Cecil warned me that if I posted, the posting would be nit picked to
pieces. I`ve read correct postings describing the incident and reflected
waves on a transmission line, and Maxwell`s secret of radiation
(displacement current produces a magnetic field same as conduction
current). All this may be relevant or not to some extent, but they don`t
seem to resolve the current through a coil.

Tom, W8JI wrote:
"You have consistently disagreed with me when I said the time delay
through an inductor with tight mutual coupling from turn to turn is
somewhat close to light speed over the physical length of the inductor,
rather than the time it rakes to wind its way around the copper."

That contradicts established experience.

The property of reactance is to limit current flow. Inductive reactance
limits by means of counter-emf which depends upon the rate at which
current is changing in the coil. A-C current changes most rapidly at
zero time (the axis crossings of the sine waveform). Lenz`s law says the
counter-emf must oppose the growth of current in this case. Opposotion
of the counter-emf causes the current to reach its maximum 1/4-cycle
after the emf applied to the coil reaches its maximum. As almost
everyone knows, the current lags by 90-degrees in a pure inductor. Make
the turns coupling as tight as you can, the current is still delayed by
90-degrees.

Now, it surely is possible to bypass a perfect inductor with a capacitor
to mitigate a delay.

I can`t repeat without retyping text on my screen, so the fact that I
don`t retype everything only means I`m lazy.

Right or wrong, W8JI may never lose an argument, but when he is clearly
wrong it should be pointed out.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:

Tom, W8JI wrote:
"You have consistently disagreed with me when I said the time delay
through an inductor with tight mutual coupling from turn to turn is
somewhat close to light speed over the physical length of the inductor,
rather than the time it rakes to wind its way around the copper."

That contradicts established experience.

Tom seems to be confusing the effects of the E-field with the
effects of the H-field. The E-field propagates at the speed
of light through a coil. The H-field propagates at the
speed of light through a capacitor.

Make
the turns coupling as tight as you can, the current is still delayed by
90-degrees.

Can the actual current phase delay be estimated knowing the Q
of the coil? I don't recall a formula for that.

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. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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.

73 Tom

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Dang! I was looking forward to your test results, and a description
of your test method. I think your 2" diameter coil is a good example
of an inductor that is neither a perfect "lump" nor a pure
transmission line.

John Popelish wrote:
Dang! I was looking forward to your test results, and a description of
your test method. I think your 2" diameter coil is a good example of an
inductor that is neither a perfect "lump" nor a pure transmission line.

That's what my back of the napkin calculations would indicate.
I get ~14 degrees at 1.9 MHz or ~28 degrees at 3.8 MHz based
on 90 degrees at 12 MHz.

But based on what these guys measured before, anyone would be
a fool to predict the results without knowing what the test
setup looks like. In fact, the prediction challenge was a
blatently obvious attempt to lead the unsuspecting down
a primrose path without a roadmap. Do you think W7EL would
ever make a prediction based on the meager amount of
information provided? :-) A few years ago he provided some
information but kept changing parameters daily until I got
tired and withdrew my estimate. But it turned out in the
end that I was pretty close.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Popelish wrote:

Dang! I was looking forward to your test results, and a description
of your test method. I think your 2" diameter coil is a good example
of an inductor that is neither a perfect "lump" nor a pure
transmission line.


That's what my back of the napkin calculations would indicate.
I get ~14 degrees at 1.9 MHz or ~28 degrees at 3.8 MHz based
on 90 degrees at 12 MHz.

But based on what these guys measured before, anyone would be
a fool to predict the results without knowing what the test
setup looks like. In fact, the prediction challenge was a
blatently obvious attempt to lead the unsuspecting down
a primrose path without a roadmap. Do you think W7EL would
ever make a prediction based on the meager amount of
information provided? :-) A few years ago he provided some
information but kept changing parameters daily until I got
tired and withdrew my estimate. But it turned out in the
end that I was pretty close.

Predictions are little more than an ego trip, unless they are a test
of a specific calculation method used for the prediction. But I was
willing to wait for the test result and an after the fact description
of the test method, to see what understanding might be teased out that
combination of facts. The discussion might also have lead to a better
way to perform such a test.

Baby steps.