Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:01:57 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

For anyone still reading who is bored


Hi Gene,

To ask about those still reading, there is one very good reason why
the thread persists: topic drift as your post has just raised the
opportunity to:
1. argue the original quotation by shifting authors;
2. argue the subquotation in terms of ANDing where his sum of the
parts never equal the whole;
3. respond to "do you think the Vf" in terms that diverge from your
yes/no;
4. argue no one uses a one turn coil load for 160M (this is all
getting too easy to dissemble);
5. discuss transitions when you obviously don't believe they exist
(more arguments over inconsequentials);
6. counter-claim old claims (aka correcting what he would call your
bad context);
7. argue models (he has already questioned EZNEC's capacity in some
form - you will only tread that old ground once again);
8. fight over "missing" portions of the antenna - Cecil can prove he
never "exactly" said it did!;
9. ... and more through finer parsing than found here (and it is
guaranteed to be found, that has been amply demonstrated when you feed
the troll).

Those exchanges are like watching someone chase the clown in a
revolving door with discarded lines of attack flying out like grass
clippings from a lawn mower.

Cecil has never been able to hold his ground to one point when I've
drilled down instead of following the outrageous. No one want to
abandon the only true content, the comedy; but, really, the knots of
argument are far more deterministic than the technical issue
supposedly being discussed.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,

I gave up on this thread a couple of weeks ago, largely because it had
drifted. However, it came right back to the original topic when the
velocity-factor-based 45 degree replacement item came up. Cecil and his
friends now deny they ever said anything about coils replacing the
"degrees" of missing wire, but they keep coming back to the same
position again and again.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

"Gene Fuller" wrote:
I am simply asking how the function changes between the
"known" limits of 1.0 and 0.02. You have repeatedly ducked any sort of
answer.

On the contrary, I just posted the answer for the third time. The
Y-axis answers your question. Hold the diameter/lamda ratio
constant and vary the turns/lamda to answer your question.
Do I have to plot zero turns/lamda for you?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:46:01 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

I gave up on this thread a couple of weeks ago, largely because it had
drifted. However, it came right back to the original topic when the
velocity-factor-based 45 degree replacement item came up. Cecil and his
friends now deny they ever said anything about coils replacing the
"degrees" of missing wire, but they keep coming back to the same
position again and again.

Hi Gene,

Well, you will never find a definitive quote to pin to Cecil that the
45 degrees is replaced by a coil. That ain't gonna happen. Cecil
doesn't need to say it when so many are ready to interpret this from
his crafted comments which lead to no other conclusion.

As for Vf, you can argue that 'till you are blue in the face, but
given a 59% slop factor that Cecil embraces, any of his computations
can transform gold into lead.

So, the comedy is the only thing left, and it comes like a wildcat
gusher if you simply drill down - on one point - and he is left
claiming the most absurd things that are self-negating (you don't even
have to argue the point it gets so funny). It doesn't take very long
either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:45:39 GMT, "Cecil Moore"
wrote:

How does the Vf transition to 0.02 for a resonant coil
occur? That transition is most certainly NOT shown in Fig. 1.

Of course it is shown. Draw a vertical line at 10^-3.
The 10k turns per lamda coil
That is for coil A
has a VF of 0.07.

The 50 turns per lamda
That is for coil B
has a VF of 0.86.
Well, in fact it does not (and nothing shown on the graph along that
ordinal line does).

Do we now hear the pity card played about poor eyesight? Or the pity
card played about poor computational skills (±59%)? Or the pity card
played for the confusion of old age when two coils are substituted in
the old shell game?

"Richard Clark" wrote:

w5dxp wrote:
Of course it is shown. Draw a vertical line at 10^-3.
The 10k turns per lamda coil
That is for coil A
has a VF of 0.07.

The 50 turns per lamda
That is for coil B
has a VF of 0.86.
Well, in fact it does not (and nothing shown on the graph along that
ordinal line does).

What happened should be obvious. I correctly used the 10^-3
vertical line for the first one and accidentally used the 0.01 vertical
line for the second one.

The first observation is OK. The second should be changed to
500 turns per lamda with a VF of 0.96.

The same principle still applies. As the turns/lamda increases,
the VF decreases while keeping the diameter and frequency
the same.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:46:09 GMT, "Cecil Moore"
wrote:

What happened should be obvious.

You played the pity card. It was so obvious that I forecast that
immediately.

The second should be changed to 500 turns per lamda with a VF of 0.96.

Only 1000% off on the turns count - not bad for the first step in a
reading comprehension test. Further interpretations suffer equally.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:45:39 GMT, "Cecil Moore"
wrote:

How does the Vf transition to 0.02 for a resonant coil
occur? That transition is most certainly NOT shown in Fig. 1.

Of course it is shown. Draw a vertical line at 10^-3.
The 10k turns per lamda coil
That is for coil A
has a VF of 0.07.

The 50 turns per lamda
That is for coil B
has a VF of 0.86.

Let's review this response for its pity quotient:

Asked: At one length, one coil exhibits
Vf = 0.02,
reduce the coil length, what length for the SAME coil would that be
to render
Vf = 0.2
for instance?

1. We are not changing frequency;
2. we are not changing diameter/lambda
(nor in fact changing diameter OR lambda);
3. we are not changing pitch/lambda
(nor in fact changing pitch OR lambda).

Answer? Change the coil, change the Vf, and the turns/lamda.

************* W R O N G ! *****************

Draw another pity card and do not pass go.

"Richard Clark" wrote:
Asked: At one length, one coil exhibits Vf = 0.02,
reduce the coil length, what length for the SAME coil would that be
to render Vf = 0.2 for instance?

3. we are not changing pitch/lambda

So what is the pitch for one turn?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:45:15 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Asked: At one length, one coil exhibits
Vf = 0.02,
reduce the coil length, what length for the SAME coil would that be
to render
Vf = 0.2
for instance?

Well, let's help Cecil navigate this with his MENSA walker.

First, myopic translations of SAME coil are bound to confuse him into
thinking that this means the coil was never shortened. We'll put a
bullet into that suffering idea right now - the coil is shorter.

Investigating Fig. 1 reveals there is no way to resolve the Vf through
shortening a coil. Only Cecil could argue there's a pony in all that
horse****, so while he's saddling himself to that mound, let's proceed
to see why his dotaged enthusiasm is ill-founded.

Fig. 1 is based upon the formula (32). Nowhere in that formula is
there a turns. Turns may be found, but the specification, s, is for
pitch. Pitch for any coil remains the same irrespective of its
length. Frequency does not change, diameter does not change; it then
follows that Vf does not change when a coil is shortened.

So, the short answer that eludes Cecil is that the question above (or
its variants) has no other answer than the one value already provided.
By reductio ad absurdum, any kink in a wire that describes an arc of a
helix with a large D for a small s; and Cecil would impose his curious
theory's delay based on his poor reading skills on Corum².

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:56:57 GMT, "Cecil Moore"
wrote:
So what is the pitch for one turn?

The same when there were n turns. It doesn't change with length.

When can we take the training wheels off your computer?