Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
The argument is specifically about Cecil's attempts to explain the
evidence, using his own particular ideas about "standing wave antennas".
He makes it kinda work for the cases he wants to think about, but in
other cases it gets things fundamentally wrong - and that isn't good
enough.

That's just not true, Ian. If the distributed network model agrees
with the lumped circuit model, then the lumped circuit model is
being used in an appropriate situation. If the distributed network
model disagrees with the lumped circuit model, then the lumped
circuit model is being used in an inappropriate situation. The
distributed network model is always right when it disagrees with
the lumped circuit model. The distributed network model is a
*superset* of the lumped circuit model. To quote Dr. Corum:

"Distributed theory encompasses lumped circuits and always applies."

And before you dismiss Dr. Corum as a "crackpot", as others have,
please pay attention to the references for his peer-reviewed
paper published by the IEEE: Kraus, Terman, Ryder, Ramo & Whinnery,
Born & Wolf.

The problem is that the lumped circuit model is being used in
inappropriate situations because you and others do not understand
how standing wave current in standing wave antennas differs from
traveling wave current in traveling wave antennas. To compound
the error, none of you are willing to discuss it from a technical
standpoint. That unwillingness reeks of religion, not science.

Someone we both know and respect wonders why you are so closed
minded. I suggested he contact you by email.

If you, or anyone else, were willing to discuss the nature of
standing waves from a technical standpoint, most of the present
argument would be resolved by that discussion. I'm willing to
discuss it. Why aren't you?

It is entirely possible that I am abusing the distributed network
model, but nobody will be able to prove it unless they engage in
a discussion of standing waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp