Cecil Moore wrote:
On Dec 3, 2:00 am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
The challenge for Cecil's model is to explain how the antenna does
behave. This cannot be done by reclassifying the type of antenna, or
reclassifying the type of current through the loading coil.

I'm not reclassifying anything. The differences between traveling-wave
antennas and standing-wave antennas have been known for many decades.

Oh good! Exactly where do *you* draw the line between them; and why?
Please justify this by giving examples of two antennas that are very
close to your chosen line, but on opposite sides.

Then please justify the difference between your two different
classifications of current.

The problem that some of the gurus on this newsgroup have is that they
have forgotten everything they ever knew about standing-waves and
standing-wave antennas. You guys worship your shortcuts to such an
extent that you have completely lost touch with reality. W8JI's 3 ns
delay through a 100T coil on 4 MHz is just one example. At least a few
posters are beginning to understand why W8JI's measurement was
invalid.

As you are so fond of saying, the technical content of that is duly
noted.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

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

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

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:11:13 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

Simply name one other than Cecil (which would make it two, a minimum
"few") who finds the measurement INVALID!

So "Typically Richard."

OK, we've narrowed it down to both you and Cecil who cannot rummage up
a name in the list. And given you don't have a Chihuahua in this
fight, you can't even offer your own name - literally! :-0

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Not valid is quite different from invalid.

What is your native language? :-) From Webster's:
"in - a prefix ... having a negative force"

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.

Good grief, Richard, I posted a detailed description of those
measurements more than a year ago before I moved to my new QTH.
In words, with a 50 ohm source, set up an autotransformer to
deliver a signal to a 3600 ohm Z0 environment. Put the 75m Texas
Bugcatcher coil in series with a 3600 ohm non-inductive load.
Measure the phase shift through the coil at 4 MHz. I eyeballed
it at ~25 degrees on a dual-trace 100 MHz O'scope.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:23:45 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

In words, with a 50 ohm source, set up an autotransformer to
deliver a signal to a 3600 ohm Z0 environment. Put the 75m Texas
Bugcatcher coil in series with a 3600 ohm non-inductive load.
Measure the phase shift through the coil at 4 MHz. I eyeballed
it at ~25 degrees on a dual-trace 100 MHz O'scope.

And what was it when you cut the coil in half?

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
In words, with a 50 ohm source, set up an autotransformer to
deliver a signal to a 3600 ohm Z0 environment. Put the 75m Texas
Bugcatcher coil in series with a 3600 ohm non-inductive load.
Measure the phase shift through the coil at 4 MHz. I eyeballed
it at ~25 degrees on a dual-trace 100 MHz O'scope.

And what was it when you cut the coil in half?

I apologize, Richard, like W8JI, I am unwilling to cut my
75m Texas bugcatcher coil in half. But then, his coil didn't
cost $180 either. :-)

The experiment that you are suggesting is exactly the same
that I suggested to W8JI but he was unwilling to perform
such and I tend to understood why. :-)

As a data point, in the previous argument a couple of years
ago, W8JI tried to use the lumped inductance feature of EZNEC
to "prove" there is never any phase shift through any coil. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:31:02 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I apologize, Richard, like W8JI, I am unwilling to cut my
75m Texas bugcatcher coil in half. But then, his coil didn't
cost $180 either. :-)

The experiment that you are suggesting is exactly the same
that I suggested to W8JI but he was unwilling to perform
such and I tend to understood why. :-)

As a data point, in the previous argument a couple of years
ago, W8JI tried to use the lumped inductance feature of EZNEC
to "prove" there is never any phase shift through any coil. :-)

So, the short of it (the long of it is above) is that neither of you
have valid data that demonstrates a Corum solution. I'm not
surprised.

Seeing that there is no valid conclusion, it must be by the extended
logic of your understanding of English that both your and Tom's
positions are thus INVALID.

Anything left to introduce, barring actual test results, is not
superposition, but supposition.

Richard Clark wrote:
So, the short of it (the long of it is above) is that neither of you
have valid data that demonstrates a Corum solution. I'm not
surprised.

In addition to my measurements on the 75m Texas
Bugcatcher coil, I also measured ~12-13 ns delay
through 50 turns of the same coil stock that Tom
was using when he measured a 3 ns delay through
a 100 turn coil. That 12-13 ns delay is within
15% of the Corum equation predictions.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote in
:

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:23:45 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

In words, with a 50 ohm source, set up an autotransformer to
deliver a signal to a 3600 ohm Z0 environment. Put the 75m Texas

I can't see why an attempt to impedance match the source was necessary,
the reflection coefficient is determined solely by the load and line
characteristics.

Bugcatcher coil in series with a 3600 ohm non-inductive load.
Measure the phase shift through the coil at 4 MHz. I eyeballed
it at ~25 degrees on a dual-trace 100 MHz O'scope.

If you were confident that reflection was insignificant, then this test
design might properly reveal the one way delay of the transmission line
section.


And what was it when you cut the coil in half?


Sampling the forward wave (which should be the dominant wave if with an
approximatly matched load) at various points and comparing phase (wrt
source) with displacement might establish if the apparent phase velocity
is constant.

I don't suspect that the outcome of a properly designed and executed
experiment is going to surprise anyone.

Interesting as the answer is, the question still remains, what can one do
with the knowledge of the one way delay of a short loading coil when
designing a loaded monopole?

Owen