Gene Fuller wrote:

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.

The 'number' is read from an instrument, but it isn't at all clear
what instrument is being read or what the number represents.

So let me repeat my earlier questions.

What went wrong? Why is that number incorrect?

I think we can assume the instrument is providing a correct indication
of something. But, given the documentation provided, it is not
possible to know whether it is a correct measurement of the
propagation delay of a device under test.

73, ac6xg

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

Gene Fuller wrote:
I don't believe anyone has actually challenged what Corum *says*. What
*has* been challenged is your misreading of the paper, especially the
required conditions for the validity of the analysis.

I very carefully applied the required conditions.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
A 10TPI, 2" dia., 100T coil used on 4 MHz is NOT an extreme
example. Why don't you just admit that you and W8JI have been
wrong for years and get it over with?

I never said that condition was extreme. Try the calculator at 40 kHz
and see what you get.

Uhhhhh Gene, changing the test frequency is an obvious
diversion of the issue, but knowing you, something that
is completely predictable.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Gene Fuller wrote:
By the way, saying something is "impossible" is religion, not science.

Believing that impossible things are possible is the
*cornerstone of religion*. Let's see you rise from
the dead three days after your funeral.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
A 10TPI, 2" dia., 100T coil used on 4 MHz is NOT an extreme
example. Why don't you just admit that you and W8JI have been
wrong for years and get it over with?

I never said that condition was extreme. Try the calculator at 40 kHz
and see what you get.

Uhhhhh Gene, changing the test frequency is an obvious
diversion of the issue, but knowing you, something that
is completely predictable.

The lack of technical content of your post is duly noted.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

AI4QJ wrote:
With the coil in series with its internal resitance, the phase angle of the
current will be the same throughout all components in the circuit.

This is true for lumped circuits, not for distributed
networks.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Owen Duffy wrote:
Then you are doing a lumped element approximation.

It is probably adequate for analysis of a short loading coil.

That is probably not a suitable method to analyse a helically loaded
monopole (where the monopole consists of nothing but a helix).

Not suitable either for a 160m mobile loading coil.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
However, any valid explanation of practical loading coils must predict
zero phase shift for the boundary condition where the coil displays no
other properties except pure inductance.

Translation: A model must accommodate conditions that
are impossible to achieve in reality. I'm sorry, Ian,
but that is pathological thinking not uncommon on this
newsgroup.

A software model that blows up when R=0 is perfectly
acceptable in the real world. It is a software bug,
not a statement on reality.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com