You can't change the Vf by shortening a Vf = 0.02 coil, hmmm?
Remarkable shortening of your own theory there.

Perhaps you might want to try again using real numbers. Simply
because you play the pity card of forgetfulness (blaming your reader
usually as a bluff) we will reprise the question once again:

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).

SAME coil means the one being offered, and being shortened - all other
provisos stand

Richard Clark wrote:
You can't change the Vf by shortening a Vf = 0.02 coil, hmmm?
Remarkable shortening of your own theory there.

You appear to have forgotten which side you were arguing
but 1/2 of a turn should increase the VF over one turn.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:48:54 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
You can't change the Vf by shortening a Vf = 0.02 coil, hmmm?
Remarkable shortening of your own theory there.

You appear to have forgotten which side you were arguing
but 1/2 of a turn should increase the VF over one turn.

You can't change the Vf by shortening a Vf = 0.02 coil, hmmm?
Remarkable shortening of your own theory there.

Perhaps you might want to try again using real numbers. Simply
because you play the pity card of forgetfulness (blaming your reader
usually as a bluff) we will reprise the question once again:

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).

SAME coil means the one being offered, and being shortened - all other
provisos stand

Richard Clark wrote:
You can't change the Vf by shortening a Vf = 0.02 coil, hmmm?
Remarkable shortening of your own theory there.

It was Gene Fuller who said the coil varied between the "known"
limits of 1.0 and 0.02, not I. I just replied to Gene's posting.
You and I seem to be in agreement that the VF of the coil doesn't
change with a change in length.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:39:11 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

It was Gene Fuller who said the coil varied between the "known"
limits of 1.0 and 0.02, not I.
You can't change the Vf by shortening a Vf = 0.02 coil, hmmm?
Remarkable shortening of your own theory there.

Perhaps you might want to try again using real numbers. Simply
because you play the pity card of forgetfulness (blaming your reader
usually as a bluff) we will reprise the question once again:

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).

SAME coil means the one being offered, and being shortened - all other
provisos stand