wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
In case you missed it, here's what Walter Maxwell had to say
about the subject:

"If an inductance is in series with a line that has
reflections, the current will NOT be the same at both
ends of the inductor."

"Consequently, circuit analysis will not work when both
forward and reflected currents are present in a lumped
circuit."

Cecil, I really think you should let Walt speak for himself.

Sorry, I don't care what you think. You and I (and Walt)
know exactly who distorted the facts.

If anyone really thinks that as a stand-alone statement, it is not
correct. I suspect he didn't get the full story or wasn't following a
discussion closely, or you have snipped something out of context. It's
very easy to take small areas out of context and make it seem like
someone is saying something they are not.

Those are Walt's exact words, not mine. If you don't believe me,
send him an email and ask him.

The behavior of any small two-terminal component REQUIRES currents to
be essentially equal. It's only when the component has a third
significant path to the outside world that currents can be unequal.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Your lumped-circuit model presupposes that
the currents are equal so you are begging the question. YOU
CANNOT USE YOUR MODEL TO PROVE ITS OWN PRESUPPOSITIONS. I see
you haven't yet read what Dr. Corum had to say on that subject.

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

If I have a small capacitor, current flowing in one lead is equal to
current flowing out the other and the phase of each current is exactly
equal. Same for an inductor.

Sorry, that's just not true for inductors. In the real world,
there is a traveling wave current delay through the coil that
can easily be measured on the bench. That delay converts
directly to a phase delay. You are simply mistaken, hoodwinked
by your lumped-circuit model, which presupposes the proof of
what you say above. You are once again, begging the question
and assuming the proof without having proved anything.

That's not a guess, that's a rule of how things always behave.

BS, Tom. That's a rule from a model known to fail in the
presence of standing waves. Models existing in your mind
don't dictate reality. It is supposed to be just the opposite.

I'm wondering if the real problem is some people spend too much time
with transmission lines and antenna and not enough time with circuit
components, and become rusty?

The real problem is that you are looking for your keys under
the streetlight instead of in the dark where you lost them.

The real problem is that you are doing the same thing as the
naive ham who tries to measure feedpoint impedance with an
ohm-meter.

The real problem is that you are using a tool known to fail
under the conditions in which you are trying to use it.

THE LUMPED-CIRCUIT MODEL FAILS IN THE PRESENCE OF STANDING WAVES!
I know that. Walt knows that. Dr. Corum knows that. A number
of lurkers on this newsgroup know that. Nikola Tesla obviously
knew that in his 1897 patent application.

In any event, you do enough damage to people's reputations Cecil.
Please leave Walt alone. He will speak for himself if he likes.

Please mind your own business. I have Walt's permission to
quote his stuff. If he ever asks me to stop quoting him, I will.
One wonders if your attitude would be different if Walt agreed
with you? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp