![]() |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene Fuller wrote: 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. The 'number' is read from an instrument, but it isn't at all clear what instrument is being read or what the number represents. So let me repeat my earlier questions. What went wrong? Why is that number incorrect? I think we can assume the instrument is providing a correct indication of something. But, given the documentation provided, it is not possible to know whether it is a correct measurement of the propagation delay of a device under test. 73, ac6xg |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 Cecil - through Ian - wrote:
At least a few posters are beginning to understand why W8JI's measurement was invalid. "A few posters" necessarily renders them public figures (not anonymous nor protected by the secrecy of email) who can be disclosed in this side thread. Simply name one other than Cecil (which would make it two, a minimum "few") who finds the measurement INVALID! Not valid is quite different from invalid. Of course, no names will be named ("I have here in my pocket a list of communists known to be serving in the State Department!" is a notable quote from the history of the McCarthy era.) who won't immediately take Cecil to task for his pimping them ("it is what they meant to say if they really believe......"). This validity is again an illustration of deliberate, poor language usage. Some may have found the measurement not valid (not enough information to render that positive verdict) but none by my search of 973 prior postings reveals any that have found it invalid (rejected because it is false). As for myself, Tom attaching his assertion to his measurement reading makes it improbable, but not invalid (and note, the negation of invalid does not render it valid). As I've already gone on record with responding to Dan's questions, I reserve judgment of its validity pending further information - not that I expect any. Seeing that Cecil wholeheartedly has yet to reveal the how (or data to the same precision) of his own counter experiment (which I have also gone on record in asking for details) - I don't expect anything there either. If Cecil is to stand by his same standards of judgment he applies to Tom, Cecil's assertion has already been found to be invalid also. But then this has for years been a beauty contest for Cecil and his tests of validity are as appropriate as are tests for virginity. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Richard Clark wrote:
"A few posters" necessarily renders them public figures (not anonymous nor protected by the secrecy of email) who can be disclosed in this side thread. Simply name one other than Cecil (which would make it two, a minimum "few") who finds the measurement INVALID! So "Typically Richard." Or, it is not what is said, it is who said it, simply put, "HERO WORSHIP." Also akin to "religious doctrine", "all is known", "attacks on personalities instead of principals", etc. What a complete waste of text, bandwidth, patience, and time--you might as well quote shakespeare in an antenna group! ROFLOL Regards, JS |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
I don't believe anyone has actually challenged what Corum *says*. What *has* been challenged is your misreading of the paper, especially the required conditions for the validity of the analysis. I very carefully applied the required conditions. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: A 10TPI, 2" dia., 100T coil used on 4 MHz is NOT an extreme example. Why don't you just admit that you and W8JI have been wrong for years and get it over with? I never said that condition was extreme. Try the calculator at 40 kHz and see what you get. Uhhhhh Gene, changing the test frequency is an obvious diversion of the issue, but knowing you, something that is completely predictable. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
By the way, saying something is "impossible" is religion, not science. Believing that impossible things are possible is the *cornerstone of religion*. Let's see you rise from the dead three days after your funeral. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: A 10TPI, 2" dia., 100T coil used on 4 MHz is NOT an extreme example. Why don't you just admit that you and W8JI have been wrong for years and get it over with? I never said that condition was extreme. Try the calculator at 40 kHz and see what you get. Uhhhhh Gene, changing the test frequency is an obvious diversion of the issue, but knowing you, something that is completely predictable. The lack of technical content of your post is duly noted. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
AI4QJ wrote:
With the coil in series with its internal resitance, the phase angle of the current will be the same throughout all components in the circuit. This is true for lumped circuits, not for distributed networks. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Owen Duffy wrote:
Then you are doing a lumped element approximation. It is probably adequate for analysis of a short loading coil. That is probably not a suitable method to analyse a helically loaded monopole (where the monopole consists of nothing but a helix). Not suitable either for a 160m mobile loading coil. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
However, any valid explanation of practical loading coils must predict zero phase shift for the boundary condition where the coil displays no other properties except pure inductance. Translation: A model must accommodate conditions that are impossible to achieve in reality. I'm sorry, Ian, but that is pathological thinking not uncommon on this newsgroup. A software model that blows up when R=0 is perfectly acceptable in the real world. It is a software bug, not a statement on reality. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com