Well, I did mention in another thread that Cecil had already passed
the milepost indicating the point of no return:

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:16:01 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I also measured ~12-13 ns delay
through 50 turns of the same coil stock that Tom
was using when he measured a 3 ns delay through
a 100 turn coil.

The "results" (not corrected for errors as all of Cecil's arguments
drawn from reality are cast as perfections - a clash that always
amuses me) at this point Cecil confirmed/validated Tom's screen shot.

How? Tom's instrument is built to compensate for two channel
measurement errors, an ordinary scope is not. There are many issues
to resolve when using an ordinary scope before results (then corrected
for error) can be used in comparison.

Why? The error is an inherent disparity in using two channels, and
their different rise times. It shouldn't take a degree in engineering
(many who own scopes can confirm this) to realize that an identical
event, traveling through the parallel chain of amplifiers eventually
driving the deflection of the parallel traces; each of those in the
pair will arrive at a different time.

What? It only remains to resolve which chain presents more (or less)
rise time. It is not uncommon to find in the extreme (exactly where
Cecil's measurement resides) that rise time differentials can easily
equal the time delay measurement cited above in the quote, but for
Leader O'Scopes, a calibrated model can exhibit up to 17.5nS rise
time.

Remove that differential, and the error corrected delay collapses
towards Tom's results! If we consider the span of all error easily
washes over the resolution of the measurement, then Cecil's particular
test was a non-starter as it is arguable that it was ever performed.

Cecil could yet pull some of this error out of the mud, but his memory
is foggy, he can't find things, problems beset him, poor eyesight may
have disturbed what he reported (transcription error), his
instrumentation isn't calibrated, he even admits to the possibility of
spelling errors (communication failures in this forum seem to be
embraced as a mark of populist heroism in the face of sterile
engineering), and on and on until:

SUDDENLY a new fact arises that completely
vindicates Cecil! A new vigor rises, and there are
more than 20 answers to supply!
Memory suddenly clears,
the lost notebooks are found,
problems vanish,
eyesight is restored to 20/20....
well, let's say that drama takes center stage
as the magician's cape opening reveals the rabbit.

There are other errors to answer for, this one was simply the first to
engage Cecil in his stumbling attempt cursing the pebbles in the path
as boulders. The absolute best outcome Cecil could reasonably expect
to show is the standard RL of an ordinary coil, and Corum would have
to wait for a future validation. Of course, this future occasion
would demand far better controls, tighter readings, better reporting;
and, of course, this verges on the dictates of engineering.

The cursing will, no doubt, follow. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Here you are, paying attention to the man behind the curtain. I thought
you weren't supposed to do that.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Clark wrote:
Well, I did mention in another thread that Cecil had already passed
the milepost indicating the point of no return:

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:16:01 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I also measured ~12-13 ns delay
through 50 turns of the same coil stock that Tom
was using when he measured a 3 ns delay through
a 100 turn coil.

The "results" (not corrected for errors as all of Cecil's arguments
drawn from reality are cast as perfections - a clash that always
amuses me) at this point Cecil confirmed/validated Tom's screen shot.

How? Tom's instrument is built to compensate for two channel
measurement errors, an ordinary scope is not. There are many issues
to resolve when using an ordinary scope before results (then corrected
for error) can be used in comparison.

Why? The error is an inherent disparity in using two channels, and
their different rise times. It shouldn't take a degree in engineering
(many who own scopes can confirm this) to realize that an identical
event, traveling through the parallel chain of amplifiers eventually
driving the deflection of the parallel traces; each of those in the
pair will arrive at a different time.

What? It only remains to resolve which chain presents more (or less)
rise time. It is not uncommon to find in the extreme (exactly where
Cecil's measurement resides) that rise time differentials can easily
equal the time delay measurement cited above in the quote, but for
Leader O'Scopes, a calibrated model can exhibit up to 17.5nS rise
time.

Remove that differential, and the error corrected delay collapses
towards Tom's results! If we consider the span of all error easily
washes over the resolution of the measurement, then Cecil's particular
test was a non-starter as it is arguable that it was ever performed.

Cecil could yet pull some of this error out of the mud, but his memory
is foggy, he can't find things, problems beset him, poor eyesight may
have disturbed what he reported (transcription error), his
instrumentation isn't calibrated, he even admits to the possibility of
spelling errors (communication failures in this forum seem to be
embraced as a mark of populist heroism in the face of sterile
engineering), and on and on until:

SUDDENLY a new fact arises that completely
vindicates Cecil! A new vigor rises, and there are
more than 20 answers to supply!
Memory suddenly clears,
the lost notebooks are found,
problems vanish,
eyesight is restored to 20/20....
well, let's say that drama takes center stage
as the magician's cape opening reveals the rabbit.

There are other errors to answer for, this one was simply the first to
engage Cecil in his stumbling attempt cursing the pebbles in the path
as boulders. The absolute best outcome Cecil could reasonably expect
to show is the standard RL of an ordinary coil, and Corum would have
to wait for a future validation. Of course, this future occasion
would demand far better controls, tighter readings, better reporting;
and, of course, this verges on the dictates of engineering.

The cursing will, no doubt, follow. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Remove that differential, and the error corrected delay collapses
towards Tom's results!

This from the person who asserted that the reflections
from a non-reflective thin-film coating are brighter
than the surface of the sun. Richard will twist facts
until there is zero resemblance to reality.

Richard, I have no idea what your ulterior motive is
but is it certainly not leaning toward technical facts.

If you don't like my measurements, then please explain
the phase shift through the EZNEC coil model at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/coil512.ez

Almost anyone is capable of creating a forward traveling-
wave through a real-world coil on the bench, as I did, and
measuring the phase shift. Have you done that? Obviously
not, since to do so would force you to side with technical
facts, and not with the old wives' tale you are promoting.

Use a TDR to measure the delay through a 75m bugcatcher
coil and get back to us with the results.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:57:30 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Here you are, paying attention to the man behind the curtain. I thought
you weren't supposed to do that.

And for that, as well as the forecast shortage of substantive data, it
amounts to just a quick peek. When any data is offered and examined,
the thread quickly ends as it should. I count myself lucky to have
played to Cecil's ego long enough to tease out the "facts."

Ego certainly overwhelmed the other thread which blossomed into the
MENSA celebrity network. That group must have restricted chapters
that act as guard channels where the wannabees are collected for later
culling.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:12:00 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

the 21st response.

No contrary evidence noted.

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Here you are, paying attention to the man behind the curtain. I thought
you weren't supposed to do that.

Roy, I more than welcome anyone, including you, looking
behind the curtain for the technical truth. Unfortunately,
you have ploinked my postings and emails and refuse to
look at the considerable evidence that even EZNEC supports.

http://www.w5dxp.com/coil512.ez

Anyone who wants to take the time can download this file
and see how wrong you and others really are. When you
received that file in your email, you threatened to take
EZNEC support away from me and refund my money. Selecting
"Load Dat" clearly shows the phase shift through the coil.

You earlier admitted that EZNEC reports almost no phase
shift in the current from end to end in a 1/2WL dipole
so you should be perfectly aware that same current cannot
be used to measure the delay through a mobile loading coil.

Using political power to try to hide technical facts is not
an ethical thing to do. This time, some are looking behind
the curtain and understanding the physics involved.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

the 21st response.

No contrary evidence noted.

For the Nth time, here is again - please explain it.

http://www.w5dxp.com/coil512.ez
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:32:51 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

the 21st response.

No contrary evidence noted.

For the Nth time...
This represents the expected cries of anguish more than correspondence
to the immediate topic with N greater than the 20th question where
formerly Cecil was loath to proceed beyond...

As observed earlier, threads driven by data rarely present the
entertainment that enthralls many to submit upwards to 500 postings.

I see no further data regarding the topic is forthcoming, an expected
outcome, but certainly not Cecil's best option. However, Cecil is the
only one that can fill in the blanks of a measurement that appears
never to have been made. There appear to have been no witnesses that
can independantly supply that data either. As such, nothing is left
to be said that negates my conclusions set forth in this thread as
were drawn from the only data available.

Of course, Cecil could impeach his own data. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
For the Nth time...

This represents the expected cries of anguish more than correspondence
to the immediate topic with N greater than the 20th question where
formerly Cecil was loath to proceed beyond...

Allow me to point out that the only thing you have proved
is that I am "loath to proceed" for obvious reasons. What
you are saying in no way proves that I was wrong. I have
just gotten tired of being nibbled to death by the gaggle
of guru geese. Please see my new thread titled:
"Please perform my experiment for yourself"
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:34:22 -0800, Richard Clark wrote:

. . . . . . . .

sigh......

Why don't you folks carry on over in rec.radio.amateur.antenna.trolls