Cecil Moore wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:

I suppose, Cecil,
that if you keep repeating the same old tired line, over and over
again, you might find someone who will agree with you.


I agreed with Cecil the first time he said it.
But I'm only a foreigner.
So whatever I say doesn't carry any weight.
Or does it?


I dug out my linear network theory book and would like
to present a few quotes and comments:

"The real world is inherently non-linear."

Lightning hitting an antenna can cause arcing and melted
wires.

"Although nature is non-linear, linear approximations over
defined ranges of validity are valid representations of
non-linear phenomena."

Amateur radio antennas are usually confined to that limited
linear range.

"The necessary and sufficient conditions for a linear system
a (1) validity of the principle of superposition;
(2) preservation of scale factor.

Does doubling the power input to the antenna ~double the
radiated power? Does it ~double the non-radiated losses?

"Fortunately for the engineer, however, linear systems are
frequently excellent approximations to reality and have a
wide range of validity in the real world."

Maxwell's equations in particular. Textbook equations for
traveling waves and standing waves assume linearity.

You can still pretend a dipole is a "linear system," as you
call it, and still understand that the current envelope is not
a simple sine function. The Achilles heel of all your reflection
mechanics ideas is the assumption that everything is lossless.
(Not to mention the fact that it's supposed to exist in outer
space.) You and Reg like to think of a dipole as a transmission line,
and Reg can even tell you its characteristic impedance (average). What
neither he nor you ever mention is the alpha part of the
propagation constant. That's the important part, though, since it
signifies radiation, the very thing the antenna was designed to do.

By the way, why are you quoting from a network theory book when not
too long ago you were ranting and raving about the invalidity of the
lumped constant model?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH