Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

U¿ytkownik "Szczepan Bia³ek" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...


Raman discovered that some substances can rework one frequency into many
(also in higher).
May be that a cotton screan also rework.

Next Dr. wrote:
" This is a subject I have considerable experience in. My group at Eastman
developed a process Raman spectrometer that used communications grade
fibers to transmit both the excitation wavelength and the anti-Stokes
Raman scattered light. Chalcogenide fibers, at around $1K per foot, would
be needed to transmit the IR wavelengths needed for the analysis we were
doing. The communication grade fibers cost less than one foot of the
expensive fibers for the entire several hundred feet needed to separate
the analyzer from the chemical process. Our patents were eventually
licensed to the Rosemount division of Emerson Electric.

Raman spectroscopy is based on the _non-linear_ (inelastic) scattering of
photons. It is quite weak; more than 100 million photons are reflected by
the linear (elastic) Rayleigh scattering for every photon reflected by
Raman scattering.

For this reason it was observed very late (1928). It is seen on the film
after many hours of continued radiation.

I am convinced now that Szczepan Bialek is nothing more than an offensive
troll. It is best to ignore him as the physics newsgroups seem to have
done. May he bask in his own stupidity! Or perhaps he and Art and the
gays and the gay bashers could form their own "alt.troll" newsgroup.

YOU ALL make me troll. For my simple question, instead of answers, you send
questions. "Why you want to know?", "Why you write here?". I simply try to
be polite and I write.
You was the first who wrote ( in the answer in my topic): "Nowhere in all of
the respected literature will you find frequency
doubling caused by the two ends of a dipole."
Till now nobody answered me why the polarisation of radio waves disappear
after long way.
Only Richard wrote that the term "polarisation" apply to an equipment. To
waves rather "polarity".
Too late for me for study. "Trolling" is more efficient. About the frequency
multiplying now I know eneugh.
About light polarisation not all. The radio waves and the apparatus are
large enough to observe this phenomenon. The Hertz apparatus is the best for
it. Of course the emitter only. To analise the waves is necessary more
sophisticated than the ring.
S*





In the case of a TV screen, you're seeing either:

- The mixed emissions of a set of red, green, and blue phosphors,
individually excited by electron beams [for CRT displays], or

- The emission from the phosphors of a cold-cathode fluorescent
backlighting lamp (a complex spectrum with multiple peaks) filtered
through red, green, and blue pixel-sized filters (for most LCD
tubes).

In traditional film cinema, you're seeing the emissions of an
incandescent or halogen bulb (fairly continuous spectrum) filtered
through three colors of dye in the film print.

The fact that these complex mixtures of overlapping color spectra can
look "pure white" to our eyes, is due in large part to our complex
nervous systems. Our eye/brain systems adapt to the mix of colors
present under differnet lighting conditions, and interpret different
combinations as "pure white" depending on what's available at the time.

Yes. But for me is interesting the phenomenon at reflecting, scatering and
refraction. May be that "polarisation" is an effect of that.

This is why, for example, indoor fluorescent lighting can actually
look half-decent to our eyes once we get used to it (we "see" a fairly
complete range of colors there) but what looks "white" to use under
fluorescents will actually have a distinctly greenish cast to a film
or digital camera.

It's also why a rather curious phenomenon can be demonstrated. The
*exact* same mix of color emissions may look very different to us,
under different ambient lighting conditions... what might look
greenish outdoors will look pure white or even slightly pinkish under
indoor fluorescent lighting, because our brains *interpret* that input
differently due to the different surroundings.

Is the light polarisation the hard prove that light vaves are transversal?
S*



--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On Tue, 19 May 2009 15:40:04 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

YOU ALL make me troll.

You must suffer terribly from our imposition, but your form of cure
isn't going to answer the absolutely stupid things that you write.

Only Richard wrote that the term "polarisation" apply to an equipment. To
waves rather "polarity".

Something you still don't understand - even in direct translation.

Too late for me for study.

Too lazy, rather, as evidenced by:

"Trolling" is more efficient.

If you had been sent out of the caves to "efficiently" discover fire,
we would have returned to living in the trees.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
For instance, standing waves
consist of photons that cannot stand still.

As opposed to consisting of photons that _can_ stand still? :-)

Some people will argue that EM standing waves are
actually standing still which implies that photons
can stand still which they cannot.

Some might infer such things, but I don't know who. You're the only one
that I know of who says things like that.

On another newsgroup, I pointed out the above
concept of EM waves just standing there is similar
to the idea that since the number of northbound
vehicles on the Golden Gate Bridge equal the number of
southbound vehicles, there is no net traffic flow and
therefore no maintenance of the bridge is required.

Certainly a far cry from the idea you tried to sell on this newsgroup
that interference patterns cause northbound vehicles to move in a
southbound direction and southbound vehicles to move in a northbound
direction.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Certainly a far cry from the idea you tried to sell on this newsgroup
that interference patterns cause northbound vehicles to move in a
southbound direction and southbound vehicles to move in a northbound
direction.

There you go again, Jim, continuing to blame me for a
poor choice of words that, at your urging, I recanted more
than a year ago. I rewrote my energy article to remove any
reference to interference as the cause of anything. The
footnote says: "...since interference can occur with or
without wave cancellation, any reference to interference
as the cause of the redistribution of energy has been removed."

Exactly how long can you hold a grudge about a poor choice
of words that was corrected long ago at your urging? Would
you like for me to change it back so you can justify
continuation of your incessant compulsive bitching?

Or is it that you still don't understand the FSU web page?

micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html

"... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that
are 180-degrees ... out of phase with each other meet, they
are not actually annihilated, ... All of the photon energy
present in these waves must somehow be recovered or
redistributed in a new direction, according to the law of
energy conservation ... Instead, upon meeting, the photons
are redistributed to regions that permit constructive
interference, so the effect should be considered as a
redistribution of light waves and photon energy rather
than the spontaneous construction or destruction of light."

That redistribution of energy cannot happen without
interference. For the umteenth time, I apologize for ever
saying that interference causes the redistribution. If
you will mail me a Xerox of your posterior, I will kiss
it and send it back to you if that would help.

Here is how Hecht defines "interference" in "Optics":

"Briefly then, optical Interference corresponds to the
interaction of two or more lightwaves yielding a resultant
irradiance that deviates from the sum of the component
irradiances."

Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Certainly a far cry from the idea you tried to sell on this newsgroup
that interference patterns cause northbound vehicles to move in a
southbound direction and southbound vehicles to move in a northbound
direction.

Or is it that you still don't understand the FSU web page?

:-) Why are there never any examples provided to support these
'suggestions' of yours?

So now you minimize the fact that you argued vehemently with everyone
for endless months over your malformed ideas about how energy moves in
impedance matching systems. After I found the Melles-Griot web page
which seemed to support your idea, I realized the idea was physically
impossible and tried to persuade you away from it. I let you know in
every way I could that you had it wrong, and gave you every possible
example of it that I could think of, and in the process you called me
every nasty insulting thing you could think of. So yeah, I guess I do
have a tendency not to overlook it as easily as you do.

If
you will mail me a Xerox of your posterior, I will kiss
it and send it back to you if that would help.

No, but an admission that for months you behaved like a horse's
posterior would.

Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.

Yes it does. In fact that's one of the many ways I explained it to you
back when you wrote about how stupid, ignorant, and wrong I was about it
and how everyone from Galileo to Eugene Hecht agreed with you. What I
don't recall is ever seeing you take any of that back.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
So now you minimize the fact that you argued vehemently with everyone
for endless months over your malformed ideas about how energy moves in
impedance matching systems.

I apologized over a year ago and changed my article.
Exactly how long are you going to harass me about
a poor choice of words that I used in the distant
past for which I have apologized multiple times?

There was nothing wrong with the ideas and concepts
which have always been valid. The problem was with
the definitions of the words I was using, i.e. 100%
semantic.

I was using definitions of "reflection" and
"interference" that differ from the pure physics
definitions. I have admitted it and changed all my
articles. Do you want me to go to the nearest
police station and confess my semantic capital
offense or just go sit in the electric chair and
wait?

No, but an admission that for months you behaved like a horse's
posterior would.

I will admit to treating you the way you treat me.
Whatever ad hominem label you choose for your harassing
behavior is OK with me. But it is not clear why you
continue that same harassment years after I have repented
of my cardinal sins, been forgiven by God himself,
apologized to you multiple times, and changed my articles
at your urging.

Do you continue to kick your poor dog after he stopped
wetting the floor more than a year ago?

Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.

Yes it does.

Finally.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Tue, 19 May 2009 15:40:04 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote:

YOU ALL make me troll.

You must suffer terribly from our imposition, but your form of cure
isn't going to answer the absolutely stupid things that you write.

Only Richard wrote that the term "polarisation" apply to an equipment. To
waves rather "polarity".

Something you still don't understand - even in direct translation.

I do my best. Posting is also a free English lessons. It is a good method
(only the long hair dictionary is better).
So do not discourage. You are doing a good job.

Too late for me for study.

Too lazy, rather, as evidenced by:

"Trolling" is more efficient.

If you had been sent out of the caves to "efficiently" discover fire,
we would have returned to living in the trees.

Laurence Hecht advices return to Ampere. Gauss, Weber. See:
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ar...odynamics.html
and:
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html

What do you think about such "funny" stories?
S*

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
So now you minimize the fact that you argued vehemently with everyone
for endless months over your malformed ideas about how energy moves in
impedance matching systems.

I apologized over a year ago and changed my article.

Changed your article, yes. Apology, not as such.

There was nothing wrong with the ideas and concepts
which have always been valid. The problem was with
the definitions of the words I was using, i.e. 100%
semantic.

Most of your ideas and concepts were of course correct, Cecil. Your
conceptual problem was pretty much as I said: that interference causes
northbound cars to travel southbound, and southbound cars to travel
northbound. It provided you with justification for adding, subtracting,
and superposing average power at will. It was related to the belief you
adopted about waves causing other waves to do things. You insisted that
it had to be so, otherwise energy would not be conserved. Fortunately
for the universe, energy was conserved despite your insistence. So it
wasn't merely a difference over semantics. That would have been an even
greater waste of time.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Most of your ideas and concepts were of course correct, Cecil. Your
... it wasn't merely a difference over semantics.

I have not changed any of my basic ideas or concepts.
All I have changed is the definitions of "interference"
and "reflection" that I was using. It was a trivial
problem and easily fixed by changing "causes" to
"corresponds to" and "reflected" to "redistributed". The
only problem left is your refusal to accept my apology
and lay the distant past to rest after I made all the
revisions that you suggested.

You absolute refusal to define any of the words you were
using was part of the problem.

It provided you with justification for adding, subtracting,
and superposing average power at will.

For your information, the use of the irradiance (power density)
equation from Born and Wolf is *NOT* superposition of powers.
It is, however, the proper way to add power densities when
interference is present. If the forward and reflected waves are
not 90 degrees out of phase, interference is present at every
impedance discontinuity and energy is being redistributed in
different directions. I would expect a physics major to know
such or at least know where to look to alleviate his ignorance.

You once said that the irradiance equation that I quoted from
"Optics" by Hecht did not appear in Born and Wolf and that
Hecht had been discredited or some such. I bought the Born and
Wolf book and found the exact equation to which you were objecting.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

You once said that the irradiance equation that I quoted from
"Optics" by Hecht did not appear in Born and Wolf and that
Hecht had been discredited or some such. I bought the Born and
Wolf book and found the exact equation to which you were objecting.

I honestly don't believe you to be a liar. So I have to believe that
you may not be completely in possession of your faculties. That which
you describe above never happened, Cecil.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
I honestly don't believe you to be a liar. So I have to believe that
you may not be completely in possession of your faculties. That which
you describe above never happened, Cecil.

A crazy person believes that everyone else is crazy. I googled
and couldn't find exactly what I was looking for but here are
a couple of your quotes that I did find:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Aug 26, 2003, "Again, Born and Wolf disagree with Hecht."

On exactly what subjects do Born and Wolf disagree with Hecht?
After I obtained a copy of Born and Wolf, I discovered that
your above statement, repeated more than once, was false.

Aug 28, 2003, "Hecht must be far too old and out of date."

Exactly what sections of "Optics" by Hecht is "too old and
out of date"?

If I spent more time, I could find many other quotes of
yours like the above.

Google is a bitch, huh?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.

Yes it does.

Seems you have changed your mind from this earlier
assertion of yours.

There is no way to describe the mechanism for a
reversal in the direction of energy by means other
than reflection.

Can you spell R-E-D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

I googled
and couldn't find exactly what I was looking for but here are
a couple of your quotes that I did find:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Aug 26, 2003, "Again, Born and Wolf disagree with Hecht."
Aug 28, 2003, "Hecht must be far too old and out of date."

"You once said that the irradiance equation that I quoted from
"Optics" by Hecht did not appear in Born and Wolf"

Exactly what sections of "Optics" by Hecht is "too old and
out of date"?

Presumably the answer lies within the omitted part of the cited post.

If I spent more time, I could find many other quotes of
yours like the above.

I really wish you would, Cecil. It might help freshen your memory about
the whole thing.

But as you are so apt to do (when it best suits you), you've neglected
to include any context of the conversation that would have provided the
exact nature of my comments, and should have, according to you, proved
your assertion.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.

Yes it does.

Seems you have changed your mind from this earlier
assertion of yours.

There is no way to describe the mechanism for a reversal in the
direction of energy by means other than reflection.

Not at all. But drawing such a conclusion does reveal that you
apparently still have misconceptions consistent with the 4th mechanism
of reflection you introduced to us. Your vehement protestations and
testimonials about retractions and apologies notwithstanding.

Can you spell R-E-D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N?

Well if not, I'm sure my spell checker can. But you're demonstrated
that you can, and we're all very proud of you. :-)

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
But as you are so apt to do (when it best suits you), you've neglected
to include any context of the conversation that would have provided the
exact nature of my comments, and should have, according to you, proved
your assertion.

I gave you the dates of your postings, Jim. Here are
another two of your ridiculous statements:

Jun 18, 2003, "Your idea about a reversal in the direction
of the flow of energy being caused by something other than
reflection is nonsense."

Can you spell R-E-D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N?

micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html

If the redistribution occurs within a transmission line,
it becomes a reversal of direction of energy flow since
there are only two directions available. At the Z0-match
point in an otherwise mismatched system, the reflected
wave energy from the load is redistributed back toward
the load at the Z0-match point.

Jun 20, 2003, "The waves continue to propagate, 180
degrees out of phase, transferring no energy.

Exactly how do you prove they continue to exist? If you
measure them, you prove that they contain energy and
thus prove yourself wrong. If you measure zero energy,
you cannot prove they exist plus they do not even
meet the definition of "wave". What happens if those
waves, which are transferring no energy, encounter
a resistive load?

Can you spell M-E-T-A-P-H-Y-S-I-C-S?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
But drawing such a conclusion does reveal that you
apparently still have misconceptions consistent with the 4th mechanism
of reflection you introduced to us.

As you know, years ago I changed the "4th mechanism
of reflection" to the "redistribution" described on
the FSU web page and apologized for my poor choice
of words. You are still kicking the dog after he
stopped wetting the floor years ago.

You asked for the mechanism that causes reversal of
the direction of energy flow during wave cancellation
and I provided it. Here it is again:

micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html

Previously I was using the definition of "reflection",
common to amateur radio, as any reversal in the
direction of energy flow in a transmission line. I
then realized that a "reflection" only applies to a
single wave, not to two interacting waves. I apologized
and revised my article.

Please drag yourself into the present. Some of your
past assertions were/are false. I can dig up many
more if you desire.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecileo, master of the Universe wrote:

Aug 26, 2003, "Again, Born and Wolf disagree with Hecht."
Aug 28, 2003, "Hecht must be far too old and out of date."

If I spent more time, I could find many other quotes of

More time???? Six years and nothing sorted out - how much time are we
talking about?

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Richard Clark wrote:
More time???? Six years and nothing sorted out ...

Myths and old wives' tales die hard.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
More time???? Six years and nothing sorted out ...

Myths and old wives' tales die hard.

So please stop trying to invent new ones.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Myths and old wives' tales die hard.

So please stop trying to invent new ones.

I'm not doing that, Jim, just trying to lay the
old ones to rest, e.g. a 3 nS delay through a
10" long 75m bugcatcher loading coil. Please
don't tell me that you believe that a 4 MHz
signal can travel through a large 10" inch
coil in 3 nS - a coil that exhibits a VF of
0.04. That's about seven times the speed of
light.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Myths and old wives' tales die hard.

Six years of your bragging about them insures that - like blowing up a
balloon with a slow leak.

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Myths and old wives' tales die hard.

Six years of your bragging about them insures that -
like blowing up a balloon with a slow leak.

This is coming from the person who asserted that
reflections from non-reflective glass are brighter
than the surface of the sun.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Myths and old wives' tales die hard.

So please stop trying to invent new ones.

I'm not doing that, Jim, just trying to lay the
old ones to rest, e.g. a 3 nS delay through a
10" long 75m bugcatcher loading coil. Please
don't tell me that you believe that a 4 MHz
signal can travel through a large 10" inch
coil in 3 nS - a coil that exhibits a VF of
0.04. That's about seven times the speed of
light.

Given that the speed of light is roughly 3 x10^8 meters per second, and
it would ordinarily take less than a nanosecond to traverse the 10",
it's not *THAT* unbelievable. The delay would depend on the series
inductance and shunt capacitance of the coil. What are those numbers?

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Given that the speed of light is roughly 3 x10^8 meters per second, and
it would ordinarily take less than a nanosecond to traverse the 10",
it's not *THAT* unbelievable.

It is unbelievable for a device with a VF of 0.04
Do you understand how to include VF in a calculation?

The delay would depend on the series
inductance and shunt capacitance of the coil. What are those numbers?

All of those factors are included in the calculator at:

http://hamwaves.com/antennas/inductance.html

Tom's coil is 100 turns, 50.8mm coil diameter, 254mm long,
wire diameter of 1.024mm, and frequency = 4 MHz.

With a wavelength of 75m, exactly how does one obtain a
3 nS delay when the propagation factor is 2.12 radians/meter?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Given that the speed of light is roughly 3 x10^8 meters per second,
and it would ordinarily take less than a nanosecond to traverse the
10", it's not *THAT* unbelievable.

It is unbelievable for a device with a VF of 0.04

VF = 0.04 is incredible. I thought you were going to send me the coil
so I could measure it.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:59:24 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

It is unbelievable for a device with a VF of 0.04

VF = 0.04 is incredible. I thought you were going to send me the coil

Talk about unbelievable. Given Cecileo's penchant for mystical
selfhood, that would be like asking to borrow the Shroud of Turin.

I eagerly look forward to this turn of events where religious
reliquary moves at a glacial pace through the protocols of interfaith
sanctions.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
VF = 0.04 is incredible.

Ignorance makes a lot of things seem incredible.
Not at all incredible according to the Fig. 1
graph that you referenced a few days ago at:

http://www.ttr.com/TELSIKS2001-MASTER-1.pdf

Here's how to do it. Draw a horizontal line at
0.04. Where it intersects the lines on the graph
are the real-world coils exhibiting a VF of 0.04.
If you need help drawing that line, send me an
email.

Hint: Those large loading coils are slow-wave
devices described in my Ramo and Whinnery
college textbook from the 1950's. It's on page
410 of the 2nd edition of "Fields and Waves
in Modern Radio", (c)1944, 1953 (the year you
were born). Isn't it about time you read it?

The approximation they use for vp (phase velocity)
is c*sin(pitch-angle)

I thought you were going to send me the coil
so I could measure it.

The coil has been chopped up and used in numerous
projects including my Bugstick article. Don't you
or your students know how to wind a coil? Do you
need step by step winding instructions?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
VF = 0.04 is incredible.

A little knowledge and logic will make it clear.
My 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil is self resonant
at 8.2 MHz which by definition makes it 90 degrees
long. 90 degrees at 8.2 MHz in free space is 30 feet.

The coil is actually 6.5 inches long, i.e. 0.542 feet.

0.542/30 = 0.018 which is the VF of the Texas
Bugcatcher coil at its self-resonant frequency.

The Texas Bugcatcher coil is 4 tpi. The coil with
the VF = 0.04 is 10 tpi. It all makes sense.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
VF = 0.04 is incredible.

A little knowledge and logic will make it clear.
My 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil is self resonant
at 8.2 MHz which by definition makes it 90 degrees
long. 90 degrees at 8.2 MHz in free space is 30 feet.

The coil is actually 6.5 inches long, i.e. 0.542 feet.

0.542/30 = 0.018 which is the VF of the Texas
Bugcatcher coil at its self-resonant frequency.

The Texas Bugcatcher coil is 4 tpi. The coil with
the VF = 0.04 is 10 tpi. It all makes sense.

Epicycles made a lot of sense, too. So, about that coil. I'm good in
the call book.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
So, about that coil. I'm good in the call book.

That coil is being used on a bugstick on top of my
pickup. Just wrap 40 turns on a 4 inch diameter piece
of PCV and start alleviating your ignorance.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
So, about that coil. I'm good in the call book.

That coil is being used on a bugstick on top of my
pickup. Just wrap 40 turns on a 4 inch diameter piece
of PCV and start alleviating your ignorance.

If you are right then I would no longer be ignorant, and you would still
be boorish and asinine.

You seem reluctant to have your coil tested. I promise to return it to
you immediately after I make the measurements.

If I make the coil and the results turn out not to support your
contention, you would contend that the coil was made incorrectly. It's
better that you supply the coil - along with your claims about it. I'm
ready to be amazed, Cecil.

ac6xg

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:28:06 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

I'm ready to be amazed, Cecil.

Hi Jim,

Then you are due a picture of his stigmata of the microphone wound:
"Hertz, forgive them for they know not what mode they operate."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dual-Z0 Stubs
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
If I make the coil and the results turn out not to support your
contention, you would contend that the coil was made incorrectly.

Nope, I won't do that. Any large air-core loading coil will
do. All it has to satisfy is the Corum test on page 4:

5ND^2/WL 1

I'll send you an EXCEL file that makes that test.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com