Early... too early... on Saturday morning, I wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:

What lumped circuit theory? It's a simplification and everyone
knows it. Don't set up any more straw men than you have to, Cecil.

It's a simplification of any real-life coil - but loading by
pure-and-simple lumped inductance is also a vital test case.

This form of loading is the simplest imaginable. If a theory about the
behaviour of loaded antennas fails to give correct results for this
very simplest test case, it cannot be valid... and all the further
elaborations about real-life coils will not be valid either.


Evidently I was in too much of a hurry to leave for the GMDX convention,
because what I mean to write next was:

"Cecil's theory does not work for this test case, "

[ I definitely did type the word "not", but it accidentally disappeared
from the version that was posted. ]

So, from the top of the paragraph:

Cecil's theory does not work for this test case,
because it requires that basic electrical properties like current and
inductance switch into a different kind of behaviour in what he calls a
"standing wave environment". But it is an absolutely basic fact that
the physical world does NOT change its behaviour according to the way
we choose to think about it. If any theory requires that, it's an
absolute proof that such theory is false.


For the avoidance of doubt (as they say in Scottish legal documents):
It certainly IS possible to analyse and predict the behaviour of
coil-loaded antennas in terms of travelling and standing waves. My
objection is specifically against Cecil's method, which is provably
incorrect.


Sorry for any confusion that typo may have caused. This corrected
version is now fully consistent with what I meant to say.


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