John Popelish wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

. . . 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.

That's entirely untrue. The record is readily available via
groups.google.com for anyone interested in seeing what really happened.
The thread was "Current in antenna loading coils controversy (long)", in
November 2003.

. . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
John Popelish wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
. . . 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.

The record is readily available via
groups.google.com for anyone interested in seeing what really happened.
The thread was "Current in antenna loading coils controversy (long)", in
November 2003.

Yes, indeed, it is, Roy. That's also my reference. And I have
learned a lot of the details underlying your myths since then.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Roy Lewallen wrote:
The record is readily available via
groups.google.com for anyone interested in seeing what really happened.
The thread was "Current in antenna loading coils controversy (long)", in
November 2003.

At that time in 2003, I was as naive as Galileo in front
of the court run by religious priests.

Any time you feel like apologizing for your questionable
behavior, all I ask is that you retract that single
"gobbledygook" statement that you made against my use of
the rules of the distributed-network model and laws of
reflection physics which are both a subset of Maxwell's
equations.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:22:47 GMT, 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?

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

Cecil Moore wrote:
. . . 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.
W7EL wrote:
That's entirely untrue. The record is readily available via
groups.google.com for anyone interested in seeing what really happened.
The thread was "Current in antenna loading coils controversy (long)", in
November 2003.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
I'm also a victim of Cecil's twisted reality Roy.
I offered to make a measurement if Cecil would even loosely predict
results and tell everyone in advance what they would mean. When he
didn't
respond, I made the measurements anyway.
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
Cecil is also re-writing what I said on QRZ. If anyone reads back
through
his posts on this list, they will eventually find a post where he
acknowledges a phase measurement I posted on QRZ was in voltage
across the source compared to voltage across a load resistance.
My response was on Mar 9 2006 at 10:03 PM
When I measured CURRENT at each end of the inductor (in that case the
inductor was a 1-1/4" long iron core 100uH choke), current had no
detectable amplitude or phase shift. Voltage from the generator was not

in phase with current because of the inductive reactance, but current
had the same relationship at each end of the choke.
Of course Cecil wrote that off as "measuring standing wave current that

is current that doesn't flow", and then succeeded in driving off
someone who was trying to straighten him out on that. All of that is
also in this thread for anyone to read. The exact text is:
Cecil,
Good grief!!!!
I said several times that the standing wave does not move. I also said

the "wave" is not the same thing as the "current". The current is
nonzero even though the wave is stationary.
At this point it is obvious that you are just interested in causing a
fuss, and not the slightest bit interested in reaching any sort of
resolution of this item.
Bye.
73,
Gene
W4SZ
There really isn't anything anyone can do to resolve any disagreement
with Cecil, because as soon as he frustrates them into giving up he
will rewrite everything that was said. My only hope is that people who
want to learn will look at the data and understand how an inductor
really works.
It would be comical to watch Cecil twist reality if it wasn't sad. The
sad part is there will be some people out there who will accept his
twisted logic. They won't take the time to read or ask hard questions.
The good part is my understanding of what goes on in a loading coil has

been improved, and I have more data for my web pages.
Fortunately the very high traffic volume into that site keeps it at the

top of search engines.
If you or anyone else finds anything that will clarify inductor
behavior, please let me know. I don't learn much from arguing with
Cecil, but I do learn from other contributors to this thread. I'd like
to thank everyone who has contributed. Even if it doesn't help
everyone, it helps some people.
73 Tom W8JI

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?

John Popelish wrote:
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?

I used a HP8753C network analyzer with small current transformers
similar to those used in directional couplers.

I calibrated using normal proceedures, and verified calibration by
inserting known transmission lines. For example when I substituted a
very short jumper, time delay was a few picoseconds. When I connected a
10 foot RG-8X jumper, time delay was about 13.5 nS.

For my phase angle measurements I used a dual channel HP vector
voltmeter with a HP generator, and similar current transformers when
measuring current.

I suppose most people would want to use a scope, but it would not be
near the accuracy of a dual channel vector voltmeter or especially a
vector network analyzer.

I have regular test fixture built on blank PC boards, since I do this
stuff every week for work. It does not "fit" a large coil well, so I
had to support the coil on two tall blocks of styrofoam and clip lead
to it.

I do have a large fixture that is a four foot PC board "box" with
various test jacks for connections to probes I use with larger
components, but my bench is to cluttered to fit it right now. In any
event a groundplane several inches away doesn't seem to bother things.
The only thing that moved when I moved the inductor close to the
fixture was the self-resonant frequency came down a few MHz. Time
delays did not change much unless I added an extra foot of clip lead,
then they increased about 1nS.

If it's useful, I guess I could add some more stuff. But probably
nothing extensive until after Dayton.

Since all of my data agrees with data made a few years ago by a
different person using a different method with different equipment, and
since it agrees with reference material I have, I don't see any reason
to treat it like cutting edge results. The physics is pretty solid, and
the measurements agree.

73 Tom

wrote:
When I connected a
10 foot RG-8X jumper, time delay was about 13.5 nS.

Let's take a look at the measurement results. That
13.5 nS delay through the coax would make that piece
of RG-8X 1/4WL self-resonant at ~18.5 MHz, higher than
the specified 16 MHz self-resonant frequency for the
coil. So the laws of physics would dictate that the
delay through the coil cannot be less than the delay
through that piece of coax.

By definition, the physical meaning of that piece of
coax being 1/4WL self-resonant at 18.5 MHz is that
it takes 1/2 of a cycle in time for the forward wave
to make a round trip to the end of the coax and back.
1/2WL of a cycle at 18.5 MHz is 27 nS. So the one-
way delay through the coax is 1/2 of 27 or 13.5 nS.

By definition, the physical meaning of that 10" coil
being 1/4WL self-resonant at 16 MHz is that it takes
1/2 of a cycle in time for the forward wave to make
a round trip to the end of the coil and back. 1/2
of a cycle at 16 MHz is 31 nS. So the one-way
delay through that coil is 1/2 of 31 or 16.5 nS.

The 1/4WL self-resonance point *IS* a measure of the
delay through the coil just as it is a measure of
the delay through a piece of transmission line.

If the coil is indeed 1/4WL self-resonant at 16
MHz, the one-way delay through the coil is *already
known* to be 16.5 nS and that is what should have
been measured. The fact that the *known value* of
the delay through the coil was not measured runs up
a red flag and is technical proof that something was
amiss with the reported results.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

wrote:
John Popelish wrote:

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?


I used a HP8753C network analyzer with small current transformers
similar to those used in directional couplers.

I calibrated using normal proceedures, and verified calibration by
inserting known transmission lines. For example when I substituted a
very short jumper, time delay was a few picoseconds. When I connected a
10 foot RG-8X jumper, time delay was about 13.5 nS.

For my phase angle measurements I used a dual channel HP vector
voltmeter with a HP generator, and similar current transformers when
measuring current.

I suppose most people would want to use a scope, but it would not be
near the accuracy of a dual channel vector voltmeter or especially a
vector network analyzer.

I have regular test fixture built on blank PC boards, since I do this
stuff every week for work. It does not "fit" a large coil well, so I
had to support the coil on two tall blocks of styrofoam and clip lead
to it.

I do have a large fixture that is a four foot PC board "box" with
various test jacks for connections to probes I use with larger
components, but my bench is to cluttered to fit it right now. In any
event a groundplane several inches away doesn't seem to bother things.
The only thing that moved when I moved the inductor close to the
fixture was the self-resonant frequency came down a few MHz. Time
delays did not change much unless I added an extra foot of clip lead,
then they increased about 1nS.

If it's useful, I guess I could add some more stuff. But probably
nothing extensive until after Dayton.
(snip)

Thanks much. This helps me to visualize your method in a much more
complete way. I think a photo of the test apparatus would make a fine
addition to your web page documenting this result. I am especially
interested on how all this stuff was arrayed in space during the test.