Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:

There is nothing in the natural world
that can double itself and go two opposite directions at the same
time.


Seems your ignorance also extends to entangled particles?

In order to do so it would have to violate the principle of
the conservaton of charge.


This is simply one more example of the seduction of other-
wise intelligent people by the lumped-circuit model's
unproven presuppositions.

You are confusing charge with EM wave energy. If two EM light
waves traveling in opposite directions can cause a standing
wave in empty space, then so can two RF waves traveling in
opposite directions in space or around a wire. There is no
requirement for current at all. Current is a left over
artifact from the DC model. In fact, it can be proven
that virtually all of the energy (power) exists solely in
the two EM waves surrounding the wire and virtually none in
the conductor. All that is required for standing waves is
E-fields and H-fields traveling in opposite directions WHETHER
A WIRE EXISTS OR NOT.

If everyone were using Maxwell's equations instead of flawed
simplified models, none of this confusion would exist. All
of the energy is in the waves and none in the current or
voltage. After all, E x H is the *total power* in a wave.
There is no extra energy left over to support voltage and
current.

Cecil, if you knew what you were talking about you might be dangerous.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:

You still don't get it.


And you still haven't posted any technical information
to contradict the technical information that I am posting.
One wonders why?

Cecil, when you post some technical information I'll
respond appropriately.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
 

"K7ITM" wrote

W8JI-Tom, Tom
Donaly, Ian White, Roy Lewallen, Gene Fuller, Reg Edwards, I, and
others I can think of are NOT, repeat NOT, absolutely NOT, most
definitely NOT, talking about a lumped-circuit model.
==========================================

I do wish you would't take my name in vain about what I might have
said or not said. I have in fact said little or nothing about lumped
circuits or anything else in this stupid, ridiculous argument. Please
don't drag me down to your level.
----
Reg Edwards.

Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
 

A bit further to this:

What should I do when I find that Maxwell's equations do NOT accurately
describe the observable situation, with observations that can be easily
repeated with the same results each time? What should I do about the
fact that charge is indeed quantized if I look at it finely enough?
What should I do about the fact that radiation is quantized if I look
at it finely enough? Maxwell's equations don't account for or allow
for those effects, respectively. Yes, I certaily accept Maxwell's
equations as adequate to describe what I'm likely to see in any ham
antenna I deal with, but at the same time, I realize that they are not
the final word. What I WOULD like to get back to here is that all the
theory I listed in the posting which precipitated all this, from
Maxwell to King and everything in between, all agrees with how charge
DOES behave well enough to be very useful. It's those abstractions
which have been proposed which do NOT line up with those theories very
well at all that I want to weed out. I'm for sure not going to use
them, and I'd prefer to educate others to avoid them as well.

For anyone interested in looking them up, I believe it will be found
that Maxwell's equations become very uninteresting if there is no
charge and no motion of charge. Fields alone don't do it. It's those
things--charge and motion of charge--embodied right there in the
equations, that result in what we describe as fields around our
transmtting antennas: electric, magnetic, and most interesting to us
here, electromagnetic. And on the receiving end, it's the motion of
charges in response to the fields that produce an interesting result.
Reference:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ric/maxeq.html

Cheers,
Tom

Cecil wrote, in a closing paragraph of a posting whose Usenet ID is
available on request,

If your current charge concepts disagree with Maxwell's equations,
Maxwell's equations win *EVERY* time. Maxwell's equations do not
require individual charge carriers. They work just fine considering
only fields in the aether.

Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
 

In a posting with Message-ID:
.com, I wrote, among
other things,

"W8JI-Tom, Tom
Donaly, Ian White, Roy Lewallen, Gene Fuller, Reg Edwards, I, and
others I can think of are NOT, repeat NOT, absolutely NOT, most
definitely NOT, talking about a lumped-circuit model."

Belay that. It is not for me to say what others are talking about. I
am sorry if any have taken it the wrong way. Please replace it with
the more carefully worded paragraph below.

Cheers,
Tom

I am absolutely certain that I infer from the recent postings in this
thread and other related threads that W8JI-Tom, Tom Donaly, Ian White,
Roy Lewallen, Gene Fuller, Reg Edwards and others I can think of are
NOT, repeat NOT, absolutely NOT, most
definitely NOT, talking about a lumped-circuit model. I know with
equal certainty that I have not been, in any of my postings here. If
what I have inferred is not what the original authors of those postings
intended, I invite them to post whatever they wish to make more clear
their intent or to expand on their previous posting(s). Obviously,
they don't need my invitation to do so. If any of them does not wish
their name associated with this thread, I invite them to quit posting
to it and to revoke their earlier posts. Again, they obviously don't
need my invitation to do so.

Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Gene Fuller wrote:
So you think adding turns to a coil is a nice linear process that
allows you to then subdivide the resonance effects according the
number of turns in each subsection?

That appears to me to be the most valid measurement that we
can make of the delay through a coil. If you have a better
way, please present it.

C'mon, you know as well as anybody that inductance of a coil tends to
increase as n-squared. Yes, there are all kinds of special cases and
correction factors.

Increasing the length of a coil or transmission line doesn't
change its velocity factor at a fixed frequency.

Adding turns and then pretending everything is nice and linear, thereby
allowing decomposition into subcomponents, is just plain silly.

Velocity factor is *nice* and linear, i.e. it is constant.

Please stop these diversions. I'm sure you are not that ignorant.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
 

K7ITM wrote:
So, PLEASE wake up and quit trying to attribute this "lumped circuit"
stuff, and the completely independent charge quantization stuff, to
this discussion. It simply is NOT there. It is absolutely NOT the
point of all this.

I agree so please tell that to everyone who is defending the
lumped circuit presuppositions. One cannot use the presuppositions
of the lumped circuit model to prove those same presuppositions!!!

If your current charge concepts disagree with Maxwell's equations,
Maxwell's equations win *EVERY* time. Maxwell's equations do not
require individual charge carriers. They work just fine considering
only fields in the aether.

And PLEASE wake up and quit screwing up the attributions on this
newsgroup. You didn't say the above! I said the above. Why do
you deliberately falsify the attributions? Such is illegal in Texas.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Tell me which of the water molecules moved in two opposite directions
at the same time. The waves can move through each other in opposite
directions, but their combined influence is what moves the water
molecules. There are not two separate sets of water molecules that
flow in opposite directions, either. It's the combined total of
forces that causes the movement of both charge and water. Two opposite
movements of either charge or water are impossible.

Nobody is arguing about that so it is obviously just a straw man.
The real question is: Can two EM waves travel in opposite directions
in free space or along a wire. The answer is YES!!! Standing waves
can exist in free space or along a wire. To deny the existence of
standing waves is ridiculous.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil, when you post some technical information I'll
respond appropriately.

Here it is for the 20th time as reported by EZNEC.

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/travstnd.GIF
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Current across the antenna loading coil - from scratch
 

K7ITM wrote:
What should I do when I find that Maxwell's equations do NOT accurately
describe the observable situation, with observations that can be easily
repeated with the same results each time?

You should find out what is wrong with those observations. Therefore,
you should find out what is wrong with W8JI's and W7EL's measurements.

If your current charge concepts disagree with Maxwell's equations,
Maxwell's equations win *EVERY* time. Maxwell's equations do not
require individual charge carriers. They work just fine considering
only fields in the aether.

Please cease and desist from attributing my postings to you, Tom.
Such is illegal in Texas and probably also illegal in your state.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp