> you are misapplying transmission line theory.
No I'm not. You're ignoring all the evidence of measured
coils, and apparently can't be bothered to learn any of the
Have you measured a coil yet? Your faulty assumption of light
speed propagation along wires will put you around 50-100% out
on frequency measurements. Measure a solenoid and see that you
are wrong and EM theory is correct.
> This is the likely reason for the accuracy of our model in
> predicting node locations in multiple wave length coils.
Again we see the bottom line of your argument - the nodes
are in the right places.
Let me use a rope analogy. Vibrate a rope between two anchors
to form some high resonance with multiple half waves, and note
the node positions. Then, increase the rope tension so that
the propagation velocity is increased. Set the rope oscillating
once more in the same mode (now at a higher frequency). The
nodes will be in the same locations. In the same way, your
observations of node locations say nothing about the propagation
velocity. You saw the nodes where you expected them and
erroneously concluded that the operating frequency and velocity
must therefore be as predicted - an elementary mistake.
> it does bother me that you would describe velocity factors of
> up to twice the speed of light, pretending that this was some
> sort of mainstream science.
If you'd bothered to read earlier extensive replies attempting
to correct your errors, you would already understand that a
velocity factor with respect to the wire of greater than unity
doesn't imply that signals are travelling the wire at greater
than light speed. It shows instead that the field disturbances
we call "signals propagating through the coil" are guided by the
wire into a spiral with a pitch greater than that of the winding.
If it makes you happier, define a velocity factor with respect
to the solenoid length instead, to get factors around 0.001
This is just an example of a much larger class of phenomena in
physics in which EM propagation velocity is reduced (sometimes
severely) in the presence of charged particles, both free and
bound. Inside a metal like copper, for example, the velocity
is down to walking pace!
> Richard Quick told you this about 10 years ago, you should have
> listened to him.
He's never told me anything. What on earth are you talking about?
> The rope resonance models we have employed are not jokes.
Sure, rope models are handy, sometimes. But they don't have the
properties of an EM field. For example, each piece of rope only
affects its immediate neighbours, via tension, whereas charges in
a wire affect each other at a distance via their fields, especially
so when they are brought into proximity by coiling. All those EM
effects are missing from the rope model. They determine the
inductance and capacitance and propagation velocity, taking the
place of tension and mass in the rope model.
If you push the rope analogy too far, you end up with predictions
for a rope, not a coil!
Please, measure some coil frequencies before you make more of a
fool of yourself. Then go learn the theory that predicts those
frequencies. Otherwise, people will laugh at you for ignoring
measurements and rejecting well established theory - all because
you are too stubborn to recognise that you made some elementary