There are a couple of problems with the analogy. First, of course, is
that there is no secondary winding to convert the primary's magnetic
field to the current I you reference. The "aether" has no N and no I,
and doesn't do this. The second problem is that a simple transformer
model, or any other lumped-element circuit model, is valid only if its
dimensions are very small compared to a wavelength(*). A mobile whip
loading coil is often long enough that a current gradient can occur from
one end to another, so a single lumped element model might be inadequate.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

(*) A particular problem with the mobile loading coil in an electrically
small whip is that the current changes a great deal over even a very
short distance, as it goes from zero at the end of the whip (assuming no
top loading) to a large value at the base. It sounds like sort of a
circular argument, but a lumped element model loses accuracy any time
there can be a current gradient across the component. Interestingly, the
problem becomes less and less severe as top loading is increased,
because it reduces the current gradient along the whip. You *could*
quite accurately model a loading coil as a single lumped element if you
had enough top loading.


Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Yuri,
I think you would better understand what is happening
if you view the inductance in question as half of
a transformer, where the other half is the aether.
This allows you to bring in the formular NxI one side =
NxI the otherside. This way you can see that I is constant.
If it wasn't a constant then the lines of flux would have a
very distorted shape at one end of the inductance.
The fact that transformers have impedances that are not
totally resistive is because of other factors than Inductance.
If I am incorrect with this analogy I would apreciate any
corrections as I am sure Yuri would to
Art

Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...
There are a couple of problems with the analogy. First, of course, is
that there is no secondary winding to convert the primary's magnetic
field to the current I you reference. The "aether" has no N and no I,
and doesn't do this. The second problem is that a simple transformer
model, or any other lumped-element circuit model, is valid only if its
dimensions are very small compared to a wavelength(*). A mobile whip
loading coil is often long enough that a current gradient can occur from
one end to another, so a single lumped element model might be inadequate.

Well Roy, I was trying to remove the inter coil and end to end
capacitance from the equation so a simple analogy could be made. Thus
if there was a current change the cause could be removed from the
itemizerd inductance alone so that other reasons would have to be
researched for energy changes or losses.
( simi;ar to transmission lines and filter circuits)
Still I bend to your superior experience in this matter and withdraw
my comments so that I do not mislead others. My comments emanate from
lumped circuit theorems where the other half of the transformer shows
up at the receiving end as being discussed in another posting
initiated by Dr Slick.
The difference being the environnment, one of specialised steel
laminates and the other being the eather. Looking at things that way
forces one to review
the different coupling to ground effects and other anomolies of this
particular situation
Regards
Art

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

(*) A particular problem with the mobile loading coil in an electrically
small whip is that the current changes a great deal over even a very
short distance, as it goes from zero at the end of the whip (assuming no
top loading) to a large value at the base. It sounds like sort of a
circular argument, but a lumped element model loses accuracy any time
there can be a current gradient across the component. Interestingly, the
problem becomes less and less severe as top loading is increased,
because it reduces the current gradient along the whip. You *could*
quite accurately model a loading coil as a single lumped element if you
had enough top loading.


Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Yuri,
I think you would better understand what is happening
if you view the inductance in question as half of
a transformer, where the other half is the aether.
This allows you to bring in the formular NxI one side =
NxI the otherside. This way you can see that I is constant.
If it wasn't a constant then the lines of flux would have a
very distorted shape at one end of the inductance.
The fact that transformers have impedances that are not
totally resistive is because of other factors than Inductance.
If I am incorrect with this analogy I would apreciate any
corrections as I am sure Yuri would to
Art