Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom Donaly wrote:
I don't agree with the term "current drop" because, even in a transmission line, current, or more properly, current density, doesn't act like a potential of any sort to which you could ascribe a "drop." Webster defines "drop" as "to become less". Seems to me, the current "becomes less" as one moves the measurement point from a current loop to a current node on a standing-wave antenna. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Lumped Load Models v. Distributed Coils | Antenna | |||
Current in antenna loading coils controversy | Antenna | |||
Eznec modeling loading coils? | Antenna |