod Erat Demonstrandum, I seriously doubt you two are
demonstrandum the same thing.

You haven't been following the argument so much as the math - they are
not the same thing.

This is not a math problem.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Dec 1, 12:23 am, "AI4QJ" wrote:
The "delayed" current travels through the 53 foot coil from end to end in
1.615m/3*10E8 m/s = 5.4 nsec just as it would a straight 53 foot wire.

Agree?

53 feet is 16.15 m (not 1.615) so light (in a vacuum) takes about 54
nsec
to travel 53 feet.

Does that alter any of you conclusions?

....Keith

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

AI4QJ wrote:

It is straightforward.


just fundamental common knowledge.


it is common to arrive at the same result using different means; they tend to
confirm that each is correct (like checking a proof as in QED).


Are you new around here???

Debates over common, straightforward, fundamental items are the
lifeblood for most of the endless threads on RRAA.

8-)


73,
Gene
W4SZ

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 03:59:39 -0800 (PST), Keith Dysart
wrote:

On Dec 1, 12:23 am, "AI4QJ" wrote:
The "delayed" current travels through the 53 foot coil from end to end in
1.615m/3*10E8 m/s = 5.4 nsec just as it would a straight 53 foot wire.

Agree?

53 feet is 16.15 m (not 1.615) so light (in a vacuum) takes about 54
nsec
to travel 53 feet.

Does that alter any of you conclusions?

Hi Keith.

Good eye. I had come to your corrected solution independently long
ago, but when asked if I agreed to a flood of operations when the
concept is so easily proven wrong, I didn't want to search for the
trivial error.

Another reason why I refuse to affirm "Do you agree" appeals is found
in Dan's chain of argument that uses the wrong solution as proof that
it supports Cecil's conclusion (which, on the face of it was
distinctly at odds).

This isn't a math problem (although it certainly has demonstrated math
errors). Math has been used as a blind for a bankrupt premise.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On 1 Dec, 07:02, Gene Fuller wrote:
AI4QJ wrote:
It is straightforward.
just fundamental common knowledge.
it is common to arrive at the same result using different means; they tend to
confirm that each is correct (like checking a proof as in QED).

Are you new around here???

Debates over common, straightforward, fundamental items are the
lifeblood for most of the endless threads on RRAA.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene'
Who ever he is he is a breath of fresh air amoung the
pseudo experts that we have here. My hope is that he
stays around longer than Dr Davis did in the face of
incessant hand waving, stone throwing and without substance.
Those who perceive them selves as experts and are now
reduced to stammering nonsence when challenged to move
away from just stringing words together and to provide
something of substance with respect to the debate
As yet there has been nothing presented to refute the
mathematical explanation provided that supports Cecil's
position.Thus a lot of people will have to take new
positions at some distance from the salt on the table
to make room for Dan and Cecil to move closer .
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG (uk)

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:16:52 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

My hope is that he
stays around longer than Dr Davis did in the face of
incessant hand waving, stone throwing and without substance.

Hi Art,

Your selective memory is in overdrive with this posting, you have
conveniently forgotten the contention of his embarrassing error in
misattribution. What you write following, similarly reveals errors
your mind's sieve fails to sift out.

Let's put two firmly held (and "mathematically proven") beliefs
together:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:29:31 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote:
I am suspicious of anyone's motives who says he believes in
an impossible 3 nS delay through a huge loading coil
and
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:23:49 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
The "delayed" current travels through the 53 foot coil from end to end in
1.615m/3*10E8 m/s = 5.4 nsec

This is the supportive evidence YOU explicitly accept!

As yet there has been nothing presented to refute the
mathematical explanation provided that supports Cecil's
position.

Oh for shame Arthur! You don't actually read content, but clearly
your mantra is the "enemy of my foe is my ally." This philosophical
bedwarming should have you wondering who gets to be on top.

Dan's math refutes Cecil's. The comedy is that even though they have
independently made different errors, come to separate and different
solutions with nearly identical conclusions, they both "prove" the
same thing mathemagically. You, on the other hand, manage to do the
math wrong two different ways to prove things too! So in that sense
they are kindred spirits, unfortunately, in a nest of three, two would
roll the third out as soon as momma left for more worms.

This is not a math problem.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On 1 Dec, 08:57, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:16:52 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

My hope is that he
stays around longer than Dr Davis did in the face of
incessant hand waving, stone throwing and without substance.

Hi Art,

Your selective memory is in overdrive with this posting, you have
conveniently forgotten the contention of his embarrassing error in
misattribution. What you write following, similarly reveals errors
your mind's sieve fails to sift out.

Let's put two firmly held (and "mathematically proven") beliefs
together:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:29:31 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote:
I am suspicious of anyone's motives who says he believes in
an impossible 3 nS delay through a huge loading coil
and
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:23:49 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
The "delayed" current travels through the 53 foot coil from end to end in
1.615m/3*10E8 m/s = 5.4 nsec

This is the supportive evidence YOU explicitly accept!

As yet there has been nothing presented to refute the
mathematical explanation provided that supports Cecil's
position.

Oh for shame Arthur! You don't actually read content, but clearly
your mantra is the "enemy of my foe is my ally." This philosophical
bedwarming should have you wondering who gets to be on top.

Dan's math refutes Cecil's. The comedy is that even though they have
independently made different errors, come to separate and different
solutions with nearly identical conclusions, they both "prove" the
same thing mathemagically. You, on the other hand, manage to do the
math wrong two different ways to prove things too! So in that sense
they are kindred spirits, unfortunately, in a nest of three, two would
roll the third out as soon as momma left for more worms.

This is not a math problem.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

O.k.Now you have that off your chest the way is clear for you to point
out the errors and what is needed to correct them.It is substance
that the group craves for in this debate and you are just unravelling
in the corner to justify a reason for you to be involved tho having
nothing to offer. For goodness sake, respond to Dan and stop talking
about three men in a bed which apparently tittilates your imagination.

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:51:39 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

O.k.Now you have that off your chest the way is clear for you to point
out the errors and what is needed to correct them.

Hi Arthur,

If you read postings, you would have seen that several times.

For goodness sake, respond to Dan

You wouldn't know his name if I hadn't already responded many times!
Please, do pay attention. ;-)

Your weak appeal reminds me of a moment in "How Green Was My Valley"
(one of those stories set in that land you left and written by a
nemesis Richard Llewellyn) where Cyfartha urges Dai Bando into a
fight, but doesn't want to risk a punch to his own nose:
"Tis a coward I am. But I will hold your coat."

There is a lesson to be had from Dai Bando concerning a schoolmaster
whipping poor Huw, not for being stupid, but for Huw being poor and
daring to seek education. Dai Bando confronts the schoolmaster:

Dai Bando: "How would you go about taking the measurement of a stick?"

Mr. Jonas: "Why, by its length."

Dai Bando: "And how would you measure a man who would use a stick on a
boy one-third his size? Now, you are good in the use of a stick, but
boxing is my subject, according to the rules laid down by the good
Marques of Queensberry... And happy I am to pass on my knowledge to
you. "

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC