Quoted from an e-mail exchange I am having:

However, I'd like you to reconsider your position concerning inductances in
series with a line that has both forward and reverse currents flowing, as in
short mobile antennas. As a result of two currents from the same source flowing
in opposite directions, a standing wave is inevitable, hence different values of
current at different points along the wire in the inductor.

That is incorrect for the conditions we are outlining, and it is
misleading Cecil. It has him lost in a world of reflections. You have
gone outside the limits of the model by assuming, incorrectly, the
inductor has no or little flux linkage from end-to-end and has large
stray capacitance to the outside world compared to load impedance. The
conductor used to build a inductor does not have current slowly winding
its way along that path.

There is no virtually no difference in phase delay in current at each
end of a relatively compact inductor. It is very easy to measure that.
It also have very little group delay compared to the group delay one
would expect from a transmission line or antenna the same length. I
know that because I have measured it hundreds of times.

I have repeated a url below that Cecil posted on the rraa. The material in that
url agrees with my position, and specifically states that circuit analysis is
invalid when the model contains distributed currents, and admonishes that anyone
who disbelieves this has forgotten the warning about the situation given in
sophmore EE courses.

The Tesla coil, by definition of how it works, violates all boundaries
of the examples myself and others are giving Cecil. It does not apply
to the discussion at all.

The Tesla coil is intentionally of exceptionally long form factor. It
has virtually an open circuit at the end, and is by operation
self-resonant at the operating frequency. It has a very large amount
of distributed capacitance compared to termination impedance, since the
termination is an open. It is not operated at a fraction of
self-resonance as people SHOULD know a good mobile loading coil is.

It has no bearing at all on the discussion, any more than it would if I
started measuring the plate choke from an AL1200 amplifier at the
self-resonant frequency with an open termination, or a loading coil for
a 75 meter antenna at the self-resonant frequency.

Everyone (except Cecil) has been very careful to give the boundaries
and describe the effects. The Tesla coil does not fit the boundaries
described, and the secondary inductor in the Tesla coil behaves nothing
like an inductor operated well below self resonance.

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

The very first paragraph of that reference should have been a red flag
that it does not apply to this discussion. Here is what it says:

"Can one model the physical operation of a Tesla coil appropriately
with only lumped-element circuits? If not, why not? It was pointed out
long ago that, at its operating frequency, a Tesla coil is NOT a
lumped-element induction coil. Forget the quest for "many turns of fine
wire". In fact, a Tesla coil has more in common with a cavity resonator
than it does with a conventional inductor."

The key words they use, and they even drew attention to the words by a
type style change, "at its operating frequency, a Tesla coil is NOT a
lumped-element induction coil". They were very clear about that, and go
on to describe how it does behave like a normal induction coil.

Everyone in the conversation has been very careful to clearly establish
the boundary conditions that the behavior we are talking about is
significantly below self-resonance, an inductor of compact form factor,
and an inductor of good design.

I can't understand why anyone would attempt to reference an article
that, in the very opening, states the inductor is operating at
self-resonance! I can't understand why anyone would reference an
article that violates the boundaries of termination impedance outlined
in the discussion, where it has been stated over and over again the
inductor must be terminated in an impedance that is low compared to
leakage impedances.

I can't imagine anyone using a lossy Tesla coil as an antenna or part
of an antenna system. Please read the opening paragraphs of the article
you reference.

73 Tom