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