Keith Dysart wrote:
So sometimes a 600 to 100 ohm discontinuity
produces a 36.6 degree phase shift and sometimes
it produces a 22.7 degree phase shift (and probably
any value in between).

Yes, of course - nobody said the phase shift wasn't
a variable. Why would you expect it to be a constant?
It is a variable that depends upon the phase of the
component forward and reflected waves.

I suggest that "work[ing] up the phasor diagrams of
the component voltages (or currents) at the junction
where rho = (600-100)/(600+100) = 0.7143" will
not be useful for predicting the phase shift.

It will be useful for reporting that particular phase
shift. If other conditions change, that phase shift
will change. What is unexpected about that?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Keith Dysart wrote:
Sounds good, but mostly you do not examine
ideal conditions because they tend to show that
the models fail.

I believe that is a false statement. Please
prove your assertion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Roy Lewallen wrote:
My postulate is that Newton was wrong: moving objects come to a rest
without any external applied force. Every observation made supports
this. There's no need to consider what happens in a frictionless
environment, since such a thing doesn't exist.

There seems no limit to which you will go to protect
your old wives' tales. How about taking a look at the
EZNEC file at: http://www.w5dxp.com/coil512.ez
and commenting on the results. Nobody is going to hold
his breath while you make up your mind.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

John Smith wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

...
Dave K8MN


Dave:

You remind me of a fellow in the neighborhood when I was a kid, used to
go around talking to himself all the time ... no one paid him much
attention, nowadays would be different of course. :-)

We'll never know to what you refer, "John". You snipped it.

Look, you're already using a pseudonym, why not just admit that you're
that kid you mentioned?

If you're accusing me of talking to myself, walk through the scenario.
You made a newsgroup response to one of my posts. I responded to you.
You responded to me. I responded to you. It is apparent that I'm not
talking to myself.

Dave K8MN

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

What does "its current maximum is not caused by standing waves" mean
to someone with an "IQ of 168"?


I explained it already. The current maximum in a loading
coil is caused by the magnetic flux linkage between the
adjacent coils.

Yes, you did say that, but it isn't apparent to me that the two
statements are necessarily mutually exclusive. To me those things are
all interdependent. Insofar as constructive interference is caused by
reflections from discontinuities and not the other way around, then
yes. But the current maximum is simply an area of constructive
interference. It is the profile of a standing wave in 2 dimensions
caused by the superposition of forward and reflected waves. The phase
and amplitude of the forward and reflected waves are of course
determined by the nature of the line, and those parameters determine
the profile of the standing wave.

It is the same thing that approximately
doubles the velocity factor of the coil over what it
would be if the all the current followed the wire.

I think current is required to follow the wire in any case. :-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I explained it already. The current maximum in a loading
coil is caused by the magnetic flux linkage between the
adjacent coils.

Yes, you did say that, but it isn't apparent to me that the two
statements are necessarily mutually exclusive.

The distance between current anti-nodes is 180 degrees.
All the lack of apparentness in the world will not
change that fact of physics.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 7 Dec, 12:24, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:

Sounds good, but mostly you do not examine
ideal conditions because they tend to show that
the models fail. With non-ideal conditions, the
discussion is easy to drive far from the target
and prevent resolution of whether the model
works.

My postulate is that Newton was wrong: moving objects come to a rest
without any external applied force. Every observation made supports
this. There's no need to consider what happens in a frictionless
environment, since such a thing doesn't exist.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Wrong.. When you are beyond the confines of all gravitational fields
and in a state of equilibrium then there can not be friction.
Somebody somewhere has obviously postulated that gravitational
forces are every where which puts science back in the stone
ages.
Sure messes up Gauss and quite a few others. In fact the law
of
statics is based on gravitational field which extends to what
Gauss called the limits of gravitational effects.
Quite a few other laws are based on similar logic

Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG(uk)

Cecil Moore wrote:
The distance between current anti-nodes is 180 degrees.

Such insight is incredible to behold.

ac6xg

art wrote:

Wrong.. When you are beyond the confines of all gravitational fields
and in a state of equilibrium then there can not be friction.
Somebody somewhere has obviously postulated that gravitational
forces are every where which puts science back in the stone
ages.
Sure messes up Gauss and quite a few others. In fact the law
of
statics is based on gravitational field which extends to what
Gauss called the limits of gravitational effects.
Quite a few other laws are based on similar logic

Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG(uk)

That has got to be the worst logic I have EVER heard and flies in the
face of common sense to be unspeakable--Roys' comment.

An object in motion, with NO external forces HAS to continue to move
with exactly the same stored energy as it began with, even a trillion
years later ...

Logic asks: Where would the stored energy go? Imparted to nothing?
Just disappears--breaking all the laws dealing with the conservation of
energy also?

Art, give up, we are in the twilight zone, look for an exit!

However, an ABSOLUTE frictionless environment may be quite difficult to
come up with ...

Regards,
JS

Dave Heil wrote:

...
Dave K8MN

Dave:

While your statements are quite well constructed to inflame and insult a
child--that has to do with your mind, not my age ... ROFLOL!

JS