I haven't had the time to participate in this, but in a brief look, it
looks pretty silly. Of course EZNEC shows no current difference across a
load. The EZNEC model of a load has zero length, so the current at both
terminals has to be the same. You will see a current change over the
length of a model of a conductor, because it does have length. The coil
in the web site pictures certainly has length, so why should you be
surprised to find a current change over its length? Did the experimenter
perhaps do the same test with the meters placed the same distance apart
with just a conductor in between? Would there be some great revelation
in finding that the current was different at the two points?

I was intrigued by the claim that a toroid measured significantly
different from one end to the other. I wonder if the tester tried
reversing the meters to verify that he got the same reading in both
cases. If he did, I'd be interested in learning more details.

Unfortunately, the main objective of the web site seems to be to insult
Tom, W8JI, rather than to be objective. So in my mind that leaves the
possibility open that the experimenter is more interested in finding
evidence that would disprove Tom than in presenting carefully measured
and objective data.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
More pudding!

I added picture of current distribution when using inductance in the form of
loading stub as described earlier and from Eznec file supplied by Cecil. It is
at the end of the article at

http://www.k3bu.us/loadingcoils.htm

It shows the jump accross the stub, but when replaced by lumped inductor, the
Eznec shows constant current accross the coil.

Yuri