Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Roger wrote:
Could I add this observation? Both traveling waves and standing waves
can be measured. A single volt meter or ammeter will measure the
standing wave which is the sum of the traveling waves.. A DIRECTIONAL
volt meter or ammeter will measure only the traveling wave within the
design direction, but can not distinguish between components from
multiple reflections that might combine.

A directional voltmeter or ammeter will measure the same voltage or
current no matter where it is placed in the transmission line under
steady state conditions, assuming no resistive losses in the
transmission line.

Perhaps if Roy would have used a directional coupler to
measure the phase shift through his coil, he would have
realized his conceptual mistake a lot sooner. But his
current transducers have absolutely no directional
capabilities at all.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
As usual, you continue to take things out of context. That quote
specifically referred to the (kz-wt) "phase". Simple examination of the
ideal standing wave equation shows my quoted comment to be correct.

I know and you know that when you posted those technical
facts, you thought they supported W7EL's side and contra-
dicted mine. Surprise! W7EL was the one making outrageous
assertions, not me. I know and you know that you wish you
could take those remarks back because they contradict W7EL
but they are now preserved on Google.

The technical facts will eventually win out even if it
hairlips every guru on this newsgroup.

However, I have also pointed out on several occasions that there are
multiple definitions for phase.

We are using the EZNEC convention for "phase". Other
definitions do not matter in this context.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Hi Roy,
Your description of the Phase and the SWR contribution to how it is
perceived was excellent; and with enough words to get from start to
finish and be thorough.

It deserves acknowledgement.

Roy simply posted my arguments in minute detail. I agree
with it and point out that it also proves that Roy's and
Tom's phase measurements using standing-wave current were
meaningless as they did *NOT* measure the delay through a
coil as asserted by both parties.

Roy's posting is entirely correct. He correctly points
out the difference in traveling-wave current and standing-
wave current which can be deduced from their different
equations. From Roy's own posting, anyone can deduce why
standing-wave current cannot be used to measure the delay
through a coil, yet last time I checked, Roy was still
"standing by" those meaningless measurements and also
supporting W8JI's equally meaningless measurements.

Would anyone who cares send Roy an email asking him to
make up his mind? He simply cannot have it both ways.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
This is absolutely not true.

This is merely the hysterical reaction to personal embarassment.

No, it is the response to an unethical attack. You
cannot lie willy-nilly on this newsgroup, and get
away with it.

The data was wholly of your own supply.

The data was mine - the lies were yours. For anyone
well versed in diversions, your attempts to sweep
technical facts under the rug are more than obvious.
When you are exposed, what will you do then?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Richard Clark wrote:
I hope others will observe these six lines, one exchange, exhibits the
classic low hanging fruit that can be gathered by simply drilling down
through them! It really is just that simple and Cecil always hands it
to me on a silver plate.

I am a simple person, Richard. What you see if what
you get. I don't need to expose you for what you are.
You do a better job of that than I could ever do.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Richard Clark wrote:
It would appear that our author has some doubt about the statement
above to have prefaced it with "if." A grammarian would point out
that there is no corresponding "then."

Be sure to pull the cover over that hole you are digging
for yourself since you will shortly be too embarrassed to
show your face in public. :-)

There
is no such thing as standing-wave or traveling-wave current.

Good grief, Richard, are you really willing to sacrifice
your technical integrity in support of your guru idols?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:51:17 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

When you are exposed, what will you do then?

Probably take a leak. Oh! You must have something else in mind when
you use the word exposed. Do you have anything that would remove the
cloud from your obscure language?

Is your outrage merely the embarrassment of a failed suicide attempt
with your data wearing a dynamite vest to embrace Tom's? The last
step in making it a successful attempt is a painful admission that you
are both wrong! That conclusion is not so far away as to be false is
it? -faint heart n'er won fair argument- Pull the pin!

It's not like you have actually pointed to any specific datum that was
in error. It's not like you have provided us with any amplifying
details taken from your measurement that converges with Tom's. I've
seen no dispute about the numbers or the typical normalization of an
O'scope. My posting is exceptionally short and entirely based on your
own facts. Your objections would, of course, be solved with you
indicting your own evidence. Was it as bad as perjury? Did you
misread some settings? Were the current probes in the wrong place?
Was there the proximity of a large conductor that disturbed your
results? Did you plug-n-chug the wrong Xeroxed formula? What went
wrong? More importantly: why is it my fault?

Unfortunately, in the last 127 postings you have forever forsaken the
details of your measurement to oblivion and returned to the opiate of
synthetic solutions.

Noting the complete absence of technical substance to your
accusations, your leg must be getting wet by now. Is it raining down
your way? ;-)

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Earlier, I had written:
"Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance. They work just fine, for all cases where the
dimensions of the circuit are very small with respect to the wavelength,
so that distributed effects and radiation are negligible. Where those
assumptions are no longer accurate, we can extend the simple model to
include some corrections. But the most important point is, we always
know that we're building up from a solid foundation."

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance.

Really???? Just try your lumped inductance model on
a helical antenna and get back to us.
Yet more stinking dishonest quoting from Cecil. What I ACTUALLY
wrote was:
"Likewise there are no glitches in the standard circuit models for
inductance and capacitance.

Yep, that's exactly as I quoted it.

Once could have been a mistake. Twice is deliberate, dishonest
manipulation.

The beauty of Usenet is that it's now on permanent record.



He's trying the old if-I'm-unreasonable-enough-I-can-get-him-to-quit-
posting routine. In other words, he's hoping you'll give up in anger.
I think it's about time to boycott Cecil - and his Sancho Panzas -
again. He makes no more sense than he ever did, and arguing with him
is a waste of energy anyway.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

Richard Clark wrote:
It's not like you have actually pointed to any specific datum that was
in error.

If you believe that, you have your blinders on, which
any rational person already knew. A 3 ns delay through
a 2" dia, 100T, 10" coil at 4 MHz is impossible!!! Is
that specific enough for you?

Unfortunately, in the last 127 postings ...

You are responsible for half of those. I predicted
that you were going to complain about my number of
postings engineered by you and I was right.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
 

AI4QJ wrote:
Thank you for you detailed responses and I think we completely agree once we
have agreement in our definitions.

But do you agree that standing-wave current phase can
be used to measure the delay through a loading coil?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com