Gene Fuller wrote:
* 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.

Translation: If they don't agree with Gene Fuller, they don't mean
diddly. :-)

* No one is his right mind would think that a Tesla coil with a
gazillion closely spaced turns is equivalent to a bugcatcher coil.

On the contrary, Gene, my 75m bugcatcher meets the minimum
definition of a Tesla coil on 9-10 MHz where it is 1/4WL
self-resonant, i.e 90 degrees. It is a good 78 degrees on
75m which is not all that far from its self-resonant point.

* You are waaaay too hung up on the subject of standing waves vs.
traveling waves.

So uttered by the priest of the high-and-mighty lumped-constant
religious sect. :-) The lumped-circuit model is known to fail in
a standing-wave environment. Anyone using it in a standing-wave
environment is doomed to failure. Those are known facts. What
is it about those statements that you don't understand?

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.

Gene, if you want to assert that the current on a standing wave
antenna is not a standing wave, be my guest. The standing wave
on a 1/2WL dipole is why it radiates broadside. If it were a
traveling wave, it would be an end-fire. Standing wave current
is NOT traveling wave current and vice versa. I'm not even sure
that "standing-wave current" even meets the definition of
"current". If it's not flowing, is it really current? It appears
to me to be more of a wet dream than anything real.

If
you could examine the antenna microscopically at a single point you
would find electrons sloshing back and forth.

But we are not interested in Brownian motion, are we? We are
only interested in the net charge flow and that is zero on a
standing wave antenna with equal coherent currents flowing
in opposite directions.

You could not tell if the
current was represented by a standing wave or a traveling wave.

Say what? If voltage/current maximums/minimums exist, then a
standing wave exists. Admittedly, if you were an individual
electron, you would have trouble discerning the difference.
But Gene, if you really are an individual electron, please
explain to the group how you manage to depress the keyboard
keys?

It is just plain silly to argue that a standing wave is totally inert
and does not flow back and forth.

Where did that word, "inert", come from? Not from me. Do I
smell a straw man arising?

When you have equal magnitude coherent waves flowing in opposite
directions in a wire, do you really want to assert that there is
a net charge flow or a net current flow along the wire? If so, be
my guest and please prove it.

* 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.

Exactly correct!

They offer no new physics beyond lumped models.

Exactly incorrect. Lumped-circuit models are a subset of distributed-
network models. Distributed-network models are a subset of Maxwell's
equations. Lumped-circuit models are known to fail in the presence
of standing waves. That is what the whole argument here is about.
Some people have adopted the lumped-circuit model as their religion
and they will attempt to put anyone who disagrees with them under
house arrest, as happened to Galileo, e.g. W7EL has 'ploinked' me
and uses his guru status to take unfair potshots at me from time
to time.

What we have on this newsgroup is a gang of junk yard dog gurus who
don't care if they are right or wrong. They just attack anyone who
disagrees with their postings whether right or wrong. (It's not ad
hominem when it's the truth and any knowledgeable person following
this discussion recognizes that as the truth.)

I would like to request that everyone stop the ad hominem attacks,
(me included), and engage in a civil gentlemanly technical
discussion. If I am so wrong, I should be easy prey for 4+
distinguished gurus. OTOH, if I am right, I understand the reluctance
to engage me on a technical level and fully understand the ad hominem
attacks to be a face-saving necessity. So which will it be? The
response to my technical quotes and assertions has, so far, been
underwhelming. Shouldn't half a dozen omniscient gurus be able to
dispatch a mere mortal grasshopper?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp