Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...

What needs to be thrown away is the belief that all impedances are the
ratio of a voltage to a current, along with the notion that only
resistors can have resistance.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL



You have convinced me that you are correct about both of these
points.

Good. Then the effort was worthwhile.


Absolutely.



But i don't think that an antennas impedance will not be affected
by the permeability of the medium that surrounds it. An antennas
input impedance will be different in free space as opposed to being
immersed in water, for example.

Indeed it will.


This indicates to me that the antenna is indeed "matching" 50
Ohms to the impedance of free space, even if it is a different type of
impedance.

That's a leap I'm unable to make or to follow.



Clearly, neither of us are PhDs in EM wave propagation, but water
certainly has a different E versus H impedance than the 377 Ohms of
free-space, which is why the input impedance of the antenna will
change. This is not the same, but similar to how the load on the
secondary will affect the primary impedance of a transformer.



Do you think that the characteristics of a transformer of a
specific turns ratio, gauge wire, and core geometry, will NOT depend
on the core material? I would say definitely it WILL depend on the
material.

Actually, an adequate core shouldn't appear as a significant factor in
transformer performance. Naturally, an inadequate core will adversely
affect it. But I just don't accept that as evidence, let alone "proof"
that an antenna is fundamentally an impedance matching device.



Well, you've already agreed that an antenna/transducer can be
considered one half of a transformer, but what i'm saying is that the
permeability of the core or medium will certainly affect the impedance
of the transducer.

What do you mean by "adequate core"? One that suits your purpose
i suppose. But a material of the wrong permeability will definitely
affect your transformer performance. So the impedance of the core
definitely affects the transformer characteristics, as does the
impedance of the air (or water) between two antennas.



I see that you won't be swayed from your visualization. But hopefully
some of the other readers can see the fallacy of the concept. I think
I've done all I can, so I'll leave this topic now.



You've convinced me that antennas are transducers, which are one
half of a transformer, by giving me logical statements.

But you have not come up with anything to convince me otherwise
on this point, which i don't believe is a fallacy at this time.



*Chuckle* I was just reminded of something that happened years ago, when
my son was a small boy. He learned that I was an engineer, so he
couldn't wait to see the train I drove. After a great deal of repeated,
patient, explanation, I finally got across (I thought) a description of
what I did, and that it had nothing to do with trains. Well, he had
occasion to visit me at work quite a long time later. He kept wandering
off. When I asked why, he explained that he was trying to find where the
train was kept. Yeah, I might not drive trains, but I must have
*something* to do with trains.


I'm not a small boy Roy, and I'm an engineer too. Your NG
inspired sarcasm doesn't change my opinion at all, and cannot even be
compared to logical reasoning.

Roy, thanks for your insight, and you have definitely helped me
out with your strict semantics (sometimes needed, especially in the
engineering world!).

But your need to be always right closes your mind to new ideas
and new learning. This is the sign of someone who claims to know
everything about a subject, which i personally believe to be
impossible, even for such a specialized topic as antennas (actually,
it's quite broad, isn't it?), and even for someone as bright and
knowledgable as you are.


Again, much thanks for your input.


Dr. Slick