Roy Lewallen wrote:
A radiator is a circuit.

Most antennas are NOT a circuit. Most antennas are distributed
networks.

Circuit theory doesn't work on distributed network problems.
That's why distributed network analysis was invented.
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Antennas *are* circuits. Circuits can consist of either lumped or
distributed components, or both.

However, that's not particularly relevant to my point. In the steady
state, there is no test which can be devised that can distinguish an
antenna (including feedline, if desired) from a black box containing
lumped components -- a lumped component circuit(*). This allows us to
simply design such things as matching networks without any consideration
of the real properties of an antenna. Only when transient signals are
involved is other than simple lumped-network analysis necessary. In a
typical antenna and feedline system, steady state is reached much, much
faster than even the fastest CW dit or speech component, so transient
analysis isn't required for these common modes of operation. There are a
few familiar situations where analysis under normal operating conditions
requires consideration of the distributed nature of the system, such as
when doing time domain reflectometry or in some situations involving
television signals, both modulated and baseband. None of these, however,
can be considered steady state so the simplified model isn't applicable.

Cecil, if you feel a need to expound yet more on your theories, please
do so in one of the many threads you've come to dominate already, start
a new one, or concentrate your efforts on your forthcoming QEX article.
I hope you'll let us try and make an objective and hopefully helpful
contribution from time to time on this newsgroup without your constantly
attempting to steer the discussion to your theories.

(*) Furthermore, if we restrict analysis to a single frequency, the
black box needs to contain only two components - a resistor and either a
capacitor or inductor.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

A radiator is a circuit.


Most antennas are NOT a circuit. Most antennas are distributed
networks.

Circuit theory doesn't work on distributed network problems.
That's why distributed network analysis was invented.

Roy Lewallen wrote:
In the steady
state, there is no test which can be devised that can distinguish an
antenna (including feedline, if desired) from a black box containing
lumped components -- a lumped component circuit(*).

You can't distinguish between a resonant 1/2WL dipole and a dummy load
using a field strength meter? :-) You can't distinguish between a
dummy load impedor and a resonant dipole impedance? How about just
looking to see if a physical impedor exists? Those two impedances even
have different definitions in the IEEE Dictionary.

Cecil, if you feel a need to expound yet more on your theories, please
do so in one of the many threads you've come to dominate already, start
a new one, or concentrate your efforts on your forthcoming QEX article.
I hope you'll let us try and make an objective and hopefully helpful
contribution from time to time on this newsgroup without your constantly
attempting to steer the discussion to your theories.

Their not my theories, Roy. For instance,
the IEEE Dictionary distinguishes between the (virtual) feedpoint
impedance of a resonant antenna and the impedance of an impedor,
e.g. a dummy load. Those two impedances have *different* definitions.
A dummy load impedor is the *cause* of the load V/I ratio. The
resistance of a resonant 50 ohm antenna is the *effect* of the
feedpoint (superposed-V/superposed-I) ratio. Isn't it past time
for completely ignoring cause and effect?
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

And he's off again. I gained a lot of peace when I put "John Smith" and
Jesus as the very first two entries in my filter list some time ago. You
now have the distinction of being the third -- just below Jesus.

It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed
into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your
favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty
cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

In the steady state, there is no test which can be devised that can
distinguish an antenna (including feedline, if desired) from a black
box containing lumped components -- a lumped component circuit(*).


You can't distinguish between a resonant 1/2WL dipole and a dummy load
using a field strength meter? :-) You can't distinguish between a
dummy load impedor and a resonant dipole impedance? How about just
looking to see if a physical impedor exists? Those two impedances even
have different definitions in the IEEE Dictionary.

Cecil, if you feel a need to expound yet more on your theories, please
do so in one of the many threads you've come to dominate already,
start a new one, or concentrate your efforts on your forthcoming QEX
article. I hope you'll let us try and make an objective and hopefully
helpful contribution from time to time on this newsgroup without your
constantly attempting to steer the discussion to your theories.


Their not my theories, Roy. For instance,
the IEEE Dictionary distinguishes between the (virtual) feedpoint
impedance of a resonant antenna and the impedance of an impedor,
e.g. a dummy load. Those two impedances have *different* definitions.
A dummy load impedor is the *cause* of the load V/I ratio. The
resistance of a resonant 50 ohm antenna is the *effect* of the
feedpoint (superposed-V/superposed-I) ratio. Isn't it past time
for completely ignoring cause and effect?

Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed
into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your
favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty
cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.

Well, before you go, Roy, chew on this one. The s11 reflection
coefficient at the feedpoint of a 1/2WL dipole is about 0.85
--
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 =---

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed
into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your
favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty
cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.

I apologize for barbecuing those sacred cows.

Well, before you go, Roy, chew on this one. The s11 reflection
coefficient at the feedpoint of a 1/2WL dipole is about 0.85
when fed with 50 ohm coax.
--
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 =---

.... deep within the pits of-- rec.radio.amateur.antenna.hell-- John
Smith moves over on the bench, making room for Cecil...

Warmest regards,
John

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be
coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject
to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But
the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.

I apologize for barbecuing those sacred cows.

Well, before you go, Roy, chew on this one. The s11 reflection
coefficient at the feedpoint of a 1/2WL dipole is about 0.85
when fed with 50 ohm coax.
--
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 =---

Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be coaxed
into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject to your
favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But the duty
cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.

Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you
disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale
$hit in the deepest part of the ocean. Reminds me of the upper
classmen at Texas A&M. :-)
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be
coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject
to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But
the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.

Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you
disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale
$hit in the deepest part of the ocean.

And there's the problem: whatever somebody actually says, you'll
translate it into what it suits you to have them say.


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

It's really a shame -- on those rare instances where you can be
coaxed into commenting without being compelled to steer the subject
to your favorite obsession, you really do have a lot to offer. But
the duty cycle is just too low -- it's not worth it to me. Bye.

Translation: If you agree with him you are the greatest. If you
disagree with him you are lower than the lowest layer of whale
$hit in the deepest part of the ocean.

And there's the problem: whatever somebody actually says, you'll
translate it into what it suits you to have them say.

Defending your friend even when he is wrong is admirable but
why is your translation better than mine? Incidentally, that was
*humor* based on my time at Texas A&M during the 1950's. Freshmen
had to admit to upper-classmen that they were lower than the
lowest ... You (and Roy) absolutely hate anyone who disagrees
with you and engage in hazing (ad hominem attacks) to try to chase
such a person away from the newsgroup. Why do you fear the facts?
You two guys consider yourselves to be such omniscient gurus and
never admit a mistake except maybe for an occasional typo.

Einstein is rolling over in his grave laughing at Roy's assertion
that photonic energy can "slosh around" in the transmission line.
Photonic energy always travels at the speed of light obeying the
laws of conservation of energy and momentum. (Shades of the court
that convicted Galileo to house arrest. If you think you are
capable of convicting me to house arrest, come on down to Madison
County, TX and meet all my cousins in law-enforcement. :-)
--
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 =---