Roy Lewallen wrote:
I hope most readers can tell the difference between an approximation or
simplification that we understand and that produces negligible and
unmeasurable errors, from one that's based on invalid premises and leads
to major errors.

It follows that if you choose not to make an effort to understand a
valid premise, according to you, it is still worthless.

Do standing wave antennas possess standing waves? (no answer) Kraus and
Balanis say "yes". Are those standing waves composed of forward and reflected
waves? (no answer) Kraus and Balanis say "yes". Why does Kraus say that, for
purposes of conceptual discussion, we can consider those waves to be equal?
(no answer) If it's good enough for Kraus, why isn't it good enough for you?
(no answer) Do you actually disagree with Kraus? (no answer) Why does Balanis
state that standing wave antennas can be conceptually analyzed by representing
the forward current as If and the backward current as Ib? (no answer) All I have
done is follow Kraus' and Balanis' suggestions. You finding fault with that is
amazing.

Conceptual solutions are very often not quantitized. "The sun is
the center of the solar system" is a conceptual solution and was
not quantitized for many, many years. What I have been saying is
based on what Kraus and Balanis wrote. There is no "major error"
because it is just a concept akin to lossless lines and ideal
inductors.

And just how do you explain the fact that your very own EZNEC agrees
with me when the loading is done by the helix method or the series stub
method? Sacred cows die hard, huh?
--
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 =---