Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
There's not much point in arguing with Cecil, Jim. He won't stop
playing the one-note samba until he's too old to whistle the tune.

No technical content - just an ad-hominem attack.
Sometimes I feel like Galileo up against the Catholic
priests. Like Galileo, I may not live to see the
technical facts accepted by you gurus.

Tom, you cannot seriously assert that the standing wave
current changes by 90 degrees in 90 degrees of monopole
when simply mathematics proves that is not the case.

For a pure standing wave, Io*cos(kx) is the amplitude.
cos(wt) is the phase. It is obvious that the phase of
a standing wave doesn't change with (x) - it only changes
with (t). What is it about Gene Fuller previous posting
with which you disagree?

Gene Fuller, W4SZ wrote:
In a standing wave antenna problem, such as the one you describe,
there is no remaining phase information. Any specific phase
characteristics of the traveling waves died out when the startup
transients died out.

Phase is gone. Kaput. Vanished. Cannot be recovered. Never to be seen
again.

The only "phase" remaining is the cos (kz) term, which is really an
amplitude description, not a phase.

Cecil,
I don't know how to break this to you, but, you're not Galileo,
not even close. You and Gene also got the formula wrong, or at least you
didn't get the complete formula for two waves passing in opposite
directions deep in the night. It's doubtful you even know what the kx
in your formula really stands for.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
So now, in addition to the 4th mechanism of reflection, ...

Three years ago, I removed that 4th mechanism of
reflection from my energy article in favor of
"redistribution" instead of "reflection". About
a year ago, I told you that and predicted that
you would regurgitate that same old dead horse
sometime in the future. Thanks for proving me
correct in my prediction.

At least you were correct about something - all thanks to me, evidently.
:-)

ac6xg

Tom Donaly wrote:
You and Gene also got the formula wrong, or at least you
didn't get the complete formula for two waves passing in opposite
directions deep in the night.

What I posted was the equation for a pure standing wave.
What you may be referring to is the omission of the
real world traveling wave component that gets radiated.
Since the radiated component amounts to only about
10% of the wave energy on a standing-wave antenna, it
can be considered to be mostly negligible. The phase
of that small traveling wave is completely swamped
by the 90% wave energy that is in the standing wave
on the 1/4WL standing-wave monopole.

The components of a pure standing wave are two equal
amplitude traveling-waves moving in opposite directions.
Their phasors are equal in magnitude and opposite in
direction of rotation.

What is the phase of the sum of two equal amplitude phasors
moving in opposite directions? Assuming each phasor has an
amplitude of 1.0, here are some points in 1/4WL:

Ifor + Iref = Itot
1.0 at 0 deg + 1.0 at 0 deg = 2.0 at 0 deg
1.0 at -15 deg + 1.0 at +15 deg = 1.9 at 0 deg
1.0 at -30 deg + 1.0 at +30 deg = 1.7 at 0 deg
1.0 at -45 deg + 1.0 at +45 deg = 1.4 at 0 deg
1.0 at -60 deg + 1.0 at +60 deg = 1.0 at 0 deg
1.0 at -75 deg + 1.0 at +75 deg = 0.5 at 0 deg
1.0 at -90 deg + 1.0 at +90 deg = 0.0 at 0 deg

In 90 degrees of wire, the phase of the total
(pure standing wave) current doesn't change.
This makes the phase of the total current on a
standing-wave antenna invalid for measuring
the delay through the wire or through a coil.

Note how the above values roughly correspond
to the current amplitude and phase distribution
on a 1/4WL monopole. From "Antennas" by Kraus:

"It is generally assumed that the current distribution
of a (thin wire dipole) is sinusoidal, and that the
*phase is constant over a 1/2WL interval* ..."

All illustrated on page 464 of the 3rd edition.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
You and Gene also got the formula wrong, or at least you
didn't get the complete formula for two waves passing in opposite
directions deep in the night.

What I posted was the equation for a pure standing wave.
What you may be referring to is the omission of the
real world traveling wave component that gets radiated.
Since the radiated component amounts to only about
10% of the wave energy on a standing-wave antenna, it
can be considered to be mostly negligible. The phase
of that small traveling wave is completely swamped
by the 90% wave energy that is in the standing wave
on the 1/4WL standing-wave monopole.

The components of a pure standing wave are two equal
amplitude traveling-waves moving in opposite directions.
Their phasors are equal in magnitude and opposite in
direction of rotation.

What is the phase of the sum of two equal amplitude phasors
moving in opposite directions? Assuming each phasor has an
amplitude of 1.0, here are some points in 1/4WL:

Ifor + Iref = Itot
1.0 at 0 deg + 1.0 at 0 deg = 2.0 at 0 deg
1.0 at -15 deg + 1.0 at +15 deg = 1.9 at 0 deg
1.0 at -30 deg + 1.0 at +30 deg = 1.7 at 0 deg
1.0 at -45 deg + 1.0 at +45 deg = 1.4 at 0 deg
1.0 at -60 deg + 1.0 at +60 deg = 1.0 at 0 deg
1.0 at -75 deg + 1.0 at +75 deg = 0.5 at 0 deg
1.0 at -90 deg + 1.0 at +90 deg = 0.0 at 0 deg

In 90 degrees of wire, the phase of the total
(pure standing wave) current doesn't change.
This makes the phase of the total current on a
standing-wave antenna invalid for measuring
the delay through the wire or through a coil.

Note how the above values roughly correspond
to the current amplitude and phase distribution
on a 1/4WL monopole. From "Antennas" by Kraus:

"It is generally assumed that the current distribution
of a (thin wire dipole) is sinusoidal, and that the
*phase is constant over a 1/2WL interval* ..."

All illustrated on page 464 of the 3rd edition.

You still got it wrong. That's o.k., though. You at least
think you have it right, which is 3/10 of the battle.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
You still got it wrong.

It's easy to say someone is wrong - why don't you
post the correct equation so we can discuss it?

Whether the (kx) term is a sine or cosine is a
function of where x=0. Whether the (wt) term
is a sine or cosine function is arbitrary.

Hecht in "Optics" uses this equation for a pure
standing wave:

E(x,t) = 2Eo1*sin(kx)*cos(wt)

Ramo and Whinnery write it a little differently:

E(z,t) = 2E+*sin(kz)*sin(wt)

My definition of Eo in my previous equation is
Eo = |E+|+|E-| = 2Eo1 = 2E+

E(x,t) = Eo*cos(kx)*cos(wt)

I fail to see anything wrong with that equation
for a pure standing wave.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
You still got it wrong.

It's easy to say someone is wrong - why don't you
post the correct equation so we can discuss it?

Whether the (kx) term is a sine or cosine is a
function of where x=0. Whether the (wt) term
is a sine or cosine function is arbitrary.

Hecht in "Optics" uses this equation for a pure
standing wave:

E(x,t) = 2Eo1*sin(kx)*cos(wt)

Ramo and Whinnery write it a little differently:

E(z,t) = 2E+*sin(kz)*sin(wt)

My definition of Eo in my previous equation is
Eo = |E+|+|E-| = 2Eo1 = 2E+

E(x,t) = Eo*cos(kx)*cos(wt)

I fail to see anything wrong with that equation
for a pure standing wave.

In the past, Cecil, I've learned that trying to discuss anything with
you has been a complete waste of time. There's no discussing anything
with someone who makes things up in his head, cherry picks phrases
from authorities to justify his fantasies, and then doggedly keeps
repeating himself - without understanding, by the way - not in an
effort to promote whatever truth that may lie in his assumptions, but to
always, and perpetually, and dogmatically crush all doubts about the
wisdom of his assertions by other people. If you would spend anywhere
near the time studying your subject as you do defending it, you might
even have something intelligent to say about it, in which case, your
posts might even be worth reading. In the meantime, they are mere
cheap red wine: plonk.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
plonk.

Aha, one more guru who can't stand to be proved wrong.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com