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

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

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