Tom Donaly wrote:

What lumped circuit theory? It's a simplification and everyone
knows it. Don't set up any more straw men than you have to, Cecil.

It's a simplification of any real-life coil - but loading by
pure-and-simple lumped inductance is also a vital test case.

This form of loading is the simplest imaginable. If a theory about the
behaviour of loaded antennas fails to give correct results for this very
simplest test case, it cannot be valid... and all the further
elaborations about real-life coils will not be valid either.

Cecil's theory does work for this test case, because it requires that
basic electrical properties like current and inductance switch into a
different kind of behaviour in what he calls a "standing wave
environment". But it is an absolutely basic fact that the physical world
does NOT change its behaviour according to the way we choose to think
about it. If any theory requires that, it's an absolute proof that such
theory is false.


For the avoidance of doubt (as they say in Scottish legal documents):
It certainly IS possible to analyse and predict the behaviour of
coil-loaded antennas in terms of travelling and standing waves. My
objection is specifically against Cecil's method, which is provably
incorrect.



(Away now to the GMDX Convention, so no replies till Monday.)


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