On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:12:32 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

I disagree with your conclusion that currents flow circumferentially. It
does not say so in the paper, and I don't believe it can be inferred
from what is said in the paper.

Hi Roy,

To insist that the paper be complete where the reader has the
competence to understand what is implied; well, that goes beyond
standard practice. Further, the implication is hardly momentous when
the force of the writing is in demonstrating (not finding) a solution
to loss. Their style is clearly descriptive, not pedantic.

One very simple observation drawn directly from the text
at page 760:
"When the earth is of good conductivity,
the current leaves the wires and enters the earth closer to
the antenna than it does when the earth is a poor conductor."

How is it THIS current is traveling radially, the same direction as
the wires, both leaving the wire (an orthogonal aspect) and yet moving
in the same direction. This is a contradiction to the geometry of the
description if we are to abide by your rejection of my
"interpretation."

Their (not my) statement, supported by their other text, hardly makes
sense otherwise. Current only flows along a potential gradient and
the phase shift between (by their own distinctions) wire and ground
constitutes such a gradient.

It is a vastly more speculative "interpretation" to suggest the
current leaves the wire to travel in the same direction and the
authors definitely don't say that, do they? Common sense would
dictate a fairer interpretation that conforms to phases and the
distinctions (separation of currents) they drew from them.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC