Cecil Moore wrote:
Let me summarize it for you. W8JI and W7EL apparently think
that the RMS current value of zero at the bottom of the coil
Vs the RMS current value of one amp at the top of the coil
means energy is being sucked into the coil from some external
source.

John Popelish wrote:
I don't read their responses that way. I read their responses as
saying that the current leaving or entering an end of an inductor
includes a capacitive component and an inductive component. The
capacitive current branches out of the coil to the surrounding space,
and is what allows a measured difference in the currents passing
through its two ends. The path through the wire to the other end is
not the only path for current.

You read what I wrote and what Roy wrote correctly John.

Cecil changes what other people write to suit his own needs. He changes
what other people say, and then points out why the creatively edited
text he invented is wrong. That's his debating style. Watch out for it!

73 Tom

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Let me summarize it for you. W8JI and W7EL apparently think
that the RMS current value of zero at the bottom of the coil
Vs the RMS current value of one amp at the top of the coil
means energy is being sucked into the coil from some external
source.

John Popelish wrote:
I don't read their responses that way. I read their responses as
saying that the current leaving or entering an end of an inductor
includes a capacitive component and an inductive component. The
capacitive current branches out of the coil to the surrounding space,
and is what allows a measured difference in the currents passing
through its two ends. The path through the wire to the other end is
not the only path for current.

You read what I wrote and what Roy wrote correctly John.

Cecil changes what other people write to suit his own needs. He changes
what other people say, and then points out why the creatively edited
text he invented is wrong. That's his debating style. Watch out for it!

Absolutely true. Cecil complains that people won't engage in a technical
discussion with him. Many have tried, and all we get in response is
evasion, misquotes, diversion, and brushing off of any evidence contrary
to his preconceived notions.

Anyone who wants to know what I said or what I think should read what
I've posted. If it's not clear, ask. But don't trust Cecil to tell you.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Absolutely true. Cecil complains that people won't engage in a technical
discussion with him. Many have tried, and all we get in response is
evasion, misquotes, diversion, and brushing off of any evidence contrary
to his preconceived notions.

Roy, I'll tell you the same thing I told W8JI. It's time to stop
the ad hominem attacks and discuss the technical issues.

You tried to use standing wave current, containing no phase, to
measure the delay through a coil. You have said previously that
standing wave current flows just like traveling wave current.
You said that in spite of what Hecht says in "Optics".

Hecht had to say in "Optics":

"E(x,t) = 2*Eo*sin(kx)*cos(wt) This is the equation for a STANDING
or STATIONARY WAVE, as opposed to a traveling wave. Its profile does
not move through space; it is clearly not of the form Func(x +/- vt).
.... [Standing wave phase] doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant
wave it represents doesn't progress through space - its a standing
wave."

If standing wave light doesn't move through space, then standing wave
RF doesn't move through a wire. Do you disagree with Hecht?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil wrote, "It's time to stop
the ad hominem attacks and discuss the technical issues."

Ready when you are, lad. Suggest you start by establishing just how it
is that an antenna wire supports waves. Gauss's theorem and Faraday's
law may come in handy. Please don't spare anything.

The reason you need to do this for me to even begin to believe you have
any idea what you are talking about is that you have rejected out of
hand some very fundamental concepts that I've put numbers on for you.
You ask for something, and then you reject the answer but give no valid
reason why. I've tried to give you a way to SUPPORT what you are
saying, and you can't even recognize that, apparently.

Now YOU go back to the real fundamentals and give it to us straight,
with full math treatment. Until you do, as far as I'm concerned, you
don't have a leg to stand on. If you can do a credible job starting
with Maxwell's equations, I might begin to believe you have some
understanding of the subject. And I don't want it parroted from
someone else's writing, I want it done from the ground up by you.

If you have some trouble doing that with an antenna wire, just try it
with an ideal coaxial TEM line. It's easy there; I've done it out of
idle curiosity one evening, and it was quite enlightening to see how
nicely it all agreed with what I already knew about propagation along a
line.

Lay it on us, Cecil. Start with the fundamentals. And don't be
dragging out that tired old travelling-waves/standing-waves stuff till
you've established that you actually can even have waves, and just what
it is that governs their behaviour.

Cheers,
Tom

K7ITM wrote:
The reason you need to do this for me to even begin to believe you have
any idea what you are talking about is that you have rejected out of
hand some very fundamental concepts that I've put numbers on for you.

I've rejected your obvious attempts at logical diversions.

Lay it on us, Cecil. Start with the fundamentals. And don't be
dragging out that tired old travelling-waves/standing-waves stuff till
you've established that you actually can even have waves, and just what
it is that governs their behaviour.

:-) Just one more attempt at a logical diversion.

I think we can all assume that EM waves exist and are
capable of propagating along a transmission line, or
antenna wire, or even in free space, e.g. light.

What we cannot assume is that standing waves move
or progress through space (or wire). Eugene Hecht
says they don't.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil,

You dismissed my honest, straightforward accounting of the
charge transport implied directly by the scenarios you set up.
In no way was it a "logical diversion." It was very much to the
point of explaining just WHY there is in fact a time delay through
your bugcatcher coil.

Then you have the unmitigated gaul to say it's time to stop
the attacks, and then refuse yourself to get into a serious
technical discussion.

Away with you, evil spirit. And be very happy that this is
a polite forum.

K7ITM wrote:
You dismissed my honest, straightforward accounting of the
charge transport implied directly by the scenarios you set up.
In no way was it a "logical diversion." It was very much to the
point of explaining just WHY there is in fact a time delay through
your bugcatcher coil.

The biggest clue that you are not arguing in good faith is that
you trimmed out all the technical content and didn't quote
anything I said. This posting of yours is disembodied from
reality so you can demonize me and emote your angry gut feelings.

Responses with no technical content and no quotes are an obvious
attempt to obfuscate - so obfuscate away.

It is possible I misunderstood what you were trying to say but
unless you quote something of technical value, I will have no
idea what my misunderstanding, if any, was all about.

John P. seems to want to discuss instantaneous movement of
energy. Why don't you two keep that discussion going?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

wrote:
Cecil changes what other people write to suit his own needs. He changes
what other people say, and then points out why the creatively edited
text he invented is wrong. That's his debating style. Watch out for it!

Tom, do you or do you not believe that standing wave current flows
into the bottom of the coil and out the top? It's a simple yes/no
question. You have earlier stated that "current is current" and
that, in spite of the different equations for for the two currents,
standing wave current moves like traveling wave current in spite
of what Hecht had to say in "Optics".

"E(x,t) = 2*Eo*sin(kx)*cos(wt) This is the equation for a STANDING
or STATIONARY WAVE, as opposed to a traveling wave. Its profile does
not move through space; it is clearly not of the form Func(x +/- vt).
.... [Standing wave phase] doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant
wave it represents doesn't progress through space - its a standing
wave."

If standing waves of light don't move through space, standing waves
of RF don't move through wires.

Time to stop the ad hominem attacks and address this technical issue.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Time to stop the ad hominem attacks and address this technical issue.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

I'm glad to hear that.

When you show a track record of being honest and you stop those attacks
and your constant distortions of what other people say, I'm sure people
will start talking to you again.

73 Tom

wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Time to stop the ad hominem attacks and address this technical issue.

When you show a track record of being honest and you stop those attacks
and your constant distortions of what other people say, I'm sure people
will start talking to you again.

So by demonizing me, you avoid any technical discussion that
might prove you wrong. That's pretty transparently obvious, Tom.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp