Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Not agreeing is NOT the same as disagreeing.

From Webster's: "dis - a primitive negative or
reversing force".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:05:51 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

My only purpose is to show my own work and confirm it agrees.

Hi Dan,

Well, it certainly stumbled off the blocks. Math errors are given to
providing poor support for something that already invites disaster for
simply being logically inconsistent.

My agreeing is hardly of consequence, and I don't see it as
validating/invalidating the complete discussion of the technical
issue.

But your DISagreement is of consequence. That is your own point.

Again this is confirmatory bias. You didn't ask what my point was. I
am perfectly capable of speaking/writing for myself, and I respond
readily when asked directly. I now point out for the third time,
embroidering statements as being my thoughts on a matter doesn't
really qualify.

A practical measurement that has current moving at 3*10E9m/sec, which on the
surface may seem reasonable until you realize it is 10 times the speed of
light.

Aside from the probability of another math error nested into the space
of the sentence above; it also presumes a lot of other, unstated
conditions that are arguable.

I say "probable" because you introduce with the indefinite "a
practical measurement." instead of the definite "the practical
measurement." We might presume this measurement (indefinite or
otherwise) alludes to one already performed, but even there there are
two contenders - neither of whom I trust to report it right because
they both generally fail to provide a complete system specification.
Your statement above, and others, suffers similarly.

That is my point and it does not resolve any issue put forth by either
camp. So What! It is not my dog in this fight.

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

All problems that are not emotional in nature are math problems. I chose not
to deal with this issue emotionally.

Your choice does not really illuminate the problem, and math merely
cloaks it with a veil of intellectual lace. First principles does not
demand a dozen lines of bookkeeping entry.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:28:06 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

On 1 Dec, 11:46, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:15:14 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
Even Richard the Guru agreed that this could not be true.

Hi Dan,

I did?

.................................................. .........................
Such is the seduction of confirmatory bias
over the explicit answer to .
an explicit question. I warned you about
overly elaborate questions. .

.
Imagine, many here wail over my exacting
answers demanding something .
shorter. The same crowd wails when I
comply! Clearly their grief is .
because either response plunges a stake
into the corpse of logic they .
have been trying to
revive. .
.................................................. ...........................

REMOVED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY.....NOT SURE
WHY THAT WAS INCLUDED

Not agreeing is NOT the same as disagreeing.

.................................................. ..............................

.
Does my status as Guru follow the ephemeral tide
of celebrity for .
supporting a cause? I could be called a fool
for the same reason. I .
willingly allow either to be attached to me (it
is a conceit of .
others, not mine; mine are far above that
ordinary rank). .

.
posters stay humble, even decimal point errors,
should they .
be so bold as to actually back up their
statements with "math" (a black art .
for
many) ;-) .

.
English is much more difficult than math. That
is why this is not a .
math problem. It isn't exactly an English
problem, but both language .
and math have been prostituted to serve a clumsy
argument with loading .
coils. Cecil is especially prone to tripping
over pebbles in the road .
and exclaiming they are intellectual
boulders. .

.
It is fun to watch, however. Tragedy viewed
from a distance is called .
comedy. Without it, lurkers would evaporate,
discussion would wither, .
and this group would flicker
out. .
.................................................. ..............................

REMOVED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY DON'T KNOW HOW
THAT GOT IN TO THIS DEBATE

Se Richard, two lines got the job done.Next time concentrate
on technical substance if you are aware of any

Hi Arthur,

You simply reposted my entire reply. Which two lines did you actually
read? (I won't comment on your sense of brevity.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

"AI4QJ" wrote in
:

Hi Owen,

First of all I said in the post that I was using EE101. Skin effect is
somewhere in EE201; it is not generally considered necessary to
consider RF skin effect when explaining fundamental principles. After

Tom reported the measured Q of the coil... you didn't need to calculate R
from first principles.

you brought it up I merely went on to illustrate that no matter what
worse case skin effect you could resonably think of, the phase angle

No, you guessed could it be twice, quadruple. A Max Smart approach,
"would you believe... ". Tom's measurements suggest over ten times.

Sure, even at ten times, it doesn't affect your result, but it does speak
to the rigour of your analysis.

will still be essentiall 90 degrees for all practical purposes. When
talking about the COIL (not a mobile antenna system at 4MHz), it was
important for the sake of discussion to be talking about 90 degrees
because a true amateur antenna will be not be so perfect. The
discussion at hand was W8JI's coil, not an antenna.

At the end of the day, it appears to me you are working up the
relationship between the phase of the current through the coil with
voltage across the coil, and you seem to regard the phase of the current
to be uniform at all points in the coil.

If I understood Tom's article correctly (and it too is short on detail),
he is comparing the phase of the current at one end of the coil with the
phase of the current at the other end of the coil.

You are not on the same page!

But, as I said, the rigour isn't there for what is being touted as just a
maths problem.


Agreed, it is not an unfamiliar technique to make reasonable
assumptions when illustrating a point. Thank you for the opportunity
to confirm my assumptions valid in this case.

No, I did not confirm anything. Now that you force the issue, I disagree
with most of what you said in the posting to which I responded.

Owen

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I have stared at the W8JI web page
http://www.w8ji.com/inductor_current_time_delay.htm
for a long time, and I just cannot find anyplace where he mentions 4.5
degrees. Is that your calculation rather than Tom's?

Good Grief, Gene. Do you not know how to change ns of
delay to degrees of delay at 4 MHz? Assuming that some
posters may not know how, here's how.

Degrees of delay = 360(ns of Delay/WL/c)

The wavelength at 4 MHz is 246 feet. W8JI tells us that
the speed of light is 0.9821 ft/ns. That makes the delay
for a 3 ns delay equal to 4.47 degrees.

Cecil,

A proper "quote" does not include any extra analysis. If you want to add
your own explanation or disagreement, by all means do so. Incorrect
quoting simply destroys credibility for your argument.

W8JI did not say "4.5 degrees", you did.

(And yes, I do understand the equations.)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I have stared at the W8JI web page
http://www.w8ji.com/inductor_current_time_delay.htm
for a long time, and I just cannot find anyplace where he mentions
4.5 degrees. Is that your calculation rather than Tom's?

Good Grief, Gene. Do you not know how to change ns of
delay to degrees of delay at 4 MHz? Assuming that some
posters may not know how, here's how.

Degrees of delay = 360(ns of Delay/WL/c)

The wavelength at 4 MHz is 246 feet. W8JI tells us that
the speed of light is 0.9821 ft/ns. That makes the delay
for a 3 ns delay equal to 4.47 degrees.

Cecil,

A proper "quote" does not include any extra analysis. If you want to add
your own explanation or disagreement, by all means do so. Incorrect
quoting simply destroys credibility for your argument.

W8JI did not say "4.5 degrees", you did.

(And yes, I do understand the equations.)

73,
Gene
W4SZ


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.

So let me repeat my earlier questions.

What went wrong? Why is that number incorrect?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I have stared at the W8JI web page
http://www.w8ji.com/inductor_current_time_delay.htm
for a long time, and I just cannot find anyplace where he mentions
4.5 degrees. Is that your calculation rather than Tom's?

Good Grief, Gene. Do you not know how to change ns of
delay to degrees of delay at 4 MHz? Assuming that some
posters may not know how, here's how.

Degrees of delay = 360(ns of Delay/WL/c)

The wavelength at 4 MHz is 246 feet. W8JI tells us that
the speed of light is 0.9821 ft/ns. That makes the delay
for a 3 ns delay equal to 4.47 degrees.

Cecil,

A proper "quote" does not include any extra analysis. If you want to add
your own explanation or disagreement, by all means do so. Incorrect
quoting simply destroys credibility for your argument.

W8JI did not say "4.5 degrees", you did.

(And yes, I do understand the equations.)

73,
Gene
W4SZ


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.

So let me repeat my earlier questions.

What went wrong? Why is that number incorrect?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Richard Clark wrote:
"This week in class I learned from Ambassador Thomas Graham that
Hitler`s second in command came to England and asked Neville Chamberlain
to reject Hitler`s conditions for moving into Czechoslovakia.

That`s shocking! The Munich surrender followed, if my memory is correct,
and almost the whole world world knew that it would not result in peace
in our times! To speculate that the German high cpmmand was ready to
dump Hitler if only England were ready to show some spine! Didn`t
Chamberlain have others in the British Government to consult with?
History repeats. Surely Bush should have looked farther for consultation
before invading Iraq with so little support.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Gene Fuller wrote:

...
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

Must be nice, most of us are forced to live in the real world! ;-)

Regards,
JS

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:58:14 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

So out of all this dicsussion you made no point at all?

Hi Dan,

Yet you wholly ignore it when I explicitly stated "This is my
point.,," at the bottom (I won't repeat it here). Emotion ruling your
response?

A practical measurement that has current moving at 3*10E9m/sec, which on
the
surface may seem reasonable until you realize it is 10 times the speed of
light.

Aside from the probability of another math error nested into the space
of the sentence above;

Not a probability. I made such an error (decimal point) and ack'd it.

Read what remains in quote and responded quote above to discover you
haven't really responded to my comment at all.

it also presumes a lot of other, unstated
conditions that are arguable.

"a lot of..." "arguable''...Where's the facts?

Exactly, you provide no facts in the surviving quote above, merely the
suggestion as I explicitly describe:

I say "probable" because you introduce with the indefinite "a
practical measurement." instead of the definite "the practical
measurement."

Again, huh? There are many possible practical measurements. It is a plural,
not the singular demanded by you.

Exactly, and specifically TWO (2), possibly Cecil and Tom's; but you
can easily admit to many more given only you know what you meant by
what is quoted above. Your language indicates an indefinite practical
measurement. I am not responsible for what you write.

However, this is simply a cascade of your ill-considered responses
made in the emotional heat of argument. It is quite obvious that you
are still trying to work through the embarrassment of the decimal
point error that I had long ago let go of.

Can you please define the problem in English with no math? Deep abstractions
permitted (we know how to read).

I am not convinced of that you know how to read at all. It seems like
the period of 20 questions for me should be at end. Can you answer
your own last one? I mean, do you actually know what concept is being
struggled over? Everything to this point in my response pales in
comparison to finding out just what you are arguing in support of! Do
you know? or have you just got the numbers figured out?

I await in amusement and anticipation of your scribbling this response
that both Cecil and Art will immediately disown you for. Could it be
you who gets shoved out of the nest? ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC