On Apr 23, 4:10*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
steveeh131047 wrote:
. . .
Now here's my problem:

* The results I get using a model based on transmission-line analysis
are very close to my EZNEC predictions - not perfect, but way better
than any lumped-element analysis results
* I don't see quantitative, non-empirical, arguments being put forward
to support lumped-element analysis
* I see numeric arguments being put forward by Cecil to support a
transmission-line approach - they look convincing to me and, although
I see a lot of unpleasant personal attacks on him, I don't see any
scientific challenge to his figures
* On the other hand I see folk whose work I rate highly, seemingly
willfully to misunderstand some of the points which Cecil puts forward

Please don't think I'm trying to defend Cecil - I wouldn't be so
presumptuous, and anyway he's old enough to look after himself! I'm
just trying to understand why, what seems to me to be such a
persuasive argument, generates such opposition. Either there's some
glaring technical error here which I haven't yet spotted, or perhaps
there's a long "history" between various "personalities" of which I'm
ignorant?

Still confused,

Steve G3TXQ

Some of your questions can be answered by doing a google groups search
of this newsgroup for the topic "Current in antenna coils controversy"
in 2003. There are several other lengthy threads at later dates, such as
"Current across the loading coil - from scratch", "Loading coils; was :
Vincent antenna", "Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current", and
a number of threads prior to 2003.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

This is so wrong. The term "wave" is an adjective and a "particle" is
a noun. An adjective is the enunciation of a function that describes a
noun.
Art