Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

I'll have to think about that a while and how it might affect what I am
saying.
(snip)
So here's the EZNEC example and an experiment that any
properly equipped person can duplicate. That includes
you and W7EL.

I took W7EL's EZNEC file and changed wire #203 from 0.25'
to 31.25'. At the 'tip' of the antenna, I installed a
439.2 ohm load that turns the antenna into a 90 degree
long *traveling-wave* antenna. Note that the current
magnitude at the top of the coil is identical to the
current magnitude through the load resistor. The load
resistor's value is very close to the calculated Z0
of the 31' #16 wire two feet above ground, using the
formula for a single wire transmission line above
ground.

The graphic is at http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/test316y.GIF

The EZNEC file can be downloaded from:

http://www qsl.net/w5dxp/test316y.EZ
(snip)

Excellent!

Can you use this example, with varying frequency to explore your
assertion that the time delay (frequency times phase shift) of the
coil varies little over a significant range of frequencies up to self
resonance, and that that delay is about 1/4 cycle of the self resonant
frequency?

A graph of delay versus frequency would be useful. It should show
over what frequency range the coil acts mostly like a transmission
line and where it acts mostly like something else (i.e. inductor,
parallel resonant tank).

John Popelish wrote:
Can you use this example, with varying frequency to explore your
assertion that the time delay (frequency times phase shift) of the coil
varies little over a significant range of frequencies up to self
resonance, and that that delay is about 1/4 cycle of the self resonant
frequency?

I will do that when my energy level returns after getting
home at 2 am this morning. Note that anyone can download
the EZNEC file from http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/test316y.EZ

A graph of delay versus frequency would be useful. It should show over
what frequency range the coil acts mostly like a transmission line and
where it acts mostly like something else (i.e. inductor, parallel
resonant tank).

This coil, operated below its self-resonant frequency, has
phase shift of 15.68 degrees or ~0.044 wavelength (delay of
7.4 nS). Dr. Corum says anything over 15 degrees requires
the distributed network model. 15 degrees will transform
50 ohms to 54+j120 ohms, causing SWR to be erroneously
reported as 7:1 instead of 1:1. That sounds like too
large an error to me.

Since the lumped-circuit model assumes a delay of zero, i.e.
faster than light, seems the use of the lumped-circuit model
results in 100% error, or infinite error if one calculates
it the other way. :-)

BTW, one of the principles on the other side of the argument
sent me a file with a worm in it. I guess he wanted to
extend the silence caused by my trip by bringing down my
computer.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

This coil, operated below its self-resonant frequency, has
phase shift of 15.68 degrees or ~0.044 wavelength (delay of
7.4 nS). Dr. Corum says anything over 15 degrees requires
the distributed network model. 15 degrees will transform
50 ohms to 54+j120 ohms, causing SWR to be erroneously
reported as 7:1 instead of 1:1. That sounds like too
large an error to me.

Since the lumped-circuit model assumes a delay of zero, i.e.
faster than light, seems the use of the lumped-circuit model
results in 100% error, or infinite error if one calculates
it the other way. :-)

Not if the lumped inductor model includes lumps of capacitance that
represent the strays to ground. Lumped LC networks exhibit phase
shift, also.

BTW, one of the principles on the other side of the argument
sent me a file with a worm in it. I guess he wanted to
extend the silence caused by my trip by bringing down my
computer.

Never blame malice when ignorance will suffice. Even if you are
wrong, you will sleep better.

John Popelish wrote:
Not if the lumped inductor model includes lumps of capacitance that
represent the strays to ground. Lumped LC networks exhibit phase shift,
also.

But please remember the original assertions by the gurus. There
is ZERO phase shift through an inductor. There is ZERO amplitude
change through an inductor. This can easily be proven by observing
the lumped inductances in EZNEC. W7EL shot down those arguments
by installing the helix feature in EZNEC. :-)

Never blame malice when ignorance will suffice.

If this person has to confess between ignorance and malicious
behavior, I am sure he would go to jail rather than admit
any ignorance.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

John Popelish wrote:
Can you use this example, with varying frequency to explore your
assertion that the time delay (frequency times phase shift) of the coil
varies little over a significant range of frequencies up to self
resonance, and that that delay is about 1/4 cycle of the self resonant
frequency?

Please don't put words in my mouth. What I have previously said
is that the delay can be *ROUGHLY* calculated using the self-
resonant frequency. I said something about +/- 50% accuracy.
Here's what EZNEC reports as the phase shift through the coil
in the traveling wave antenna previously tested at 5.89 MHz.

5.5 MHz: 14.1 deg, 5.89 MHz: 15.7 deg, 6 MHz: 16.2 deg,
7 MHz: 21.4 deg, 8 MHz: 29.5 deg, 9 MHz: 45.9 deg,
10 MHz: 89 deg, 11 MHz: 141.4 deg, 12 MHz: 163.0 deg,
13 MHz: 172.3 deg, 13.7 MHz: 183.82 deg.

The linear delay calculation is off by 59%, not too far from
my 50% rough estimate. Please note that the above values of
delays reported by EZNEC are nowhere near the 3 nS measured
by W8JI in the standing wave environment.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:21:17 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I said something about +/- 50% accuracy.
The linear delay calculation is off by 59%, not too far from
my 50% rough estimate.

error is growing faster than the national debt. ;-)

nowhere near the 3 nS measured
by W8JI in the standing wave environment.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:39:57 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
delay of 7.4 nS

Hmm, giving Tom the same grace of 59% reveals that the figures above,
7.4nS ±59% (4.4 - 11.77)
and
3nS ±59% (1.77 - 4.77)
overlap.

The thing about error (especially when it is in a growth mode
indicating loss of control over the experiment) is that you don't know
where within the band of possible values that the actual value
resides.

So, comparing the one to the other, making a claim that the other is
invalid, must necessarily invalidate both as they are convergent. Such
is the legacy of poor quality control.

It might be tempting to perform a Hail Mary save, by suddenly
declaring they are both right. :-)
but at 59% error, we can all agree that's a fantasy. Stretching your
tolerance for error to fit your argument can lead to any conclusion.

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I said something about +/- 50% accuracy.
The linear delay calculation is off by 59%, not too far from
my 50% rough estimate.

error is growing faster than the national debt. ;-)

Now, that is certainly a lie. :-) Remember, W8JI said that
any answer is better than no answer. That presumably includes
his wrong answers. :-)

Stretching your
tolerance for error to fit your argument can lead to any conclusion.

It's not a tolerance for error. It's a recognition that the
answer is, so far, unknown. I've said it befo The delay
through the coil is what it is and we don't know exactly what
it is. That it is difficult to estimate or measure has absolutely
no effect on its value in reality.

What we know for sure is that the presuppositions of the
lumped-circuit model indeed do violate the laws of physics.
Faster than light propagation through a coil comes to mind.

I am admittedly surprised to see the velocity factor fall
so rapidly with frequency. My surprise has absolutely no
effect on reality. I just use the scientific method to
adjust my concepts and move on. However, to paraphrase an old
TV commercial, "It's not nice to fool Father Guru". The earth
may reduce to a quantum singularity when the r.r.a.a gurus
recognize their errors. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 19:14:36 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I've said it befo The delay
through the coil is what it is and we don't know exactly what
it is.

Is Popeye Descartes your latest personality?

Cecil Moore wrote:
5.5 MHz: 14.1 deg, 5.89 MHz: 15.7 deg, 6 MHz: 16.2 deg,
7 MHz: 21.4 deg, 8 MHz: 29.5 deg, 9 MHz: 45.9 deg,
10 MHz: 89 deg, 11 MHz: 141.4 deg, 12 MHz: 163.0 deg,
13 MHz: 172.3 deg, 13.7 MHz: 183.82 deg.

I just bought Mathcad and am trying to learn to use it.
The graph of the above data is really interesting. Somewhat
like a sine function, this curve has an inflection point
around 10 MHz where the phase shift is changing most rapidly.
On either side of 10 MHz, it doesn't change as rapidly.
10 MHz appears to be the 1/8 wavelength point where
|Z0| = |XL|.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
(snip)
Here's what EZNEC reports as the phase shift through the coil
in the traveling wave antenna previously tested at 5.89 MHz.

5.5 MHz: 14.1 deg, 5.89 MHz: 15.7 deg, 6 MHz: 16.2 deg,
7 MHz: 21.4 deg, 8 MHz: 29.5 deg, 9 MHz: 45.9 deg,
10 MHz: 89 deg, 11 MHz: 141.4 deg, 12 MHz: 163.0 deg,
13 MHz: 172.3 deg, 13.7 MHz: 183.82 deg.

Here is that list repeated in units of time, instead of degrees:

MHz ns delay
5.5 7.1
5.89 7.4
6 7.5
7 8.5
8 10.2
9 14.2
10 24.7
11 35.7
12 37.7
13 36.8
13.7 37.3

I would have to graph this on a log frequency plot to see the
frequency breakpoints, but I think this looks a lot like a short piece
of transmission line below about 6 MHz and like a resonator above
that. I expect the delay to start to fall at higher frequencies as
the turn-to-turn capacitance takes over.

What do you see?