On 28 Apr 2006 13:28:56 -0700, "K7ITM" wrote:

Oh, Richard, Richard...

Hi Tom,

A smaller wire diameter has MORE inductance, not less, in the same
environment.

Yes, I did invert the relation of thickness to inductance - for a
short wire. However, the feedpoint observation speaks of common
results offering a different perspective. This is the question.

It does not intuitively follow to describe less capacitance for the
same size, but now thinner antenna makes an antenna more capacitive,
does it? [A transform is at work.]

Think for a moment about coax: reduce the inner
conductor diameter, and the impedance goes up while the propagation
velocity stays the same.

This analogy begins to break down for antennas in that as the antenna
grows thinner/thicker, the propagation velocity does change. On the
other hand, and agreeing with your example, Z tracks (lower w/thicker)
with an antenna. This is in conflict.

That means that C goes down and L goes up.
with a proviso:
I don't think that simple concepts of the antenna behaving like a TEM
transmission line are going to cut it here, and I'll wait for a better
explanation than that.

No, it didn't.

For an antenna with an with an element circumference of 0.001
wavelength, the Vf is 0.97 to 0.98. Compared to an antenna with an
element circumference of 0.1 wavelength, the Vf is 0.78 to 0.79.

Velocity factor is a property of the capacitor's insulative medium
(relative permittivity), which has never changed. [I would argue that
the medium has in fact changed by the presence of the radiator, but
that is another thread.]

Large structures near resonance confound small component analytical
results. So, we will both wait for Reggie to explain it in what he
calls english; or for Cecil to explode with a new SWR analysis.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC