On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 23:48:31 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

I can see how someone in the 1950's might assume that
current in = current out (kirchoff) ... We know better now

Hi Dan,

This is called the "fallacy of present mindedness."

Kirchoff demands that analysis be done free of network geometries that
are wavelength dependant. This was known long before the 1950s.

And another issue:
current in = current out
is not a Kirchoff law for a component and the currents on its leads
(this is a tempting sophomore lab shortcut that is strictly lumped
circuit stuff - which absolutely demands 0 wavelength). Kirchoff's
first law is for a point, or junction; and, of course, there is no
potential across a point or junction (as there would be for a
component).

Engineers knew this long before 1950, presumably 100+ years before in
1845. The first Telegrapher's equations (125 years ago or more) had
to overcome wavelength restrictions - hence the work of Heaviside
through Maxwell.

This, of course, is a repetition for your sake which has been offered
in years past to the same "debaters" for whom it has had:
1. absolutely no impact to their passion play;
2. been entirely forgotten;
3. been wholly outside of their researching skills (i.e. never having
ever taken a circuits lab course beyond the sophomore first quarter);
4. been a combination of 1, 3, and 4 with the pretense of 2.

With the pretense of 2, we will be visited by this astonishing
revelation of current change through the coil again in the future, as
we have been on successive occasions throughout the past. There will
be new and remarkable papers culled from the net that exhibit math to
prove all cogent points - except to sweep the wavelength restriction
for Kirchoff under the rug again.

Thus was it ever, thus will it be again....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC