wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Now, it surely is possible to bypass a perfect inductor with a capacitor
to mitigate a delay.
Dang Richard, now you've told Tom how to run his experiment
in order to obtain the results he predicts. :-)

You say you will accept something, you ask for something to be done,
and when it is offered you back up and stall, preparing advance excuses
why it won't be done correctly and refusing to make a prediction.

You've eaten up hours of my time and the only thing I've learned is you
don't want to learn, and you are so unsure of yourself you'll avoid any
prediction of how something will work any way you can.

I'm just amazed you have to fall back on name calling, mubo-jumbo, and
inuendo when someone offers to help you understand something. I'm all
done with this too.

That's exactly what he did back in November 2003. I see he hasn't
changed any. Wonder who the next person will be to get sucked in, jerked
around, and disgusted.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dang Richard, now you've told Tom how to run his experiment
in order to obtain the results he predicts. :-)

You say you will accept something, you ask for something to be done,
and when it is offered you back up and stall, preparing advance excuses
why it won't be done correctly and refusing to make a prediction.

It was a joke, Tom. I am still trying to work out the measurement
details in my mind. It certainly won't do any good to measure
a parameter other than the one we want to measure.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

wrote:
Cecil also said he wanted a measurement. When I asked him to make a
prediction, he made excuses why any result would be wrong and avoided
any prediction.

The concept is easy. The measurement it tricky. It won't do
a bit of good to measure the voltage delay and call it the
current delay. I asked you pointed questions about your
coil and measurement setup. Instead of responding with
answers to my questions, you respond with more ad hominem
attacks. One wonders what your motive really is. Did your
measurements support my side of the argument and now you
are ashamed to report those results?

If you refuse to make the measurements, I'll just find
someone else willing to do it or do it myself.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Roy Lewallen wrote:
That's exactly what he did back in November 2003. I see he hasn't
changed any. Wonder who the next person will be to get sucked in, jerked
around, and disgusted.

Here comes the junk yard dog guru gang. Tom has refused
to give me the necessary needed information about his
coil and his measurement configuration and you are blaming
me for that? With the information that he has provided
so far, I might as well be trying to guess how much
loose change he has in his pocket.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:
You say you will accept something, you ask for something to be done,
and when it is offered you back up and stall, preparing advance excuses
why it won't be done correctly and refusing to make a prediction.

I'm not stalling, Tom, I'm waiting for you to provide the
information I requested. Why are you avoiding providing
that information? It's pretty simple stuff that anyone
would need to make a prediction.

1. What is the inductance of the coil? What is the
Q of the coil?

2. What kind of current probes are you using with your
Network Analyzer? What are the characteristics of the
driving source signal?

3. What is the schematic configuration of your test setup?
How can I possibly make a prediction without that schematic?

That is certainly a reasonable request. Without that
information, a prediction is impossible, not just for
me but for anyone else.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

I wrote and all can read:

Fri, Mar 10 2006 9:13 pm
Email:
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Cecil,


I have a 100 turn 2 inch diameter air wound inductor of pretty good
quality. It is 10 inches long.

To which Cecil Moore replied:
Tom, I have no idea since you chose not to post the length of
the coil or the inductance of the coil or the Q of the coil
or even the turns/inch of the coil.

Cecil: "I have no idea since you CHOSE to not post...blah blah blah"

Fact: I already had posted coil length, number of turns, diameter, and
I said the inductor has "pretty good quality".

wrote:
I wrote and all can read:

Everyone please take a close look at the lengths to which
Tom will go to to deceive the readers. He has falsified
the following postings. He mixed and matched, cut and
pasted, from multiple postings made at different times
for the sole purpose of deceiving. That cannot happen
accidentally. That is a deliberately unethical act, a
lie about what I posted, and is probably criminal.

Please observe to what lengths Tom is willing to go to
divert the technical issues and hide the technical truth
in order to protect his lumped-circuit myths.

Here's is the entire posting: Where did Tom give the coil length?
************************************************** ****************
wrote:

I have a 100 turn 2" diameter #18 gauge wire air core inductor. There
are 100 turns, so there is about 630 inches or 32 feet of wire in the
coil.

I have a Network Analyzer with port to port time delay measurement
capability. It measures coaxial cables very well, and even clip leads.

Cecil, please predict or guess the group delay of this inductor at 3.8
MHz. Tell us all what that group delay means for your wave theory.

Tom, I have no idea since you chose not to post the length of
the coil or the inductance of the coil or the Q of the coil
or even the turns/inch of the coil.

Is your Network Analyzer equipped with current probes? If not,
you are wasting your time.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
************************************************** **************************
Fri, Mar 10 2006 9:13 pm
Email:
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Cecil,

The posting I replied to was the following made at 7:34pm which
did not contain the length of the coil. I read this one first and
replied to it. It is absolutely true that Tom chose not to post
the length of the coil in the 7:34pm posting to which I replied.

Tom wrote at 7:34pm:
I have a 100 turn 2" diameter #18 gauge wire air core inductor. There
are 100 turns, so there is about 630 inches or 32 feet of wire in the
coil.

See? The length of the coil is NOT there.

The following quote is from Tom's *second* posting made at 8:13pm,
almost half an hour later. His *first* posting didn't say how
long the coil was. I read Tom's *first* posting first and replied
to it before I read his second posting.

Tom wrote at 8:13pm:
I have a 100 turn 2 inch diameter air wound inductor of pretty good
quality. It is 10 inches long.

To which Cecil Moore replied:

Tom, I have no idea since you chose not to post the length of
the coil or the inductance of the coil or the Q of the coil
or even the turns/inch of the coil.

That quote is my reply to Tom's *first* posting. I had
not read your *second* posting yet. Everything I said was
absolutely true about his first posting.

How unethical can one get? Tom cut and pasted multiple postings
from different times to try to deceive the readers. Not only is
it unethical but it is probably also illegal.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Now, now, gentlemen, there's no need to re-start the Civil War. Put
away your literary weapons.

The slaves have all been freed and we now have computers.

A 100 turn coil, 10 inches long, 2 inches in diameter, has an
inductance of 102 microhenrys, a Q of aproximately 380 at F = 1.9 MHz,
and the self-resonant frequency is 12.0 MHz.

Its radiation resistance at 1.9 MHz is negligible.

It is near enough to being exactly 100 microhenrys to justify it being
called an Inductance Standard.
----
Reg.

Reg Edwards wrote:
A 100 turn coil, 10 inches long, 2 inches in diameter, has an
inductance of 102 microhenrys, a Q of aproximately 380 at F = 1.9 MHz,
and the self-resonant frequency is 12.0 MHz. Its radiation resistance
at 1.9 MHz is negligible.

Good stuff Reg. Modeling it as a transmission line, what would
be its Z0 and VF?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Roy Lewallen, W7EL wrote:
"The mathematical treatment in King is quite complex. But nowhere does
he mention any traveling, reflected, or standing current, power, or
energy waves, or that inductance behaves any differently in an antenna
than in a lumped circuit.."

Maybe something was overlooked. The above is just more squid ink.

Kraus characterizes inductors as helices. At one extreme they are
stretched into straifht wires. At the other they collapse into single
loops.

After years of wrangling it is time to admit that the old authors are
right.

King and Wing were associates at Harvard.

Alexander H. Wing wrote on page 3 of "Transmission Lines, Antennas, and
Wave Guides":
"5. Distributed constants - The Transmission line cannot be analyzed as
a simple series circuit, because the current in the wires is not
everywhere the same."

J.D. Kraus wrote on page 185 of his 1950 edition of "Antennas":
"Thus, a helix with circumference too small for the axial mode of
radiation (circumferennce less than 2/3 wavelength) has a nearly
sinusoidal current distribution, caused by alternate reinforcement and
cancellation of two oppositely directed traveling waves on the helix of
nearly equal amplitude Izero as suggested in Fig. 7-13c. Both traveling
waves are of the Tzero transmission mode type."

I expedct no one will throw in the towel, but do expect more squirts of
squid ink.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI