Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Precisely and specifically NOT that!

:-) "My theory"? It's not my theory. Components behaving differently?
No. Special ways according to my thinking? Of course not. There's
nothing special. The "special magic thinking" is yours in thinking
that standing wave current is the same as traveling wave current.

If you cannot see that statement as a fundamental principle of
scientific logic, then I have run out of ways to tell you.

I see your statement for exactly what it is, Ian, full of inuendo

Let us repeat the statement, then:
The human observer sees a larger picture of the whole antenna, and can
choose many different ways to theorize about it. But a theory cannot
be correct if it requires that components behave in different, special
ways according to the way a person happens to be thinking about it at
the time.

That statement was not innuendo at all. It means nothing more than what
it literally says.

It applies to any and every observer who attempts to construct a theory
about something. Everybody is included; but nobody is exempt.



and ignorance of the nature of standing wave current.

Have you no clue what func(kx)*func(wt) really means?

It is not my theory. It is the distributed network
model which you apparently reject.
No, I reject your incorrect applications.

You reject the distributed network analysis because you are
completely technically ignorant of the nature of standing
wave current.

That is a close to perfect mirror-image of my views on the positions you
take.

The difference is that my views join up with the rest of human knowledge
about antennas and circuit behaviour.

Yours don't. They fail that crucial test.


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek