Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
If, however, you look at the currents in
and out of the *network* you'll see that they're different, because of
current going to ground through the C.

The main effect in a standing wave environment are the forward
and reflected phasors rotating in opposite directions. The
standing wave current is ZERO when those phasors are 180 degrees
out of phase. The standing wave current is maximum when those
phasors are in phase. "Current going to ground through the C"
is not even required.

That's utter nonsense Cecil, and why people aren't buying into your
misconceived theories.
Maybe you can take some time to rethink your position while on
vacation.

A two-terminal network that transforms impedance, now there's a
concept!

An inductor behaves exactly the same way in or out of your so-called
standing wave environment. It follows the same rules all the time.

Since your theory says otherwise, it has to be wrong.

Wave theory is just another way of analyzing a complex system. It
doesn't change how things inside the system behave.

73 Tom

wrote:
That's utter nonsense Cecil, and why people aren't buying into your
misconceived theories.

Sorry, Tom, that's distributed network analysis, something you
and others seem to be totally ignorant of and confused by.

I get emails every week from people who are buying into the
distributed network analysis. Otherwise, they are forced to
accept your magical thinking about reality.

A two-terminal network that transforms impedance, now there's a
concept!

It isn't a two-terminal network. It is a single-wire transmission
line over ground. It has forward and reflected waves working against
ground, similar to a two-wire transmission line.

An inductor behaves exactly the same way in or out of your so-called
standing wave environment. It follows the same rules all the time.

Quoting Dr. Corum again: "There are no standing waves [allowed]
on a lumped element circuit component. (In fact, lumped-element
circuit theory inherently employs the cosmological presupposition
that the speed of light is infinite, as every EE sophmore should
know.)"

"Lumped circuit theory fails because it's a theory whose
presuppositions are inadequate. Every EE in the world was warned
of this in their first sophmore circuits course."

Tom, where did you attend your sophmore EE classes?

Since your theory says otherwise, it has to be wrong.

It is the distributed network theory, Tom, developed to handle
just such cases of failure of the lumped-element model. Both
models work in some instances. The distributed network model
works when the lumped-element model fails.

Wave theory is just another way of analyzing a complex system. It
doesn't change how things inside the system behave.

Exactly! But lumped-circuit theory changes how things inside
the system behave when standing waves are present. One can
observe its magical effects in your explanations. Unfortunately,
it is not supposed to change anything. When a model tries to change
the laws of physics, it's time to move to a more power model that
doesn't.

Bottom line: By every valid measurement and calculation, a 75m
bugcatcher coil occupies roughly 60% of a mobile antenna.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

wrote:

A two-terminal network that transforms impedance, now there's a
concept!

(My opinion follows, please correct me. Dang, I should put that in my
sig.)

In reality, there is no such thing as a two terminal network, unless
one of those terminals is grounded. For all other cases, there is an
unavoidable implied ground terminal that covers all the stray
capacitance of the device.

So the bug catcher coil is recognized as a 3 terminal device, with
ground being the third terminal. It can be modeled as a pi, T or
transmission line structure, as long as you want to understand what to
quantify it at only one frequency (or a narrow band), and the choice
is arbitrary. If you are concerned with modeling a large frequency
range (that goes well past the first self resonance), one of those
models (or a more complicated one) will be superior.

John Popelish wrote:
wrote:

A two-terminal network that transforms impedance, now there's a
concept!


(My opinion follows, please correct me. Dang, I should put that in my
sig.)

In reality, there is no such thing as a two terminal network, unless one
of those terminals is grounded. For all other cases, there is an
unavoidable implied ground terminal that covers all the stray
capacitance of the device.

So the bug catcher coil is recognized as a 3 terminal device, with
ground being the third terminal. It can be modeled as a pi, T or
transmission line structure, as long as you want to understand what to
quantify it at only one frequency (or a narrow band), and the choice is
arbitrary. If you are concerned with modeling a large frequency range
(that goes well past the first self resonance), one of those models (or
a more complicated one) will be superior.

You fellows lack imagination. As long as you're trying to morph a coil
into a transmission line, why not just imagine it as a shorted stub?
There's more than one way to make an inductive reactance.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH