Cecil Moore wrote:

Here are your words cut and pasted from qrz.com.
"By the way, I swept S12 phase with my network analyzer on a
100uH inductor a few hours ago while working on a phasing
system. The phase shift through that series inductor was about
-60 or -70 degrees on 1 MHz, ...

S12 is a voltage parameter. So did the coil show a "-60 or
-70 degrees" voltage phase shift or not?

It did. Just as I posted here it did.

Where does it say
anything about "current with a small current transformer"
in your posting?

It didn't. As I kept telling you in that thread, I didn't want to talk
to you until you were able to make a post without resorting to personal
attacks. I also told you I was busy with work, and didn't have time to
deal with the same old circular arguments with you.

Last time I looked, a 100uH inductor was
not a small current transformer. I assumed a current
phase shift at first and you jumped on me about that. Now
you say it was a current phase shift after all. If you want
to be quoted correctly, you need to stop fibbing.

Please stop trying to blame your mistakes on me! It's not my fault you
assumed more than you read! I've been telling you all along current at
each end of ANY small inductor has the same phase. I've been telling
you all along I didn't want to talk to you until you learn to behave.

Don't accuse me of lying because you made up a theory and it is dead
wrong! It isn't MY fault you painted yourself in a corner by adjusting
your theories to suit what you thought was said, when it wasn't even
said.

Here's what I think happened in context. You were trying to
prove Kraus wrong with his assertion that a 180 degree
phasing coil can be thought of as 1/2WL of wire wound
into a coil. You failed to realize that your posting was
supporting my other point about phase shifts through coils.

"Here's what I think" is correct Cecil. In your mind Cecil, it's always
all about the other guy failing, being wrong and knowing better, or
being dishonest.

So you accidentally posted results that supported my side
of the argument. Your lumped-circuit model predicts zero
phase shift. My distributed network model predicts considerable
phase shift. Your experiment yielded considerable phase shift
and now you seek to deny it. However, it is there in all
its glory on qrz.com for all to see. So feel free to deny it.

Anyone can read anything. I'd wager you anything you like multiple
people on this list can make a small current transformer, measure
current at each terminal of a compact inductor, and find the phase of
current essentially the same at each end.

It isn't about me Cecil. It isn't about Kraus. It isn't about QRZ. It
isn't about Roy or anyone else. It's all about how a two terminal
inductor acts! That can be proven over and over again, and it will
always come out the same. Neither you nor I can change how things work.

I never misrepresent facts as I understand them to exist. The
fact that you absolutely refuse to engage me in a technical
discussion speaks volumes.

It does indeed. If you stayed away from personal attacks I would
converse with you. I've told you that over and over again. People who
say things on Internet they wouldn't say face to face wear on my
nerves. I find it very difficult to remain civil when reading constant
personal attacks.

If I were wrong, you would simply
engage me and prove me wrong with a technical argument as you
have so many others. But If I am right, I fully understand your
reluctance to engage me in a technical discussion.
You can start the technical discussion by explaining the
EZNEC results on my web page:

1.) We really can't have a good conversation until you stop the
constant personal attacks, and until we agree on a few basics.

2.) You claim Roy measured current that doesn't flow. That area needs
addressed.

3.) You also claim significant current phase shift exists between the
terminals of a compact inductor operated well below self-resonance.

It's very simple to measure current and voltage and the phase
relationships in a two terminal device and prove you are wrong.

Trying to divert the issue to me not following your commands and orders
just won't go far.

The current flowing into one end and out of the other end of a small
lumped inductor operated far below self-resonance is essentially equal
in both phase and amplitude. You say it isn't, I say it is, and I can
prove it beyond any doubt to any open minded person.

I say I can easily build a loading coil that acts the same way. I can
replace 40 or 60 degrees of electrical height with an inductor that has
virtually no phase shift in current between the two terminals, and
virtually the same current level. I can prove that also.

I'm just not sure I can prove anything to someone who thinks a current
transformer measures current that doesn't flow!

73 Tom

wrote:
Please stop trying to blame your mistakes on me! It's not my fault you
assumed more than you read! I've been telling you all along current at
each end of ANY small inductor has the same phase.

Please define "small" in terms of the number of degrees of phase
shift measured using a traveling wave signal.

Don't accuse me of lying because you made up a theory and it is dead
wrong! It isn't MY fault you painted yourself in a corner by adjusting
your theories to suit what you thought was said, when it wasn't even
said.

Your diversions are comical and obvious, Tom. Thanks for
the laugh.

If you stayed away from personal attacks I would converse with you.

Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot. Tom, your personal attacks are legend
throughout the internet and world wide web. I know hams who
are too terrified to respond to you even when you are wrong.

1.) We really can't have a good conversation until you stop the
constant personal attacks, and until we agree on a few basics.

Hard to accomplish since you define being proven technically wrong
as a personal attack.

2.) You claim Roy measured current that doesn't flow. That area needs
addressed.

Please explain how a net current with a fixed constant
non-rotating phase can possibly flow. Please explain
how a wire with 1 amp flowing in one direction and 1 amp
flowing in the other direction supports a net charge flow.

3.) You also claim significant current phase shift exists between the
terminals of a compact inductor operated well below self-resonance.

Please define "compact" in terms of the number of degrees
of phase shift measured using a traveling wave.

It's very simple to measure current and voltage and the phase
relationships in a two terminal device and prove you are wrong.

I've got many technical references that disagree. If you can do
that, why haven't you done that?

The current flowing into one end and out of the other end of a small
lumped inductor operated far below self-resonance is essentially equal
in both phase and amplitude.

Please define "small" as the number of degrees of phase shift
measured using a traveling wave.

You say it isn't, I say it is, and I can
prove it beyond any doubt to any open minded person.

Here, you are just out and out lying since I never said that.
Want to bet $1000 that you can prove I ever said that? I didn't
think so. What is with this compulsion you have to lie about
what I have said? Can't you win a technical argument without
lying?

I say I can easily build a loading coil that acts the same way. I can
replace 40 or 60 degrees of electrical height with an inductor that has
virtually no phase shift in current between the two terminals, and
virtually the same current level. I can prove that also.

I seriously doubt that. Please measure the phase shift using a
traveling wave through any coil that accomplishes that function.
I suspect you are being fooled by the current loop located inside
the coil and the fact that you have been ignorantly been measuring
the net standing wave current which is essentially irrelevant.

I'm just not sure I can prove anything to someone who thinks a current
transformer measures current that doesn't flow!

I explained it to you, Tom, in another posting. If you don't
understand it, you need technical help. At a fixed point on a wire
(where no net current or net charge is flowing) that is experiencing
a constant exchange of H-field energy with E-field energy every
cycle, a toroidal pickup coil will certainly report the results of
that orthogonal energy exchange between the fields even though there
is no lateral flow of net current or net charge. That's why a
standing-wave dipole radiates broadside and a traveling-wave
dipole is an end-fire. What school did you say you attended?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Please explain how a net current with a fixed constant
non-rotating phase can possibly flow. Please explain
how a wire with 1 amp flowing in one direction and 1 amp
flowing in the other direction supports a net charge flow.

Once again this indicates you are not familiar or comfortable with
basics, and have gotten ahead of yourself by going off somehwre in a
land of reflected waves. Now you are confused, and can't make sense of
basics.

The generator sees a reactive load. When the generator sees a reactive
load, current and voltage are no longer in step. This is true all
through the system from source to load.

3.) You also claim significant current phase shift exists between the
terminals of a compact inductor operated well below self-resonance.

Please define "compact" in terms of the number of degrees
of phase shift measured using a traveling wave.

Phase shift in what Cecil? This is how people get in trouble, make
misstatements, and wind up blaming others for what they say. Here we
are again, trying to work traveling and standing waves into a system
too small to have anything stand when another significantly better
analysis method would easily explain it all.

You keep trying to define the "inductor" in terms of degrees related to
standing waves like standing waves change the properties of the
component. I can't remember the last time I called to order an inductor
and they vendor asked me "what phase shift in degrees of standing wave
100uH inductor do you want?".

It's very simple to measure current and voltage and the phase
relationships in a two terminal device and prove you are wrong.

I've got many technical references that disagree. If you can do
that, why haven't you done that?

I have done it and told you how, you ignore it. Roy has done it and
told you how, you ignore it. I'm sure many thousands of people here and
everywhere else understand in a reactive system voltage and current are
not in phase. I'm equally sure many thousands of people, including
lurkers here, understand a small inductor operated well below
self-resonance has equal phase current entering one lead and leaving
the other.

The only way to get confused on that is if someone doesn't understand
behavior of the basic component, gets in over his head and confuses
himself trying to use a tool that doesn't work, and then lashes out at
others and refuses to listen.

The current flowing into one end and out of the other end of a small
lumped inductor operated far below self-resonance is essentially equal
in both phase and amplitude.

Please define "small" as the number of degrees of phase shift
measured using a traveling wave.

There you go again! Back to traveling and standing waves.

You say it isn't, I say it is, and I can
prove it beyond any doubt to any open minded person.

Here, you are just out and out lying since I never said that.
Want to bet $1000 that you can prove I ever said that? I didn't
think so. What is with this compulsion you have to lie about
what I have said? Can't you win a technical argument without
lying?

There you go again, back to the lowest form of debate. If you can't
understand something or get trapped, just call the other guy a liar.

You very clearly said current in each terminal of the inductor has a
different phase shift several times in your posts.

I say I can easily build a loading coil that acts the same way. I can
replace 40 or 60 degrees of electrical height with an inductor that has
virtually no phase shift in current between the two terminals, and
virtually the same current level. I can prove that also.

I seriously doubt that. Please measure the phase shift using a
traveling wave through any coil that accomplishes that function.
I suspect you are being fooled by the current loop located inside
the coil and the fact that you have been ignorantly been measuring
the net standing wave current which is essentially irrelevant.

I can't understand what you are saying or what your point is, other
than you think I am being fooled by standing waves, I am ignorant, and
anything I measure is irrelevant.

Maybe someone else can help me with your last statement.

I'm just not sure I can prove anything to someone who thinks a current
transformer measures current that doesn't flow!

I explained it to you, Tom, in another posting. If you don't
understand it, you need technical help. At a fixed point on a wire
(where no net current or net charge is flowing) that is experiencing
a constant exchange of H-field energy with E-field energy every
cycle, a toroidal pickup coil will certainly report the results of
that orthogonal energy exchange between the fields even though there
is no lateral flow of net current or net charge. That's why a
standing-wave dipole radiates broadside and a traveling-wave
dipole is an end-fire.

Maybe someone else on this group can explain or understand what you are
trying to say.

Anyone help me here? What is Cecil saying in that last paragraph? What
does the pattern of a radiating structure in the far-field have to do
with current in a circuit with a reactor?

73 Tom

wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Please explain how a net current with a fixed constant
non-rotating phase can possibly flow. Please explain
how a wire with 1 amp flowing in one direction and 1 amp
flowing in the other direction supports a net charge flow.

Once again this indicates you are not familiar or comfortable with
basics, and have gotten ahead of yourself by going off somehwre in a
land of reflected waves. Now you are confused, and can't make sense of
basics.

As readers can observe for themselves, you avoided answering
the question and you instead turned it into personal insults.

The generator sees a reactive load. When the generator sees a reactive
load, current and voltage are no longer in step. This is true all
through the system from source to load.

I didn't ask or say anything about voltage. The fact that you
refuse to answer my technical questions speaks volumes.

Please define "compact" in terms of the number of degrees
of phase shift measured using a traveling wave.

Phase shift in what Cecil?

The measured phase shift is in a traveling wave through a 75m
bugcatcher coil. How long does it take the traveling wave current
to flow from one end of the coil to the other? Your lumped-circuit
model presupposes instantaneous current flow for traveling waves.
Let's measure the current delay in a traveling wave to see
if your model is correct. If it is not correct, it is useless.

You cannot even begin to understand the problem if you don't
know that basic phase shift. I'm willing to bet that my 75m
bugcatcher coil has at least a 40 nanosecond delay on 4 MHz
which is a 60 degree current phase shift.

If that measured delay is in the ballpark of 40 nanoseconds
or more, it proves that your lumped-circuit model has failed
and your invalid proof is presupposed in the invalid model.

You cannot use a model that presupposes instantaneous current
flow to prove that the current flow is instantaneous. You cannot
use a model that presupposes constant current magnitude to prove
that the current has constant magnitude.

You keep trying to define the "inductor" in terms of degrees related to
standing waves ...

Not true, Tom, and just shows how confused you are about
what I have said. For the Nth time: The phase of the standing
wave current doesn't change up and down the entire length
of a 1/2WL thin dipole. Why would anyone expect it to change
at the ends of a loading coil? As far as I am concerned we
can drop any discussion of standing wave current phase. It is
meaningless. The phase that Roy measured was standing wave
phase. It was already known and is completely irrelevant. I
asked Roy to measure the traveling wave phase shift. He didn't.

I have done it and told you how, you ignore it. Roy has done it and
told you how, you ignore it.

You guys are measuring standing wave current that doesn't
flow and doesn't change phase. Your measurements are
completely meaningless and your flawed model has you
hoodwinked.

The only way to get confused on that is if someone doesn't understand
behavior of the basic component, gets in over his head and confuses
himself trying to use a tool that doesn't work, and then lashes out at
others and refuses to listen.

That's an exact description of you and your lumped circuit
analysis in a standing wave environment. Do you disagree with
Walter Maxwell?

Walt wrote:
"If an inductance is in series with a line that has reflections,
the current will NOT be the same at both ends of the inductor."

"Consequently, circuit analysis will not work when both forward
and reflected currents are present in a lumped circuit."

The component is not the problem, Tom. The problem seems to be
your feigning of total ignorance of the laws of reflection
physics in order to avoid discussing the real problem.

There you go again! Back to traveling and standing waves.

Yes, you are never going to understand what I am saying about
standing-wave antennas until you discuss traveling and standing
waves on the standing-wave antenna. Your lumped-circuit model
is known to fail in the presence of standing waves.

There you go again, back to the lowest form of debate. If you can't
understand something or get trapped, just call the other guy a liar.

No, it's a lot simpler than that. When you lie about something
I said, I call you a liar.

You very clearly said current in each terminal of the inductor has a
different phase shift several times in your posts.

One more time. The standing wave current does NOT change phase
at the ends of the coil. The standing wave current essentially
does not change phase unless a dipole is longer than 1/2WL.
The phase of the standing wave current is totally irrelevant.

The forward traveling-wave current experiences a delay through
the coil. The reflected traveling-wave current experiences a
delay through the coil. This delay can be measured on the bench.
If the delay is not negligible, your lumped-circuit model is
useless because it presupposes a delay of zero.

I can't understand what you are saying or what your point is, ...

Please don't insult my intelligence or yours. Every one of us
performed those experiments on the bench in college. Exactly
what is it about bench measuring the RF current delay through
a coil that you don't understand?

Maybe someone else can help me with your last statement.

Do you even know what a standing wave current loop is?

Maybe someone else on this group can explain or understand what you are
trying to say.

You must have missed EE203. :-) What is it about a continuous
exchange of energy between the E-field and H-field at a fixed
point on an antenna wire that you don't understand? That's
just a characteristic of standing waves. Roy has used the
same argument in the past to try to prove that reflected
energy doesn't flow. But's it's the standing wave energy
that doesn't flow.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

The generator sees a reactive load. When the generator sees a reactive
load, current and voltage are no longer in step. This is true all
through the system from source to load.

I didn't ask or say anything about voltage. The fact that you
refuse to answer my technical questions speaks volumes.

The fact you can't understand simple direct answers does the same. You
asked how what I measured could happen, I answered. You either are
choosing to ignore the answer becuase you don't like it, or you don't
understand it.

Please define "compact" in terms of the number of degrees
of phase shift measured using a traveling wave.

Phase shift in what Cecil?

The measured phase shift is in a traveling wave through a 75m
bugcatcher coil. How long does it take the traveling wave current
to flow from one end of the coil to the other? Your lumped-circuit
model presupposes instantaneous current flow for traveling waves.
Let's measure the current delay in a traveling wave to see
if your model is correct. If it is not correct, it is useless.

When Roy measured current (and I did the same) using inductive coupling
in a current trasformer, a method that requires a time-varying current
to excite the secondary, you dismissed Roy's measurements with some odd
response about him measuring current that doesn't flow.

I already measured the phase of current, and it is nearly zero degrees.
It seems obvious to me that when someone gives you and answer you don't
like, you either personally attack that persona and call them a liar or
you make up some lame excuse like "you measured current that doesn't
flow".

I don't know what others think, but it is starting to look to me like
you either don't understand the basics of measurements or you are just
unwilling to learn.


You cannot even begin to understand the problem if you don't
know that basic phase shift. I'm willing to bet that my 75m
bugcatcher coil has at least a 40 nanosecond delay on 4 MHz
which is a 60 degree current phase shift.

I can measure that. My network analyzer measures time delays. The
problem I see is if I take time from my busy schedule and measure it,
you will either call me a liar or say I measured current that doesn't
flow.

Before measuring anything specific I'm going to warn you that I've
measured group delays many times before, and the group delay in an
inductor is significantly less than the group delay in a transmission
line of the same conductor length. I know that from past experience.

But if you promise to control yourself and not dismiss a measurement
with personal attacks or insults, and promise to not do an about-face
like you did with Roy and say "you really didn't measure current that
moves with your thing that only measures changing current", I will do
that.

I really wish some of your ideas were correct. If they were correct, I
would not have thousands of feet of coaxial cables coiled under my
bench. I would not be forcing customers to cut long delay lines when
their equipment could just use a simple wound up piece of enameled
wire.

If that measured delay is in the ballpark of 40 nanoseconds
or more, it proves that your lumped-circuit model has failed
and your invalid proof is presupposed in the invalid model.

The only potential problem is your reaction to measurements.

You keep trying to define the "inductor" in terms of degrees related to
standing waves ...

Not true, Tom, and just shows how confused you are about
what I have said. For the Nth time: The phase of the standing
wave current doesn't change up and down the entire length
of a 1/2WL thin dipole. Why would anyone expect it to change
at the ends of a loading coil? As far as I am concerned we
can drop any discussion of standing wave current phase. It is
meaningless. The phase that Roy measured was standing wave
phase. It was already known and is completely irrelevant. I
asked Roy to measure the traveling wave phase shift. He didn't.

Does ANYONE on this newsgroup understand Cecil? I need help here.


I have done it and told you how, you ignore it. Roy has done it and
told you how, you ignore it.

You guys are measuring standing wave current that doesn't
flow and doesn't change phase. Your measurements are
completely meaningless and your flawed model has you
hoodwinked.

What a silly statement. We are measuring a time-varying current that
doesn't flow or change!

The only way to get confused on that is if someone doesn't understand
behavior of the basic component, gets in over his head and confuses
himself trying to use a tool that doesn't work, and then lashes out at
others and refuses to listen.

That's an exact description of you and your lumped circuit
analysis in a standing wave environment. Do you disagree with
Walter Maxwell?

Walt wrote:
"If an inductance is in series with a line that has reflections,
the current will NOT be the same at both ends of the inductor."

"Consequently, circuit analysis will not work when both forward
and reflected currents are present in a lumped circuit."

Yes, if he wrote what you quoted and you didn't lift something out of
context I totally disagree with him.

The component is not the problem, Tom. The problem seems to be
your feigning of total ignorance of the laws of reflection
physics in order to avoid discussing the real problem.

I don't think most qualified experienced people would think I am the
ignorant one.

There you go again! Back to traveling and standing waves.

Yes, you are never going to understand what I am saying about
standing-wave antennas until you discuss traveling and standing
waves on the standing-wave antenna. Your lumped-circuit model
is known to fail in the presence of standing waves.

Nonsense.

There you go again, back to the lowest form of debate. If you
can't
understand something or get trapped, just call the other guy a liar.

No, it's a lot simpler than that. When you lie about something
I said, I call you a liar.

There you go again. Do you have any idea how statements like that make
you look to others?

You very clearly said current in each terminal of the inductor has a
different phase shift several times in your posts.

One more time. The standing wave current does NOT change phase
at the ends of the coil. The standing wave current essentially
does not change phase unless a dipole is longer than 1/2WL.
The phase of the standing wave current is totally irrelevant.

The forward traveling-wave current experiences a delay through
the coil. The reflected traveling-wave current experiences a
delay through the coil. This delay can be measured on the bench.
If the delay is not negligible, your lumped-circuit model is
useless because it presupposes a delay of zero.

I can't understand what you are saying or what your point is, ...

Please don't insult my intelligence or yours. Every one of us
performed those experiments on the bench in college. Exactly
what is it about bench measuring the RF current delay through
a coil that you don't understand?

I understand it fine. I don't think the problem is on my end. If it is,
someone besides you will chime in and tell me. I'm afraid I don't trust
your opinions very much.

Maybe someone else can help me with your last statement.

Do you even know what a standing wave current loop is?

Do you?

Maybe someone else on this group can explain or understand what you are
trying to say.

You must have missed EE203. :-) What is it about a continuous
exchange of energy between the E-field and H-field at a fixed
point on an antenna wire that you don't understand? That's
just a characteristic of standing waves. Roy has used the
same argument in the past to try to prove that reflected
energy doesn't flow. But's it's the standing wave energy
that doesn't flow.

Are you confusing energy and current? Or are you just joking again?

73 Tom

wrote:
The fact you can't understand simple direct answers does the same.

I love simple answers, Tom. What I don't like are simple-minded
answers based on an invalid model.

When Roy measured current (and I did the same) using inductive coupling
in a current trasformer, a method that requires a time-varying current
to excite the secondary, you dismissed Roy's measurements with some odd
response about him measuring current that doesn't flow.

The inductive coupling does NOT require a time-varying
current. All it requires is a time-varying H-field. That
standing wave H-field is indeed varying but it's not because
current is moving laterally up or down the wire. That H-field is
fixed at a point on the line exchanging energy with the E-field
which is also fixed at the same point. If the H-field is not
moving laterally up or down the wire (it isn't) then the current
is NOT flowing. You must have missed that day in your
fields and waves class.

Take a metal rod. Slip a string through a washer and tie it.
Loop the string onto the metal rod. Put a grommet on the
rod on each side of the string to keep it in one place in
the X dimension on the wire. Now, keeping the X dimension
fixed, swing the loop in the plane of the Y and Z dimensions
and look at it on edge. You are looking at a physical analogy
of the standing wave current at a point on a wire. Is the
string moving? Not in the X dimension which is constant
and fixed by the grommets.

At any point on a wire with standing waves, the E-field
and H-field are not moving laterally up and down the wire. They
are *stationary* at a point on the wire. All that is happening at
that point is the E-field and H-field are swapping energy at the
RF frequency. The current probe naturally picks up those
stationary oscillating fields. You and Roy still don't understand
what it was that was being measured.The current that you and
Roy measured was not flowing. It was just standing there.
That's why they call it a *standing* wave. The currents
that are required to be constant through the coil are the
traveling-wave currents.

A standing wave is not at all a wave in the classic definition
of EM waves. It is simply a superposition of two classic EM
waves flowing in opposite directions. Here's an optical example
of what is happening to you. The yellow light coming from your
TV is an interference pattern between red, blue, and green
light. You are measuring yellow light thinking that's a primary
color. It is not. But you could use your yellow light measurement
to estimate the strength of the primary colors.

The standing-wave current is an interference pattern caused
by superposition of forward and reflected current waves.
Like the yellow light you are seeing, it is not primary, and
like the yellow light, it is an artifact of interference..

In a wire in which one amp is flowing in one direction and one
amp is flowing in the opposite direction, there is no net flow
of current. Therefore, standing wave current has no net flow.
That is obvious from its constant, fixed phase angle which
doesn't change (much).

I already measured the phase of current, and it is nearly zero degrees.

The measured phase of the net standing wave current is near
zero degrees whether a coil exists or not. All it means is that
the net standing wave current is standing still. Basing your
conclusions upon measurements of a current that is not even
flowing is foolish.

I don't know what others think, but it is starting to look to me like
you either don't understand the basics of measurements or you are just
unwilling to learn.

You have been seduced by your model that is known to fail in the
presence of standing waves. Why you cling to such a false prophet
in the real world is beyond me.

I can measure that. My network analyzer measures time delays. The
problem I see is if I take time from my busy schedule and measure it,
you will either call me a liar or say I measured current that doesn't
flow.

If you measure a traveling wave current, you will be measuring a
current that is actually flowing. Your S12 phase shift measurement
showed a -60 to -70 degree phase shift in a 100uH coil at one
MHz. That measurement of yours has already proved that your
lumped-circuit model is invalid. Why didn't you just use the
zero degrees predicted by the lumped-circuit model instead
of measuring it? :-)

Before measuring anything specific I'm going to warn you that I've
measured group delays many times before, and the group delay in an
inductor is significantly less than the group delay in a transmission
line of the same conductor length. I know that from past experience.

I know that, Tom. The point is: If there is any appreciable delay
through the coil, that fact violates the presuppositions of the lumped-
circuit model. Therefore, a lumped-circuit model cannot be used
to explain the characteristics of that real-world coil and especially
not in a standing wave environment.

But if you promise to control yourself and not dismiss a measurement
with personal attacks or insults, and promise to not do an about-face
like you did with Roy and say "you really didn't measure current that
moves with your thing that only measures changing current", I will do
that.

I appreciate that and I would also appreciate it if you didn't pencil
whip the results before reporting them. Please just be honest. I
assume we are both after the truth. And be sure to measure a
coil something of the size of a 75m bugcatcher coil. I think a
75m bugcatcher coil would show more of a delay than a
toroidal inductor of the same inductive reactance.

I really wish some of your ideas were correct. If they were correct, I
would not have thousands of feet of coaxial cables coiled under my
bench. I would not be forcing customers to cut long delay lines when
their equipment could just use a simple wound up piece of enameled
wire.

Surely, you are familiar with helical transmision lines with a very,
very small velocity factor. And Intel does use simple coils as delay
lines in some of their PCB designs.

Does ANYONE on this newsgroup understand Cecil? I need help here.

They are there, Tom. But they just don't want to tangle with a junk
yard dog. Most people don't have a thick enough skin to withstand
your onslaughts. I get a couple of emails a week from those guys.
One distinguished gentleman and well known ham said that you have
never lost an argument, even when you were wrong. I know exactly
what he means.

What a silly statement. We are measuring a time-varying current that
doesn't flow or change!

It's magnitude changes but it indeed doesn't flow or change phase.
It's magnitude changes because the E-field and H-field are continuously
exchanging energy at the frequency of operation. If you understood the
implications of a constant, fixed, unchanging phase, you would know
that.

Yes, if he wrote what you quoted and you didn't lift something out of
context I totally disagree with him.

So be it.

Your lumped-circuit model
is known to fail in the presence of standing waves.

Nonsense.

YOUR LUMPED-CIRCUIT MODEL IS KNOWN TO FAIL
IN THE PRESENCE OF STANDING WAVES!

What is it about that statement that you don't understand? Your
lumped-circuit model presupposes conditions that don't exist
in a standing wave environment. Therefore, it is invalid and
another more powerful model must be chosen.Because your
chosen model is invalid, the validity of everything you say is
questionable.

The lumped-circuit model is a subset of the distributed-network
model. The distributed-network model is a subset of Maxwell's
equations. If you don't understand the limitations of the model,
you will choose to use it under the wrong circumstances. That's
what you, Roy, and others have done.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Quoted from an e-mail exchange I am having:

However, I'd like you to reconsider your position concerning inductances in
series with a line that has both forward and reverse currents flowing, as in
short mobile antennas. As a result of two currents from the same source flowing
in opposite directions, a standing wave is inevitable, hence different values of
current at different points along the wire in the inductor.

That is incorrect for the conditions we are outlining, and it is
misleading Cecil. It has him lost in a world of reflections. You have
gone outside the limits of the model by assuming, incorrectly, the
inductor has no or little flux linkage from end-to-end and has large
stray capacitance to the outside world compared to load impedance. The
conductor used to build a inductor does not have current slowly winding
its way along that path.

There is no virtually no difference in phase delay in current at each
end of a relatively compact inductor. It is very easy to measure that.
It also have very little group delay compared to the group delay one
would expect from a transmission line or antenna the same length. I
know that because I have measured it hundreds of times.

I have repeated a url below that Cecil posted on the rraa. The material in that
url agrees with my position, and specifically states that circuit analysis is
invalid when the model contains distributed currents, and admonishes that anyone
who disbelieves this has forgotten the warning about the situation given in
sophmore EE courses.

The Tesla coil, by definition of how it works, violates all boundaries
of the examples myself and others are giving Cecil. It does not apply
to the discussion at all.

The Tesla coil is intentionally of exceptionally long form factor. It
has virtually an open circuit at the end, and is by operation
self-resonant at the operating frequency. It has a very large amount
of distributed capacitance compared to termination impedance, since the
termination is an open. It is not operated at a fraction of
self-resonance as people SHOULD know a good mobile loading coil is.

It has no bearing at all on the discussion, any more than it would if I
started measuring the plate choke from an AL1200 amplifier at the
self-resonant frequency with an open termination, or a loading coil for
a 75 meter antenna at the self-resonant frequency.

Everyone (except Cecil) has been very careful to give the boundaries
and describe the effects. The Tesla coil does not fit the boundaries
described, and the secondary inductor in the Tesla coil behaves nothing
like an inductor operated well below self resonance.

http://www.ttr.com/corum/index.htm

The very first paragraph of that reference should have been a red flag
that it does not apply to this discussion. Here is what it says:

"Can one model the physical operation of a Tesla coil appropriately
with only lumped-element circuits? If not, why not? It was pointed out
long ago that, at its operating frequency, a Tesla coil is NOT a
lumped-element induction coil. Forget the quest for "many turns of fine
wire". In fact, a Tesla coil has more in common with a cavity resonator
than it does with a conventional inductor."

The key words they use, and they even drew attention to the words by a
type style change, "at its operating frequency, a Tesla coil is NOT a
lumped-element induction coil". They were very clear about that, and go
on to describe how it does behave like a normal induction coil.

Everyone in the conversation has been very careful to clearly establish
the boundary conditions that the behavior we are talking about is
significantly below self-resonance, an inductor of compact form factor,
and an inductor of good design.

I can't understand why anyone would attempt to reference an article
that, in the very opening, states the inductor is operating at
self-resonance! I can't understand why anyone would reference an
article that violates the boundaries of termination impedance outlined
in the discussion, where it has been stated over and over again the
inductor must be terminated in an impedance that is low compared to
leakage impedances.

I can't imagine anyone using a lossy Tesla coil as an antenna or part
of an antenna system. Please read the opening paragraphs of the article
you reference.

73 Tom