Cecil Moore 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,

I don't intend to - that quotation is perfectly correct. It means that
in a test-case situation where the lumped model *does* apply, the
distributed model will give EXACTLY the same results.

This is the test case that I'm trying to make you apply, to check that
with a lumped-inductance load, your antenna theory predicts the correct
behaviour, namely no phase shift in the current through a lumped
inductance.

There's no problem with the distributed circuit model. There's no
problem with the lumped circuit model as a subset of that. All the
problems are with your incorrect application of those models.

The underlying problem is that you don't see the difference.


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