Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

- and yet again Cecil snips the statement he is replying to. For the
second time in a day, I have to put back what I actually said:

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.

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

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.

It means the lumped-circuit model works where the distributed-
network model fails. That is false. It is just the opposite.
the distributed-network model works where the lumped-circuit
model fails.

No...

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

Only up to where the coils are 15 degrees long. Then the distributed
network model must be engaged to avoid blunders exactly like you
and others are making.


You are missing the point still.

Yours don't. They fail that crucial test.

Distributed network analysis fails the test??? Please provide
an example. The IEEE would probably publish a paper on such.

Every time I say that you are not applying established concepts and
techniques correctly, you twist it to make me say I am denying the
validity of the concepts themselves.

For the very last time: the basic concepts are valid; but the way that
you are applying them is not. Can you really and truly not see the
difference?



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