Cecil,

A few random comments:

* I have done a number of "peer reviews" for IEEE and AIP publications
as well as other publications. I have seen comments from the other
reviewers. In general peer review is better than nothing, but in many
cases it doesn't mean diddly.

* The Tesla coil crowd seems to contain an unusually large fringe. I
know nothing of the authors of your latest bible, but in any case I was
not particularly impressed with their credentials or their paper. I love
the part, "Lumped circuit theory isn't absolute truth, it's only an
analytical theory about lumped models". As if their work is somehow
absolute truth. (Back to the previous bullet: I have never seen any
serious peer-reviewed paper that would contain such a statement.)

* No one is his right mind would think that a Tesla coil with a
gazillion closely spaced turns is equivalent to a bugcatcher coil. No
one should think that an axial mode helical antenna is equivalent to an
ordinary loading coil either.

* You are waaaay too hung up on the subject of standing waves vs.
traveling waves. You may have noticed that the standard treatments of
antennas in texts and other references barely mention the terms. They
merely discuss the actual current in the antenna. The fundamentally
important entity in radiation is accelerated charge, just as Tom noted.
At any point in an antenna, such as the loaded monopole discussed here,
there is simply a current, not a traveling wave or a standing wave. If
you could examine the antenna microscopically at a single point you
would find electrons sloshing back and forth. You could not tell if the
current was represented by a standing wave or a traveling wave. The
standing wave description relates to the overall amplitude
characteristic of the current when you look at the entire antenna. This
amplitude characteristic is certainly important in calculation of
details of the radiation field, but it does not change the fundamental
property of radiation or the physical processes ongoing in the antenna.
It is just plain silly to argue that a standing wave is totally inert
and does not flow back and forth.

* Distributed or network models are mathematically convenient for
treating complex problems. However, they add precisely zero new
information to the underlying physical reality described by Maxwell's
equations. They offer no new physics beyond lumped models. They can be
misapplied just the same as lumped models can be misapplied. It is
generally best to drive a nail with a hammer, but a monkey wrench will
also do the job. It is best to choose the most efficient tool, but that
does not mean others won't work.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

1.) Cecil wants everyone to start using reflection wave models to
analyze every antenna system in the world.


No, I simply want you and others to stop using a known invalid
model for every standing wave antenna system in the world.
This is a quote from the first web page below: The capital
letters are where the author used bold italics for emphasis.

"... - no wave interferrence and no standing waves can be
present on lumped elements. The problem has been that many
experimenters working with self-resonant helices have
PURSUED THE CONCEPT OF COIL SELF-
CAPACITANCE WITHOUT REALLY UNDERSTANDING
WHERE THE NOTION COMES FROM OR WHY IT WAS
EVER INVOKED BY ENGINEERS. For that, they will have
to go read R.W.P. King's wonderful old book, "Electromagnetic
Engineering, McGraw-Hill, 1945. ... On page 465, the Harvard
Professor points out that, for coils whose *wire length* exceeds
1/6 wavelength, ...'an adequate representation of the reactance
of a coil with a nonuniformly distributed currentr is NOT
POSSIBLE in terms of a coil with a uniform current [a lumped
element inductance] ...' Period. Resonant FIELDS present
surprises to engineers with limited training."

Certainly sounds like he is talking about you, Tom. "Electronic
Engineering" was written before you were born. Why are you
ignorant of the technical facts presented in it?

http://www.ttr.com/corum/index.htm

http://www.ttr.com/TELSIKS2001-MASTER-1.pdf

The .pdf paper is a pier-reviewed publication by the IEEE. Here's
what it says about the model you have chosen to use.

"Of course, the uniform current assumption has no validity for coils
operating anywhere near self-resonance!"

"The failure of any limped element circuit model to describe the
real world lies at its core inherent *presupposition*: the speed of
light is presumed to be infinite in the wave equation. ... Consequently,
lumped element circuit theory does not (and cannot) accurately
embody a world of second order partial differential equations in
space and time."

"The concept of coil "self-capacitance" is an attempt to circumvent
transmission line effects on small coils when the current distribution
begins to depart from its DC behavior."

"There are a great number of formulae for coil self-capacitance.
None are of particular value for quarter-wave helical resonators
anywhere near the 90 degree point."

"The delusion is that the short coil is then made to operate in the
lumped element regime ...".

That you refuse to give up on an invalid method in the face of
overwhelming evidence is amazing.


What he wants me or others to do is a moot point.


Afraid of what you will find? The first web page above says:
"Lumped circuit theory isn't absolute truth, it's only an analytical
theory - and in these resonators we have the case where this
sophmore theory fails experimentally." Do the experiment, Tom,
and discover exactly how sophmorish you are being.


I am concerned about the commonly held but very incorrect view that
current travels through an inductor turn-by-turn, and that a loading
inductor somehow shifts the phase of and/or level of current to "make
up for missing degrees".


Tom, that's what any matching network does. Loading coils are no
exception.


My only concern is people not understanding how an inductor and short
antenna actually behaves.


I am concerned about you not understanding, Tom. Don't
you believe the information posted on those web pages above. Don't
you think a peer-reviewed IEEE publication that disagrees with you
is worth a second thought from you. Don't you think ignoring the
knowledge published by experts in the field is a little naive?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP