Tom, W8JI wrote:
"Wave theory is just fine, but it has to be understood it is just a
modeling shortcut and the results cannot conflict with the basic laws of
physics,"

The Quantum theory may replace the wave theory some day, but the wave
theory has always satisfied my needs.

Terman writes on page 84 of his 1955 edition:
"The quantity aq. rt. of ZY is called the propagation constant of the
line. It is a complex quantity, having a real part alpha called the
attenuation constant and an imaginary part beta termed the phase
constant."

On the next page 85, Terrman has diagrams showing behavior of the
voltages of the incident and reflected waves on a transmission line. It
is the same as that on antennas. That`s why the antenna section of
Terman`s book tells the reader to refer to the transmission line chapter
for the behavior of antennas. It`s identical.

I`ve erected and operated countless rhombics in the international
broadcasting service. I`ve underloaded them and overloaded them and in
the process melted plenty of dissipation lines. I can attest that Terman
has it right. Sometimes you have to do what you`ve got to do even when
you know better.

When the dissipation line went away we would cover outh America as well
as Central Europe and get lots of fan mail for our troubles. We
shouldn`t have been getting fan mail from South America but lots of
Central Europeans were living there as refugees from the Axis and from
the Allies. When we covered South America, some broadcaster with a valid
claim on the frequency at that hour and place was being clobbered by
us.. We couldn`t help it. Our job was to save the world and we did it
while sometimes stepping on others in the process.

I guarantee we never put anything even close to 100KW into a dissipation
line. Problem was the Signal Corps rhombic kits were maxed out at 5 KW
and it took time to get bigger resistance wire. 100 KW in a dissipation
line would have melted it in days if not sooner. As it was, standard
G.I. lines lasted weeks while glowing a cheerful red and did not erupt
in a blinding flash.

The wave travels along both wires simultaneously. The wires in the
dissipation line melt at the input end not at the far end where the wire
is smaller. Current does not travel through the line like the utility
power frequency through a string of Christmas tree lights.

Tom needs to get with the reality of the program. His idea is seriously
flawed.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:

The wave travels along both wires simultaneously. The wires in the
dissipation line melt at the input end not at the far end where the wire
is smaller. Current does not travel through the line like the utility
power frequency through a string of Christmas tree lights.

Tom needs to get with the reality of the program. His idea is seriously
flawed.

I take it you are saying you think current can flow two directions at
the same instant of time in a conductor, can be "lost" from a single
conductor through radiation and resistance without a shunting
impedance, conservation of charge isn't important, and Maxwell's
equations are wrong.

You know that because you installed antennas at one point in your life.
Is that correct or did I misunderstand your post?

73 Tom

wrote:
I take it you are saying you think current can flow two directions at
the same instant of time in a conductor, can be "lost" from a single
conductor through radiation and resistance without a shunting
impedance, conservation of charge isn't important, and Maxwell's
equations are wrong.

EM energy is certainly flowing in two directions because it is
a standing wave antenna. The forward current phasor is proportional
to the forward H-field. The reflected current phasor is proportional
to the reflected H-field. The two H-fields are superposed. That is
the same thing as adding the two current phasors.

Quoting Balanis: "Standing wave antennas, such as the dipole,
can be analyzed as traveling wave antennas with waves propagating in
opposite directions (forward and backward) and represented by
traveling wave antenna currents I(f) and I(b)."

W8JI says an antenna cannot be analyzed in that way. Who are we
to believe? Balanis or W8JI?

Balanis gives us permission to analyze two currents flowing in opposite
directions at the same time. After all, the superposition principle
allows us to do that. I'm sure Dr. Balanis would like to hear your
argument to the contrary.

Kraus agrees with Balanis and disagrees with you. "A sinusoidal
current distribution may be regarded as the standing wave produced
by two uniform (unattenuated) traveling waves of equal amplitude
moving in opposite directions along the antenna."

W8JI says it cannot be regarded in such terms. Who are we to
believe? Kraus or W8JI?

... can be "lost" from a single
conductor through radiation and resistance without a shunting
impedance, conservation of charge isn't important, and Maxwell's
equations are wrong.

All we are saying is that the currents drops the same percentage
amount as does the voltage. Voltage and current share the same
identical attenuation factor. The E-field and H-field drop by the
same percentage. If your model absolutely requires a shunt
impedance, it can be found in the distributed LCLCLCLCLC model
of a transmission line.

Conservation of charge and conservation of energy are inviolate.

Maxwell's equations, as opposed to the flawed lumped-circuit model,
are correct. The distributed network model is a lot more like
Maxwell's equations than is the lumped-circuit model.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Richard H.,
He is stuck on DC in a coil. Tom did not discover Standing Waves,
Impedances, Currents, Voltages in RF circuits, antennas, feedlines.
Helooooo! IT'S RF and standing waves along the resonant antenna and things
to do with RF energy along them radiators, like sin and cos distribution of
voltage and current. Which show that current and voltage can be ZERO along
the conducting wire, aka antenna. First he used Kirchoff, now is Maxwell to
the "rescue" to muddy the waters.
Maybe we should apply for him for vanity callsign WR0NG :-)

Yuri, K3BU


wrote in message
oups.com...
Richard Harrison wrote:

The wave travels along both wires simultaneously. The wires in the
dissipation line melt at the input end not at the far end where the wire
is smaller. Current does not travel through the line like the utility
power frequency through a string of Christmas tree lights.

Tom needs to get with the reality of the program. His idea is seriously
flawed.

I take it you are saying you think current can flow two directions at
the same instant of time in a conductor, can be "lost" from a single
conductor through radiation and resistance without a shunting
impedance, conservation of charge isn't important, and Maxwell's
equations are wrong.

You know that because you installed antennas at one point in your life.
Is that correct or did I misunderstand your post?

73 Tom

Gene, W4SZ wroyte:
"However, the physical entities do not have two values at once in the
same time and place."

All that is needed to prove energy in the incident and reflected waves
each has its own values is to separate the two with a directional
coupler as the Bird Thruline wattmeter does. It gives you forward and
reverse powers at the same place anywhere you choose along a
transmission line. The standard device is calibrated for 50-ohm lines so
it is easy to convert the power indicationsw to volts and amps if
desired.

Take what Tom, W8JI wrote today:
"I take it you are saying you think current can flow in two directions
at the same instant of time in a conductor, can be "lost" from a single
conductor through radiation and resistance without a shunting impedance,
conservation of chrge isn`t important and Maxwell`s equations are
wrong."

Of course, except for Maxwell!

Maxwell`s equations work.

Current can flow in opposite directions past a point.

Shunting impedance makes a voltage divider with series impedance, but
that`s not the only way to get a difference between points on a
conductor or a coil.

Conservation of charge isn`t an issue with r-f current in a wire or
coil.

Tom`s posting is nonsense.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
Tom, W8JI wrote:
"Wave theory is just fine, but it has to be understood it is just a
modeling shortcut and the results cannot conflict with the basic laws of
physics,"

The Quantum theory may replace the wave theory some day, but the wave
theory has always satisfied my needs.

W8JI is confused above. Wave theory, i.e. the distributed network
model, is not much of a modeling shortcut. The lumped-circuit
model is the actual shortcut and is a subset of the distributed
network model. The lumped-circuit model conflicts much more
with Maxwell's laws than does the distributed network model
which conflicts hardly at all.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Could you please enlighten us, Cecil, exactly why you think that
anything in all of W8JI's full posting referenced by reference below
where he implicitly or explicitly says anything at all about a lumped
model, or about lumped behaviour? After a careful search, I'm unable
to find it. I only find a discussion of distributed behaviour in a
circuit which extends beyond near field.

Cheers,
Tom

(On the other hand, all the wave and field theory I know was developed
to explain and model the forces among charges, and the reaction--the
motion and accumulation--of those charges as a result of those forces.
That's EXACTLY what I DO see W8JI writing about in the referenced
posting.)


==========
Cecil wrote in a message whose ID can be provided upon request,
Richard Harrison wrote:
Tom, W8JI wrote:
"Wave theory is just fine, but it has to be understood it is just a
modeling shortcut and the results cannot conflict with the basic laws of
physics,"

The Quantum theory may replace the wave theory some day, but the wave
theory has always satisfied my needs.

W8JI is confused above. Wave theory, i.e. the distributed network
model, is not much of a modeling shortcut. The lumped-circuit
model is the actual shortcut and is a subset of the distributed
network model. The lumped-circuit model conflicts much more
with Maxwell's laws than does the distributed network model
which conflicts hardly at all.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

K7ITM wrote:
Could you please enlighten us, Cecil, exactly why you think that
anything in all of W8JI's full posting referenced by reference below
where he implicitly or explicitly says anything at all about a lumped
model, or about lumped behaviour? After a careful search, I'm unable
to find it. I only find a discussion of distributed behaviour in a
circuit which extends beyond near field.

W8JI is right 99% of the time. I agree with him on those
things as do you. Your above posting is no surprise.

Here's one of W8JI's statements. Please defend it.

W8JI said:
Radiation does not cause current taper. Dissipation does not either.

What is contained in the attenuation factor for the current
transmission line equation if not radiation and dissipation?
What else is there?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil, can I infer from your reply that you, too, can't find anything
in W8JI's original posting that refers to a lumped model?

With respect to your request, I suggest you re-read Tom's whole posting
and see if you can understand it. W8JI should perhaps have included in
the statement you quoted, "in and of itself/themselves," but certainly
it's accurate in the context from which you've extracted it. Certainly
you can have "current taper" along an antenna or along a TEM
transmission line for reasons other than loss to radiation or heating,
and ALL of them go right back to the very basics of what's going on in
an antenna and in a transmission line, and what Maxwell et al were
explaining with all their work.

Cheers,
Tom

Cecil wrote, in a posting for which the Usenet ID is available on
request,

K7ITM wrote:
Could you please enlighten us, Cecil, exactly why you think that
anything in all of W8JI's full posting referenced by reference below
where he implicitly or explicitly says anything at all about a lumped
model, or about lumped behaviour? After a careful search, I'm unable
to find it. I only find a discussion of distributed behaviour in a
circuit which extends beyond near field.

W8JI is right 99% of the time. I agree with him on those
things as do you. Your above posting is no surprise.

Here's one of W8JI's statements. Please defend it.

W8JI said:

Radiation does not cause current taper. Dissipation does not either.

What is contained in the attenuation factor for the current
transmission line equation if not radiation and dissipation?
What else is there?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp