"Ian White, G3SEK" wrote in message ...
Yuri wrote:

I am just amazed that with all the "theoretical" arguing going on, why
none of the "learned" experts measure, answer or explain the following
REAL effects or show where I (we) are wrong:

[...]

Yuri is making some fair points - those practical observations do need
to be explained.

But first we all need to agree that for an ideal lumped loading coil,
the current at the top and bottom terminals will be the same. If the
current is not the same at both ends, then the coil cannot be behaving
as an ideal lumped inductor.


I believe that Tom took this stance early on when he explained
variances of slight current change by virtue of the capacitive
component of the real world
inductor when wound on a scale that is used on a vertical radiator.
I suspect that if he brought Q into the equation /discussion people
would not of gotten off track so quickly in the first place! People
have become so enamourd with modeling technics they are willing to let
their guard down
and accept what their results show and throw caution to the wind.
I think I will follow Roy and get out of this one
Art


Now the vainess of man does not allow one to admit error,
so the hole digging continues with faces pointed down
despite pleas from the faces above
Art


That tells us that the explanation has to involve the non-zero physical
dimensions of the coil. In other words, the coil is no longer just a
pure inductor - it also has some antenna-like distributed properties,
which do allow (and indeed require) a current variation along the
length.

I don't know what the full detailed explanation is. But I do know that,
in order to be correct for all possible cases, it *must* include the
feature that as the physical dimensions of the coil tend towards zero,
the difference in current between its two ends falls towards zero also.
Any "explanation" that denies this fundamental physical fact is
guar-an-teed to be wrong.

So let's agree on that, and then we can move forward to find an
explanation.