On 4 Dec, 23:34, Roy Lewallen wrote:
AI4QJ wrote:

Roy, I will definitely be going through those archives. However, we have
seen many antennas in which the entire antenna is wound as a spiral with a
relatively large pitch in order to shorten it. In this case, the entire
antenna could also be considered an "inductor". For that matter, even a
straight length of antenna wire could be considered a 1/2 turn "inductor".
Ignoring the latter extreme example for now, could not the common spirally
wound antenna be considered an inductor that "replaces" the entire antenna?
I'm not saying it is a "good" antenna but it could be 90 degrees long and
have the same distribution of standing wave current as a straight antenna.
Also, I wonder if we are arguing semantics over the definition of
"inductor".

Definition is definitely a part of the problem. I don't have so much
trouble with variations of defining an "inductor" as I do with the
concept of "replacing" part of an antenna or measuring an inductor in
"electrical degrees". A straight wire and a coiled wire both have the
property of inductance, but in general a coiled wire will radiate less
than a straight one of the same inductance. The coupling to ground or
the other half of the antenna is also different for straight and coiled
wires. So one doesn't directly "replace" the other.

Where on earth did this little gem come from?
W8ti states a similar thing when he says a wire should be as straight
as possible . I suspect that some conditions and definitions are to
be added before such a generalized statement can be made.
Seems like the beginning of an old wives tale that can produce a
thread
by Cecil that could last a decade before it is finally snuffed out
unless the statement is securely bound by a definition where there
can be no misunderstanding especially by those well versed in
relatavistic sciences.Let's face it radiation can be generated
from a point source which can be seen as three dimensional where as
a straight wire is two dimensional
Art KB9MZ





The concept of
"replacement" is overly simplistic and, when extrapolated, can lead to
erroneous conclusions (or in the case of Cecil's and Yuri's theories,
multiple and contradictory conclusions).

Take a look at my 2005 measurements and see if you can do what Cecil and
Yuri failed to do coherently -- use the "replacement" concept and
explain where the missing degrees went.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL