RadioBanter - View Single Post

Richard Clark · October 23rd 08, 10:26 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:01:18 -0400, (J. B. Wood)
wrote:

In article , Richard Clark
wrote:

Lest there be any confusion: an antenna IS a transmission line.

Hello, and I think one would have to include two antennas and the
intervening medium(s) for the above statement to make sense.
....
Over a range
of frequencies the behavior of this 2-port can easily differ from that of
a transmission line, though.

It would appear your first sentence is contested by your last sentence
in your reply. It follows, then, that changing my statement through a
speculative inclusion introduced a problem not already in the
original. When we withdraw your inclusion to suit your complaint, we
are again left with my original.

What you are arguing is a failure of application, not a failure of the
device. I've seen similar arguments that forced terms of transformer
or transducer into the mix to show how they fail. I find the terms
suitable in a casual discussion, but the new minted failures occur on
the basis of forcing definitions when the casual applications worked
just fine.

One can, by a simple twist of the oscillator's frequency knob, find
failure in all analogues of antennas, lumped circuits, and
transmission lines. Those failures are not exotic perturbations in
the 5th decimal place, but simple and utter refusals to conform to a
general rule (such as my bald statement). For any attempt to refute
my bald statement with "proven concepts" will reveal those challenging
concepts built on a foundation of sand by a similar token of counter
proof.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC