John Smith wrote:
"So, a summary of your point?"

The velocity of the wave traveling on the turns of a coil is slightly
less than 300 million meters per second. Divide the number of meters of
wire in your coil by 300,000,000 and you get the number of seconds
required for the signal to get from one end to the other on the coil,
almost. Actual delay is slightly more because material surroundings slow
the wave a little more than a vacuum does. There is no magic
instantaneous transfer of energy from one turn to another within a coil.
If there were, Terman would have told us so.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Dave wrote:

[usual chit]

Better yet, why don't you go and found
rec.radio.amateur.conventional-antennas ???

Your donkey would be sorely missed here; But, we would get by, as you
bored yourself and others to death ... Oh yeah, make sure you
unsubscribe from this news thread. :-)

Regards,
JS

On 1 Dec, 13:44, Owen Duffy wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote :

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

Cecil,
Nobody here is willing to say they were wrong. It is not education
that they demand, just a place on the net where they can complain.
If collectively they debated point by point and resolving as they
move along things could be solved. But that is not on the agenda
or addresses their needs. All just want to be on the majority side
if a poll is taken for security.
Art

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 18:45:52 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
.. .

I am not convinced of that you know how to read at all.

So the answer is "no", you cannot verbalize the discussion in English.

Hi Dan,

This is, after all, a written communication. In English,
verbalization is an auditory utterance, which is completely impossible
to perceive in this forum. There are other meanings which allow for
you to be asking me to submit a script written entirely in verbs. I
don't think that would be any more productive. What I have written
certainly isn't in French (unless it would aid your comprehension).
Let's face it, you don't stand a chance in head-to-head competition
over deconstructing English.

I note you continue to assign me my response when what I've offered
does not fit the script. Emotion still dominates your forced logic
here. You might be surprised (and it surprises me if you are
surprised) to find few to none here would ever label me as being
unable to -um- verbalize.

I believe we are discussing the delay characteristic of current in a coil.

Would you be surprised if Cecil and Art diverged even at this point?
What would be the point of supporting them when they abandon you?

I dearly would like to see them sign on to the notion that a coil has
some inherent, fixed delay characteristic such as you describe (you
are describing that aren't you, now's the time to correct this mistake
of mine if I have made one).

I would assume if I
was as far off in what I think the topic is supposed to be, you or others
would have jumped in to tell me AND TOLD ME WHAT THE ACTUAL CONTROVERSY IS
ALL ABOUT.

As already having done that, what purpose would repeating it serve?
After all, if you once asked what my point was, and then you went on
to ignore my explicit answer, what faith would I have that even more
repetition would spare us?

IF I am guilty misunderstanding the nature of the controversy, you may not
believe this but it actually will not make me lose confidence in myself
(shudder).

Melodrama suitable for day-time TV now that the writers are on strike.

You are ready to throw me out of the sacred RRAA nesting
place?

Not me, you have to satisfy Art and Cecil. Do you really think you
are out of the woods with straining to explain what they have to
offer?

Frankly, Dan, you don't have the slightest understanding of what they
are talking about. Now, that is not a flame because no else does
either, and neither do they. If this was first principles from them
(or you), the thread would be only three postings long.

Just look at the single sentence of yours quoted above that survives
from my reflection of your question back to you. I see absolutely no
discussion of Cecil's centerpiece of Velocity Factor. You are
entirely silent when it comes to how the impedance discontinuity
between the coil and stinger contributes the rest of the 90 degrees of
electrical length. Dare you discuss how as long as the frequency is
kept constant, the VF and Z0 of coil stock will be relatively
constant? [This last quote drawn from Cecil is one of those zingers
that says nothing using a lot of words - if the frequency doesn't
change, wouldn't the frequency determinate characteristics stay the
same anyway?]

So, you misunderstand what this is all about? You haven't even
touched the surface! Basically, catch up, get a move on, or move
over, because this isn't a math problem. I invite you to flesh out
your explanation if you have more to offer than the stale 3.5nS myopic
target of opportunity. Proving Tom was/is/might be wrong there
doesn't change the basic flaw of this thread.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 17:15:05 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

All just want to be on the majority side
if a poll is taken for security.

What could be more revered than a minority of three on Calvary?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:49:44 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

Yup. He was found to be insane and put in the Tower.

You must've burnt your history books when you left. This is not a
reference about Heß (do you really believe he was going to lead a
Putsch against Hitler?). Rudolph Heß parachuted into Scotland 2 years
after Chamberlain returned from Munich.

Germany did not want interference by Gt Britain.
Hitler and the Nazi party didn't, certainly. Reasonable (not insane)
Germans went to Chamberlain for support.

Iran came to us in 2003 ready to abandon their nuclear program, we
have our own Chamberlains that decided that we weren't going to
negotiate that. The same Chamberlains abandoned the North Korean
protocols of 1993 to de-nuclearize; after 7 years, and one bomb test,
they have since decided to write up new treaties for less guarantees.
Our Chamberlains were informed by India that they were going to ramp
up their nuclear program, our Chamberlains asked if we could help.
There are several countries in the world that, with existing
stockpiles, are only weeks away from deliverable munitions. They are
watching our power evaporate. Our Chamberlains shrug their shoulders
in the standard Munich salute: "Learn to live with it" as Rummy would
say.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 17:01:17 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

On 1 Dec, 13:11, Richard Clark wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No,I enclosed all but two lines as not being relavent to the subject
at hand,

This quote above obviously reveals otherwise - twice now! Would a
third time be a charm? This is like a drawing for the lottery. Which
two lines was it? I look forward to seeing if my ticket wins. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Art wrote:
"He was found to be insane and put in the tower."

Rudolph Hess was thought to be insane and put away for life after
piloting an aircraft to London. I had never heard that Hess was a
messenger from the German High Command. Considering the message, he
should have been respected.

Ambassador Joe Kennedy`s assessment wasn`t far off the mark. Without
massive foreign help, Hitler`s disregard of his general staff, and his
premature panic attack of the Soviet Union, when his forces were already
fully occupied, the Battle of Brittain would have been lost by the
British. The apes on Gibralter and the crows in the Tower of London
would have been of little help. Hitler`s forces had excellent training
and equipment. They were also accustomed to winning and quickly too.

Thankfully, Hitler made mistakes which doomed his enterprise.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
... There is no magic
instantaneous transfer of energy from one turn to another within a coil.
If there were, Terman would have told us so.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Richard:

Thanks, got you now, and of course, no disagreement here. However, if
anyone has a view to the contrary, I would be interested in the
specifics ...

However, there is something akin "special case" which does come to my
mind: Say a two turn coils' configuration was changed to two single
turns ... somehow, even if insignificant, this same interaction of what
is occurring in one turns must be "felt" by the two turn coil. (crud, I
hope you can "decode" that ...)

What say you?

Regards,
JS

"AI4QJ" wrote in
:


"Owen Duffy" wrote in message
...
"AI4QJ" wrote in
:
I say that the phase relation MUST be the same everywhere on the
coil.

That does not seem to me to support Cecil's proposition at all, I
understand Cecil to argue that there is a substantial phase change in
the coil current along the coil.

That didn't come out very clearly. As I understand it, Cecil argues that
there is substantial phase change in the forward and reflected wave
components when considering the helix as a transmission line.



Owen