Gene Fuller wrote:
I am quite sure I did not take any "side" in this topic.

I assume you are on the side of technical facts as am I.

I believe in
lumped circuit models, and I believe in network models. My aim was to
try to correct some of the basic math and physics flaws, not to argue
over the exact regimes of applicability for lumped and non-lumped models.

Your func(kx)*func(wt) Vs func(kx +/- wt) posting contributed a
good deal of technical accuracy to the discussion and I thank
you for that.

At the same time, if proving your "side" includes mobile antennas with
48 foot whips ... then please leave me off of your "side".

And there's the blind spot. The two antennas are identical except
for the 40 foot extension. The coil doesn't know the extension
is there. Why did the slope of the current taper reverse between
those two configurations? How does the lumped-circuit model explain
more current "flowing" out of the top of the coil than is "flowing"
into the bottom of the coil? It's a simple question but the answer
has been conspicuous by its absence. I will keep asking that question
until someone answers it.

The distributed network analysis handles both of those configurations
in a valid way. Adding 40 feet to an antenna is no problem. The relative
phases of the forward and reflected currents changed - that's all that
happened.

But by adding 40 feet of wire to the antenna, the lumped circuit analysis
falls completely apart. So how do we know it was valid for the 8 foot
antenna where everything is the same except for length? We don't!

Since the lumped circuit analysis falls apart by adding 40 feet to an
antenna, I contend that the lumped circuit analysis fell apart with the
8 foot antenna but you guys don't realize it yet.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp