Richard H wrote,

"Tom, K7ITM wrote:

"Given any volume, say a volume containing a Texas Bugcatcher coil and
the air inside and immediately around it, if you push more electrons in
than come out_for_ANY_arbitrarily_short_time_period_, you have changed
the net charge in that volume;---."

No. ..."

OK, I'm going to repeat it once mo

If you shove more electrons into ANY volume than you remove, you have
changed the charge within that volume. I do NOT care WHAT is in that
volume. Current is the rate that charge is flowing past a point on a
conductor. If the only way I have of getting charge into and out of a
particular volume is through two wires, then the difference in current
at every instant in time represents the time rate of change of charge
within that volume. That is true INDEPENDENT of whether it is in an
antenna, and it is INDEPENDENT of what's inside that volume.

In fact, energy around an antenna is stored in electric and magnetic
fields. These are inexorably linked to inductance along the conductors
composing the antenna, and capacitance from these conductors to
themselves and to any counterpoise or ground plane which may be part of
the antenna--anything where electric field lines terminate. The charge
per unit length along an antenna wire, be it resonant or not, be it a
"standing wave" or a "travelling wave" antenna, varies with time. If
it did not, then the current would necessarily be identical along the
whole wire all the time.

This all gets back to very basic definitions of charge, and current as
the rate of flow of charge. It's all consistent with Maxwell, Gauss,
Faraday, etc. and with waves both standing and travelling, and with
"impredances" and all the rest.

It's just amazing to me that some of you are fighting so hard against
the very thing which has a chance of unifying your "wave" model with
the realities of the electric and magnetic fields, and the associated
capacitance and inductance along the antenna--indeed, along the wire
itself, and not just along the coil.

Without capacitance, there can be NO difference in current anywhere
along the wire, because there is simply no place to put the charge
implied by differing currents at differing locations. With capacitance
and inductance, everything works just as it's supposed to--just as it
DOES--and a properly developed wave theory will analyze it just fine,
if that's your cup of tea.

Cheers,
Tom

I don't understand what you are all on about, but, I side with K7ITM
"K7ITM" wrote in message

Regards Mike.


ups.com...
Richard H wrote,

"Tom, K7ITM wrote:

"Given any volume, say a volume containing a Texas Bugcatcher coil and
the air inside and immediately around it, if you push more electrons in
than come out_for_ANY_arbitrarily_short_time_period_, you have changed
the net charge in that volume;---."

No. ..."

OK, I'm going to repeat it once mo

If you shove more electrons into ANY volume than you remove, you have
changed the charge within that volume. I do NOT care WHAT is in that
volume. Current is the rate that charge is flowing past a point on a
conductor. If the only way I have of getting charge into and out of a
particular volume is through two wires, then the difference in current
at every instant in time represents the time rate of change of charge
within that volume. That is true INDEPENDENT of whether it is in an
antenna, and it is INDEPENDENT of what's inside that volume.

In fact, energy around an antenna is stored in electric and magnetic
fields. These are inexorably linked to inductance along the conductors
composing the antenna, and capacitance from these conductors to
themselves and to any counterpoise or ground plane which may be part of
the antenna--anything where electric field lines terminate. The charge
per unit length along an antenna wire, be it resonant or not, be it a
"standing wave" or a "travelling wave" antenna, varies with time. If
it did not, then the current would necessarily be identical along the
whole wire all the time.

This all gets back to very basic definitions of charge, and current as
the rate of flow of charge. It's all consistent with Maxwell, Gauss,
Faraday, etc. and with waves both standing and travelling, and with
"impredances" and all the rest.

It's just amazing to me that some of you are fighting so hard against
the very thing which has a chance of unifying your "wave" model with
the realities of the electric and magnetic fields, and the associated
capacitance and inductance along the antenna--indeed, along the wire
itself, and not just along the coil.

Without capacitance, there can be NO difference in current anywhere
along the wire, because there is simply no place to put the charge
implied by differing currents at differing locations. With capacitance
and inductance, everything works just as it's supposed to--just as it
DOES--and a properly developed wave theory will analyze it just fine,
if that's your cup of tea.

Cheers,
Tom

Mike Coombes wrote:
I don't understand what you are all on about, but, I side with K7ITM
"K7ITM" wrote in message
Regards Mike.

1. If the magnitude of the forward current is the same at
both ends of the coil, there is no net storage of charge.

2. If the magnitude of the reflected current is the same at
both ends of the coil, there is no net storage of charge.

These conditions satisfies K7ITM's requirements. But he
is being fooled by the sum of the two above currents
which is meaningless to net charge storage.

Statements 1 and 2, above, already prove there is no net
storage of charge. Looking at the standing wave current
is meaningless after that technical fact.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Mike Coombes wrote:

I don't understand what you are all on about, but, I side with K7ITM
"K7ITM" wrote in message
Regards Mike.


1. If the magnitude of the forward current is the same at
both ends of the coil, there is no net storage of charge.

2. If the magnitude of the reflected current is the same at
both ends of the coil, there is no net storage of charge.

These conditions satisfies K7ITM's requirements. But he
is being fooled by the sum of the two above currents
which is meaningless to net charge storage.

Statements 1 and 2, above, already prove there is no net
storage of charge. Looking at the standing wave current
is meaningless after that technical fact.

There is no "net" charge storage on a capacitor in an AC
environment, either, Cecil, but you can still get current
to go through it. I wouldn't argue with Tom too much if I
were you, Cecil, because without the facts he's pointed out
in regards to charge, your inchoate theorizing wouldn't mean
anything at all.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
There is no "net" charge storage on a capacitor in an AC
environment, either, Cecil, but you can still get current
to go through it.

True, but completely irrelevant to the present discussion
so more than likely another straw man.

Once more, the subject is the RMS standing wave envelope
reported by EZNEC. Brownian motion of individual electrons
is completely irrelevant.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

K7ITM wrote:
If you shove more electrons into ANY volume than you remove, you have
changed the charge within that volume.

That is true but having zero standing wave amps at one end
of a coil and one standing wave amp at the other end doesn't
mean the charge is changing.

If the forward current is the same magnitude at both ends
of the coil, there's no change in charge.

If the reflected current is the same magnitude at both
ends of the coil there's no change in charge.

The standing wave current is the sum of those two phasors.
That sum is what is fooling you. Please pay attention to
Hecht, in "Optics".

The standing wave current profile does not move through
the wire just as the standing wave light profile does
not move through space.

Standing wave current doesn't progress through a wire just
as standing wave light doesn't progress through space.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Hi there, Cec,

You wrote,
"If the forward current is the same magnitude at both ends
of the coil, there's no change in charge.

If the reflected current is the same magnitude at both
ends of the coil there's no change in charge."

Dunno why you keep reverting back to magnitudes, but I'm talking about
current as a function of time, and have been consistently through this
whole thing. Until you get that straight, there's no point in your
even taking part in this. "Cyclical variation in charge (contained
within a volume)" means that on average the charge stays constant, but
it does not mean that it's constant over some arbitratily short but
finite length of time.

Without the capacitance, without the ability to store charge, a
transmission line, an antenna wire, a loading coil, all of them--would
not have the ability to cause delay. Freespace, without a non-zero
permittivity (capacitance), would allow infinite speed of light. But
all these things DO have capacitance, and they DO have
speed-of-propagation at the speed of light or slower.


Cheers,
Tom

K7ITM wrote:
"Cyclical variation in charge (contained
within a volume)" means that on average the charge stays constant, but
it does not mean that it's constant over some arbitratily short but
finite length of time.

The current reported by EZNEC is RMS current, Tom. What happens
within a cycle is irrelevant to this discussion.

We are not and never have been discussing variations within a
cycle. There's just no point. We have been discussing RMS values
of currents. Your attempt to again divert the issue is noted. We
are talking about net charge spread out over many steady-state
cycles. That net charge is always zero no matter what the RMS
value of the standing wave current at the ends of the coil.

Without the capacitance, without the ability to store charge, a
transmission line, an antenna wire, a loading coil, all of them--would
not have the ability to cause delay. Freespace, without a non-zero
permittivity (capacitance), would allow infinite speed of light. But
all these things DO have capacitance, and they DO have
speed-of-propagation at the speed of light or slower.

Please tell us something we don't already know.

It has become apparent that the discussion is not about coils at
all. It is about the nature of standing waves whether existing
in a transmission line, a standing wave antenna wire, or a coil.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Hey, Cecil, have you read "Freakonomics"? (Yes, it's relevant to the
discussion.)

Cecil Moore wrote:

K7ITM wrote:

If you shove more electrons into ANY volume than you remove, you have
changed the charge within that volume.


That is true but having zero standing wave amps at one end
of a coil and one standing wave amp at the other end doesn't
mean the charge is changing.

If the forward current is the same magnitude at both ends
of the coil, there's no change in charge.

If the reflected current is the same magnitude at both
ends of the coil there's no change in charge.

The standing wave current is the sum of those two phasors.
That sum is what is fooling you. Please pay attention to
Hecht, in "Optics".

The standing wave current profile does not move through
the wire just as the standing wave light profile does
not move through space.

Standing wave current doesn't progress through a wire just
as standing wave light doesn't progress through space.


It sure would be nice if were as simple as all that. We wouldn't
need NEC to help us if it were. You're missing the point, Cecil,
read Tom's post again, and meditate on this Ch'an buddhist koan
that I just made up in my head: Is the water the wave?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH