Current through coils
 

wrote:
I offered to make a measurement if he would even loosely predict
results and tell us in advance what they would mean. When he didn't
respond, I made the measurements anyway.

Huh? I predicted 14 degrees at 1.9 MHz and 28 degrees at 3.8 MHz
based on Reg's assertion that the coil was self-resonant at 12 MHz.
Once you know the self-resonant frequency, the VF can be calculated.
From there, one can calculate a ballpark delay through the coil.
Your 3 nS measurement seems outside of all possiblity.

This is really simple physics, Tom. If your measurements disagree
with the boundary conditions set by the laws of distributed-
network physics then something is wrong with your measurements.

Let's take a closer look. If the delay through the coil is indeed
3 nS at 4 MHz, the phase shift through the coil at 4 MHz is 4.32
degrees. For a self-resonant phase shift of 90 degrees, the self-
resonant frequency of the coil has to be near (90/4.32)4 MHz =
83 MHz. Now if the self-resonant frequency is really 83 MHz, all
is well, and your measurements agree with distributed network
theory.

But, Tom, don't you think you are insulting our intelligence when
your 100uH coil must have a self-resonant frequency of 83 MHz and
a velocity factor of 0.28 for your measurements to be valid? My
75m bugcatcher coil has a VF of 0.015. Why is your coil 20 times
better than my bugcatcher?

And I have that same coil with 68.5 turns but it is self-resonant
at 57 MHz. How do you explain 2/3 of the number of turns being
self-resonant 25 MHz lower? If you cannot, something is wrong with
your measurements. Don't you care that your 3 nS results are so
outside the bounds of possibility as to be laughable?

Please measure the self-resonant frequency of that coil, Tom.
If it's not 83 MHz, your measurements are bogus. I suggest the
self-resonant frequency is actually lower than the 12 MHz
predicted by Reg.

Incidentally, the IEEE would surely be interested in your ability
to violate the distributed-network laws of physics. Maybe you
can talk them into replacing that body of physics with your pet
lumped-circuit model. Good luck on that one.

3 nS delay through a 100 uH coil???? That would be funny if it
was April First. That's why I requested that you describe your
test setup which you refused to do.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current through coils
 

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I was as naive as Galileo in front of the court run by religious priests.

Has Cecileo been dropping his balls off of the Tower of Pisa again?

:-) I dropped them off the wrong side and rewrote the law of gravity.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current through coils
 

All explainations of the time delay I measured and why it happens are
on my website.

http://www.w8ji.com/inductor_current_time_delay.htm

and

http://www.w8ji.com/mobile_and_loaded_antenna.htm

and associated links.

The self-resonant frequency of the inductor is shown by a large rise in
time delay. Cecil is now trying to rewrite the self-resonant frequency
of the inductor I tested by using his own seriously flawed theories,
but despite the fact it appears to be clearly shown in the network
analyzer data at about 16 MHz.

http://www.w8ji.com/images/Inductor/...time-delay.jpg

Cecil's normal tactic is to change what other people say. To read a
history of the very same behavior with someone else please read:

http://www.w8ji.com/RRAA_post.htm


73 Tom

Current through coils
 

Richard Clark wrote:

Analog designers, fully expecting a continuum of results spanning from
classic to truly exaggerated, can cope with this. For digital
designers, this is a clear example of confounding expectations of a
binary result.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I've worked with a few digital designers. Many of them expect a unary
result.

tom
K0TAR

Current through coils
 

wrote:
The self-resonant frequency of the inductor is shown by a large rise in
time delay. Cecil is now trying to rewrite the self-resonant frequency
of the inductor I tested by using his own seriously flawed theories,
but despite the fact it appears to be clearly shown in the network
analyzer data at about 16 MHz.

Well then, if 10" is 1/4WL at 16 MHz, its velocity factor is 0.054.
10" on 4 MHz with a VF of 0.054 is 0.063WL or 22.6 degrees. Why
didn't you measure 22.6 degrees or 15.7 nS of delay?

You measured 3 nS or 4.32 degrees of delay. Something is obviously
wrong. The VF couldn't change by a factor of 5 to 1 going from 16
MHz to 4 Mhz.

I think I know what happened. You forgot and left the test wire
attached in parallel with the test coil. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current through coils
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil, have you ever read the book _Don Quixote_, by Cervantes?
There's a character in there you remind me of.

Tom, please don't tell me that you also believe that a distributed-
network analysis using wave reflection theory is "gobbledygook".
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current through coils
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:
The self-resonant frequency of the inductor is shown by a large rise in
time delay. Cecil is now trying to rewrite the self-resonant frequency
of the inductor I tested by using his own seriously flawed theories,
but despite the fact it appears to be clearly shown in the network
analyzer data at about 16 MHz.

In case my previous reply was confusing to some people let's
do it with a piece of transmission line.

We have a piece of transmission line that we measure to be
1/4 wavelength on 16 MHz. That's easily done with an MFJ-
259B. We hand it over to Tom who takes it and measures a
3 nS delay through it at 4 MHz. What's wrong with this
picture?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current through coils
 

wrote:
(snip)
Time delay measurements of current at each terminal of a "bug-catcher
style" loading coil are now at:
http://www.w8ji.com/inductor_current_time_delay.htm

Thank you for posting the test results. But I see no information that
would allow me to reproduce it. What test equipment and what
measurement set-up was used to produce these results?

Current through coils
 

wrote:
Cecil's normal tactic is to change what other people say.

I could never bring myself to cut and paste and mix and match
numerous postings over many hours to try to twist what someone
has said, like you did with my postings. I could ask, Tom are
you a criminal?, and wait for the next time you posted a yes
to some other question. Cut and paste those two things together
and I would be using W8JI's arguing technique. But you know
what you are, Tom, without me having to point it out.

To read a
history of the very same behavior with someone else please read:

http://www.w8ji.com/RRAA_post.htm

That is really funny, Tom. You are defending the lumped-constant
model, known to fail in a standing wave environment, by measuring
standing wave current? You are really something else.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current through coils
 

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 02:29:51 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil, have you ever read the book _Don Quixote_, by Cervantes?
There's a character in there you remind me of.

Tom, please don't tell me that you also believe that a distributed-
network analysis using wave reflection theory is "gobbledygook".

Hmm, Tom, let me guess - Dulcinea. The object of Quixote's attention
who never appears, but is always dreamt about.