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?