Tom Donaly wrote:
I didn't write that the Corums stole Reg's ideas, I wrote that you did.

But I am only quoting Drs. Corum, not Reg. If anyone
stole Reg's ideas, it was Dr. Corum, not I.

Do you really think
that the people who wrote the references you cite, if they were all
alive today, would agree with you?

As a matter of fact, Dr. Balanis did agree with me
when I took his antenna class at ASU in the early
90's. There were some Motorola people in the class
who asked, "Why do Intel people know so much about
antennas?" Dr. Balanis and I worked closely together
on a joint ASU/Intel project.

The complete absence of technical rebuttal in your
posting is noted. I don't know much about you, Tom,
but you seem to be more ad hominem than technical.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
I didn't write that the Corums stole Reg's ideas, I wrote that you did.

But I am only quoting Drs. Corum, not Reg. If anyone
stole Reg's ideas, it was Dr. Corum, not I.

Do you really think
that the people who wrote the references you cite, if they were all
alive today, would agree with you?

As a matter of fact, Dr. Balanis did agree with me
when I took his antenna class at ASU in the early
90's. There were some Motorola people in the class
who asked, "Why do Intel people know so much about
antennas?" Dr. Balanis and I worked closely together
on a joint ASU/Intel project.

In the early '90's you hadn't come up with your ideas yet.
How could Balanis agree with you before the fact? Again,
nice try.


The complete absence of technical rebuttal in your
posting is noted. I don't know much about you, Tom,
but you seem to be more ad hominem than technical.

You're being ad hominem by accusing me of being ad hominem.
Come up with some evidence that makes sense concerning your
ideas and we can talk.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
In the early '90's you hadn't come up with your ideas yet.
How could Balanis agree with you before the fact? Again,
nice try.

On the contrary, in the early 90's I had not published
my ideas yet. Dr. Balanis helped me to develop the very
ideas that I have published and he agreed with them.

Come up with some evidence that makes sense concerning your
ideas and we can talk.

I have presented my evidence long ago and you have
ignored it in favor of ad hominem attacks. I cannot
recall a single technical argument from you. For all
I know, you are an 8 year old brat with access to
his mother's computer.

I would like nothing better than to engage in a real
technical argument with you. You can start by producing
technical arguments against the information on my web
page. If you have EZNEC, you can verify everything I
say by downloading the EZNEC files at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/current2.htm
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
In the early '90's you hadn't come up with your ideas yet.
How could Balanis agree with you before the fact? Again,
nice try.

On the contrary, in the early 90's I had not published
my ideas yet. Dr. Balanis helped me to develop the very
ideas that I have published and he agreed with them.

Come up with some evidence that makes sense concerning your
ideas and we can talk.

I have presented my evidence long ago and you have
ignored it in favor of ad hominem attacks. I cannot
recall a single technical argument from you. For all
I know, you are an 8 year old brat with access to
his mother's computer.

I would like nothing better than to engage in a real
technical argument with you. You can start by producing
technical arguments against the information on my web
page. If you have EZNEC, you can verify everything I
say by downloading the EZNEC files at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/current2.htm

Cecil,
people have tried technical arguments on you for years, to no
avail. Most have given up in disgust. Roy even plonked you. If Roy and
Tom Rauch couldn't make you see reason, no one can. As for Balanis
agreeing with you, that's pretty funny.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
If Roy and Tom Rauch couldn't make you see reason, no one can.

Roy and Tom are the ones committing the technical
blunder of trusting their phase measurements using
a current that doesn't change phase relative to
the source phase anywhere up and down the thin-wire
1/2WL dipole. Now you and others are helping them
to sandbag their technical myths and hoodwink the
unwashed masses. If that's what you want for a
reputation, be my guest.

EZNEC agrees that the relative phase of the current
on a standing wave antenna doesn't change anywhere
on a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole so it cannot be used
to measure the phase shift through the wire. EZNEC
says that the phase of the current on a standing
wave antenna changes about 1 degree for every 30
degrees of antenna wire. Roy and Tom would have to
admit that is considerably faster than the speed
of light. Of course, that's exactly what the
lumped-circuit model presupposes - instantaneous
propagation through the lumped-inductor.

Since that current cannot even be used to determine
the phase shift through the antenna wire, how can anyone
honestly assert that it can be used to determine the
phase shift through a loading coil?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com