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?

W8JI used it as a "proof" that current in the loading coil is virtually the
same at both ends. We were not surprised, but W8JI was insisting that it is,
used Eznec to prove it (go see his web site) and ridiculed us.

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?

Not to us, but see W8JI arguments speculating and "knowing" that current must
be the same.

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.

I believe he did use the same method, and W9UCW can answer that. Looks like you
are also not getting the main point of the argument. Appears that the rule is:
"loading inductance (whatever form) inserted in the radiating element exhibits
current magnitudes at its ends corresponding to the current in the length of
radiator in electrical degrees that it replaces." Replacing inductance with
piece of wire won't do the simulation, it has to have properties of inductor
(replacing radiator's segment in degrees, inductance). Toroid, loading stub,
and lumped inductors do the same thing.

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.

Not so, first I posted on eHam.net fact that current is different at the ends
of loading coil. To which W8JI rode in with his "answers" and ridiculed me in
public (I don't know the laws, didn't read the books, etc.) to which I
responded in kind, provided proof and defended my (and others) position.
Because this has happened about fifth time (he did it to others too) I simply
will not take the crap and bite back. He is parading as a knowitall guru and
pontificating with sometimes erroneous information. If anyone questions or
challenges that, he does his routine. If you read the trail from the start you
would get the picture. If he discussed the matters in a civil manner, there
would be no problem, we can exchange arguments, learn something and mainly give
a credit where is due. That's what professionals do. He first argues wrong,
then goes away for a while and then emerges with change as a guru or inventor.
That does not give hams good name and is poor example for those no-coders
coming into ham radio.
From the past postings, you could probably see that I can discuss the subjects
in a civil manner, but when someone who is wrong starts pulling out smart ass
remarks and ridicule, the gloves are off and I will defend the truth to the
end. It is not just proving Tom wrong, it is to set the record straight, to
bring aspect of antenna engineering to light (after 50 years of perpetuation of
wrong in some antenna books), to alert software designers to the problem so
they can accommodate the proper procedure or workarounds. I hope you can see
how inaccurate results will EZnec produce if you simply inserted 0 size
inductors in elements of 3 el. 80m shortened parasitic beam. Magnitudes and
current distribution will be off, producing skewed results. Optimizing programs
will be chasing wrong tail.

Again, I apologize for the tone, but I will not give in to the bully. If he
doesn't learn and shape up, I will be at his case, pointing out the wrongs that
he is disseminating (he has some more on his web site).

We were hoping that you were around, following the discussions, helping to
point where we are wrong, suggest workarounds or proper procedure for modeling
and we are willing to help with testing and verifications. Cecil brought some
insight from the theoretical side, I (and W9UCW?) can do measurements and all
this can bring greater understanding of the phenomena, rather than propagating
misconceptions and wrong ideas.
I found a lot more help and expertise on this NG than on eHam.net no-code flat
earth society, for which I am grateful.

Can we now look at the modeling problems? Seems that Cecil's way of
substituting the lumped inductance with loading stubs allows closer
approximation of configuration for the modeling programs. But this can still
distort the true picture. I would like to point out, that W6?? replaced loading
stubs in 3 el. 80m KLM beam with coils and the performance of the beam,
especially pattern improved tremendously. So it looks like loading wires and
radiation from them (folded along the element) upset the current distribution
and resulting deterioration of performance. (So much for nice, low loss
loading.) This was done, tested, measured and verified, no speculations. Is
there better way of modeling the case, can we use cosine of degree of
electrical length of wire that coil replaces?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Yuri, K3BU