|
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 |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Tom Donaly wrote:
Slap it on your truck, and tell us at what frequencies it resonates. Can you get it to resonate at odd multiples of its fundamental frequency? To be entirely technically correct, it should be pointed out that we are discussing the first resonance as is usually used in loaded mobile antennas. Starting from a low frequency, tune the analyzer until the first resonance is reached. That is when it is electrically close to 90 degrees in length. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
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. 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. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Loading Coils
John Smith wrote:
A 90 degree shift in 1/4 wave physical space will never duplicate a 180 shift in the same physical dimensions! It certainly will never duplicate the radiation pattern which depends upon physical dimensions. But it may come close to duplicating the feedpoint impedance which is what this discussion is about. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
On 1 Dec, 10:28, Richard Clark wrote:
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." You pick a very poor place to talk about cowardice! At that time Mr Kennedy Snr stated that islands of Britain could not possibly stave off the armies that had overun Europe So it was decided to film 'How green is my valley' in California in its entirety, staving off any possibility of having to take on the Nazis as Churchill called them. Fortunately the US was willing to hold on to our coats Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg (uk) snip Marques of Queensberry... And happy I am to pass on my knowledge to you. " 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
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. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
tesla coils antennas maxwell Loading Coils; was : Vincentantenna
Mike Kaliski wrote:
The Philadelphia Experiment was a success? What? Haven't you seen the movie? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
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 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Vincent antenna
Art wrote:
"The above antenna does not have a ground plain such that it is unbalanced." Does that mean that it does not have "equilibrium"? A ground-plane antenna is unbalanced too, as both haves of the antenna, its radiator, and its nonradiating balanced radials, aren`t equally coupled or equally decoupled with respect to the earth. A horizontal dipole is balanced as both its halves are equally coupled to the earth if construction is ideal. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:56:55 -0800 (PST), art
wrote: You pick a very poor place to talk about cowardice! At that time Mr Kennedy Snr stated that islands of Britain could not possibly stave off the armies that had overun Europe Hi Arthur, 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. He informed Chamberlain that the German High Command was ready to topple Hitler if England showed strength. We all know the rest of the story.... 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Richard Clark wrote:
... 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. Thanks Richard, that applies to 99% of your postings. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
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 |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene, W4SZ wrote:
"What went wrong?" Sorry, I can`t say because I haven`t followed this thread closely. Surely the signal follows the path of the turns on a coil. Movement of electrons is slothful but they are urged by the fields sweeping across them. Terman has but one mistake in his 1955 opus and it is only a typographical error which is obvious, kilocycles instead of megacycles or something of the sort and doesn`t affect understanding the subject. Terman says on the "Mechanism of Operation of the Traveling-Wave Tube" at the bottom of page 678: "The applied signal propagates around the helix and produces an electric field at the center of the helix that is directed along the helix axis. That`s been read and re-read over 50 years and even repeated in the "Lenkurt Demodulator". There is no chance it is wrong. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
"AI4QJ" wrote in
: "Owen Duffy" wrote in message ... .... 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. 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. Owen |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote: Slap it on your truck, and tell us at what frequencies it resonates. Can you get it to resonate at odd multiples of its fundamental frequency? To be entirely technically correct, it should be pointed out that we are discussing the first resonance as is usually used in loaded mobile antennas. Starting from a low frequency, tune the analyzer until the first resonance is reached. That is when it is electrically close to 90 degrees in length. In length? You still don't get it. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Richard Harrison wrote:
... Terman says on the "Mechanism of Operation of the Traveling-Wave Tube" at the bottom of page 678: "The applied signal propagates around the helix and produces an electric field at the center of the helix that is directed along the helix axis. ... Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI And, obeys basic rules, such as: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_1/6.html So, a summary of your point? Afraid I am a bit dense here today ... Regards, JS |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Tom Donaly wrote: Slap it on your truck, and tell us at what frequencies it resonates. Can you get it to resonate at odd multiples of its fundamental frequency? To be entirely technically correct, it should be pointed out that we are discussing the first resonance as is usually used in loaded mobile antennas. Starting from a low frequency, tune the analyzer until the first resonance is reached. That is when it is electrically close to 90 degrees in length. In length? You still don't get it. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Geesh ... Perhaps my understandings are flawed. It is my understanding that a resonate antenna will always be of an "electrically resonate" "length." However, conductor diameter, covering, stray capacitance (such as in coil turns), "end effects", dielectrics-involved, etc. may vary this length when physically appraised ... Regards, JS |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... 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 Usually covered up or glossed over, but Hitler and the Nazis had a lot of supporters in the British government and ruling heirarchy at the time. Don't forget the British royal family is of German origin. In the absence of the treaty with Poland, which rather forced Britain into war against Germany, Britain and Germany might possibly have combined forces and ruled over all of Europe 60 years earlier than they do now. :-) Mike G0ULI |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
|
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
On 1 Dec, 12:44, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:56:55 -0800 (PST), art wrote: You pick a very poor place to talk about cowardice! At that time Mr Kennedy Snr stated that islands of Britain could not possibly stave off the armies that had overun Europe Hi Arthur, 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. He informed Chamberlain that the German High Command was ready to topple Hitler if England showed strength. We all know the rest of the story.... Yup. He was found to be insane and put in the Tower. Germany did not want interference by Gt Britain. In September 3rd 1939 Gt Britain was alone in declaring war against Germanies gigantic armies. That is what you have to do if you are the Worlds policeman. Doing what is right regardless of the consequences Pity the U.S. is unable to do the same. Think how many countries the US government has invaded since they took on the job and it looks like there is more to come. Freedom fighters from all over the World knew that there was a place to go for the defence of freedom,and they came and joined with us. Front and centre were the Polish fighters with out which the British homeland was in danger.The American ambassador fled to home soil while the King and Queen stayed put. It was a couple of years before the U.S. had to join the fray and there was a Country still there that they could join to carry on the fight. It wasn't easy during those times but the British held fast and resolute. And nobody can take those proud times away that away. Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG (uk) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
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, just a bunch of wailing.I was looking for substance.You have made a lot of postings on this thread but no substance provided.What is it that you desire from this group? |
blah, blah, blah... was Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna, superposition, etc.
"AI4QJ" wrote in message ... 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). don't lose confidence, they are all wrong... no, maybe that is too harsh, they are all correct about one little thing each. if you will note, they each have one special case that they keep falling back on like it is the touchstone of all of electromagnetic. cecil and his optics, art and gauss's law, richard and terman, one talking energy conservation, one talking adding powers, then another adding fields, poynting vectors, skin depths, reflecting waves, interfering waves that never reflected in the first place, apples, oranges, and broccoli, and never the twain shall meet... its been this way for years. it used to be fun, now its just getting monotonous. you guys should go try your arguments in sci.physics.electromag, over there you might find fresh idiots to soak up your wisdom... they like tesla, freaky coils, permanent magnet machines, and faster than light stuff, you guys would fit right in. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com