Gene Fuller wrote:
Thanks. You just validated my point. Kraus absolutely does not use
component currents for any serious analysis; he uses only total current.

Let me get this straight. Just because Kraus didn't use component
currents for any serious analysis prohibits future thinkers from
doing so? Do you really believe that anything Kraus didn't choose to
include in his book should not be considered by human beings like
you and me? (I don't recall him saying anything about sex.) :-)

If you consider Kraus' book to be an Antenna Bible, then you are
guilty of bringing metaphysics into physics.

Likewise, it appears that Balanis is merely waving his hands as well.
The quote you provided comes from Chapter 10, on traveling wave
antennas, not from a chapter on simple dipole antennas.

"Handwaving - anything that disagrees with your present EM religion"

Does that prohibit you from considering the component currents? If
so, what are you afraid that you will discover? You are perfectly
free to put on the blinders, but to what purpose?

Subcomponents of the current may be useful for handwaving explanations,
but they are not superior to the standard net current model.

Is the "standard net current model" so perfect that it will never
be modified? Please think outside of the box on this one, Gene. You
are essentially saying that all the human knowledge that has been
accumulated on this subject is all that will ever be discovered. That
reminds me of the patent clerk who, around 1900, declared that the
patent office should be closed because all possible discoveries had
already been made.

Any
modeling results must agree with the standard model (widely used for
more than 100 years) or else the simple handwaving model is likely to be
bogus.

Can you prove that the "standard model" is perfect? If not, is there
a chance that it is not perfect? Are you opposed to discovering
imperfections in the "standard model"? Do you have the cahones to
defend the standard model in a rational technical discussion?

Soooo, we are back to the beginning.

No, we are back to your EM metaphysics. I am begging you, Gene, please,
please, allow yourself to think outside of the box. What do you have
to lose except your religious-like beliefs? If your beliefs are correct,
it should be relatively easy to prove me wrong. If your beliefs are
incorrect, don't you want to change them? What, exactly, are you afraid of?

The mere fact that you resort to an argumentum ad verecundiam (diversionary
appeal to authority) argument tells me that you are afraid to consider
anything new.

So are you going to sandbag behind an omniscience flag, or are you going
to engage in a rational technical discussion where the outcome is unknown?

I am not trying to be difficult. In a one-on-one discussion, I will
either be proven right or wrong. I'm not afraid of that - are you?
--
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 =---