Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil Moore wrote:
In case you missed it, here's what Walter Maxwell had to say about the subject: "If an inductance is in series with a line that has reflections, the current will NOT be the same at both ends of the inductor." "Consequently, circuit analysis will not work when both forward and reflected currents are present in a lumped circuit." Cecil, I really think you should let Walt speak for himself. You have a history of distorting facts and taking statements out of context, and may be discrediting Walt. Walt is too nice a person for me to stand by and let that happen. If anyone really thinks that as a stand-alone statement, it is not correct. I suspect he didn't get the full story or wasn't following a discussion closely, or you have snipped something out of context. It's very easy to take small areas out of context and make it seem like someone is saying something they are not. Any circuit analysis will work so long as the load impedances used in the analysis are the same as the load impedances presented at that point by an antenna. The behavior of any small two-terminal component REQUIRES currents to be essentially equal. It's only when the component has a third significant path to the outside world that currents can be unequal. If I have a small capacitor, current flowing in one lead is equal to current flowing out the other and the phase of each current is exactly equal. Same for an inductor. That's not a guess, that's a rule of how things always behave. I'm wondering if the real problem is some people spend too much time with transmission lines and antenna and not enough time with circuit components, and become rusty? In any event, you do enough damage to people's reputations Cecil. Please leave Walt alone. He will speak for himself if he likes. 73 Tom |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: In case you missed it, here's what Walter Maxwell had to say about the subject: "If an inductance is in series with a line that has reflections, the current will NOT be the same at both ends of the inductor." "Consequently, circuit analysis will not work when both forward and reflected currents are present in a lumped circuit." Cecil, I really think you should let Walt speak for himself. Sorry, I don't care what you think. You and I (and Walt) know exactly who distorted the facts. If anyone really thinks that as a stand-alone statement, it is not correct. I suspect he didn't get the full story or wasn't following a discussion closely, or you have snipped something out of context. It's very easy to take small areas out of context and make it seem like someone is saying something they are not. Those are Walt's exact words, not mine. If you don't believe me, send him an email and ask him. The behavior of any small two-terminal component REQUIRES currents to be essentially equal. It's only when the component has a third significant path to the outside world that currents can be unequal. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Your lumped-circuit model presupposes that the currents are equal so you are begging the question. YOU CANNOT USE YOUR MODEL TO PROVE ITS OWN PRESUPPOSITIONS. I see you haven't yet read what Dr. Corum had to say on that subject. http://www.ttr.com/corum/index.htm If I have a small capacitor, current flowing in one lead is equal to current flowing out the other and the phase of each current is exactly equal. Same for an inductor. Sorry, that's just not true for inductors. In the real world, there is a traveling wave current delay through the coil that can easily be measured on the bench. That delay converts directly to a phase delay. You are simply mistaken, hoodwinked by your lumped-circuit model, which presupposes the proof of what you say above. You are once again, begging the question and assuming the proof without having proved anything. That's not a guess, that's a rule of how things always behave. BS, Tom. That's a rule from a model known to fail in the presence of standing waves. Models existing in your mind don't dictate reality. It is supposed to be just the opposite. I'm wondering if the real problem is some people spend too much time with transmission lines and antenna and not enough time with circuit components, and become rusty? The real problem is that you are looking for your keys under the streetlight instead of in the dark where you lost them. The real problem is that you are doing the same thing as the naive ham who tries to measure feedpoint impedance with an ohm-meter. The real problem is that you are using a tool known to fail under the conditions in which you are trying to use it. THE LUMPED-CIRCUIT MODEL FAILS IN THE PRESENCE OF STANDING WAVES! I know that. Walt knows that. Dr. Corum knows that. A number of lurkers on this newsgroup know that. Nikola Tesla obviously knew that in his 1897 patent application. In any event, you do enough damage to people's reputations Cecil. Please leave Walt alone. He will speak for himself if he likes. Please mind your own business. I have Walt's permission to quote his stuff. If he ever asks me to stop quoting him, I will. One wonders if your attitude would be different if Walt agreed with you? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Current in Loading Coils | Antenna | |||
FCC: Broadband Power Line Systems | Policy | |||
FS: sma-to-bnc custom fit rubber covered antenna adapter | Scanner | |||
Current in antenna loading coils controversy (*sigh*) | Antenna | |||
Current in antenna loading coils controversy | Antenna |