wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

You are silent on the subject of how the lumped-circuit model
explains more current at the top of the coil than exists at
the bottom of the coil. Please share that knowledge with us.

It's really very simple. It functions as a series of L or T networks
with series inductance and shunt capacitance. There isn't anything new
or novel about this.

Yes, there is. If you have to resort to multiple series-Ls
and multiple series-Cs, then you are having to resort to the
*DISTRIBUTED NETWORK MODEL* which is what I have been telling
you for years.

No, because it is outside the boundary of the antenna being discussed.

Heaven forbid that we discuss anything outside your super
narrow boundary conditions. Tom, there is a world of laws
of physics outside your narrow boundaries and you were even
wrong inside your own narrow boundaries. The delay through a
coil is fixed by frequency and does not depend upon the
electrical length of the antenna being 1/4WL (or 1/2WL).

Please see: http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/current.htm

That's an entirely different topic.

Sorry, the laws of physics work no matter what the topic.
In TX and LA, what you are doing it is called "crawfishing".
When a crawfish feels threatened, it swiftly tucks tail and
runs for the nearest cover. That's exactly what you are doing.
Don't you guys have crawfish in GA?

If the inductor is nearly self-resonant or in a mode where flux
coupling is low compared to termination impedance, certainly odd things
can happen.

No, they are not ODD! They are the laws of physics. The fact
that you think they are odd just shows your ignorance of those
laws of physics. You can't seem to climb out of that bottomless
lumped-circuit hole in which you live.

It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that standing wave
current, func(kx)*func(wt) is not like traveling wave current,
func(kx +/- wt).

So what?

Spoken like a member of the unwashed masses whom you are trying
to snow. Before you embarass yourself any more, please ask Gene
and Tom what that means in reality. They are on your emotional
side but I doubt they will choose to support your technical
ignorance. I assume you have read, "The Emperor's New Clothes"?
Tom, sad to say, you have no clothes.

The issue was actual current flowing, not reflected wave current that
only would be a factor in a transient condition.

Sorry, Tom, reflected current is a reality in a *standing wave* antenna.
Why do you think they call them "standing wave antennas"? To imply
that standing waves exist on a standing wave antenna only during
a transient condition is, well, pathetic. This illustrates, better
than anything else, why you are confused.

It almost seems like you are claiming we cannot measure the current
causing loss or causing radiation because of "standing waves". That's
nonsense of course, and I'm sure most people realize it.

What I am claiming is that the standing wave current phase doesn't
contain any phase information. Gene and Tom have agreed. Why are
you disagreeing with all of us?

I can't explain a problem that exists only in your mind.

The problem exists in reality and has been documented through the
years over the past century by brilliant engineers. What is hard
to explain is a solution that exists only in the mind of W8JI and
nowhere else.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp