Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Huh? You haven't figured that SWR is bad for transmission lines?

An SWR between 4:1 and 16:1 is what allows me to use a 130 ft.
$20 dipole fed with 400 ohm window line on all HF bands without
needing an antenna tuner. What's wrong with live and let live?
I find your approach to antennas boring as heck but I am not
going to rag on you about it. Different strokes for different
folks. One has to have a transmission line anyway - might as
well let it perform the matching function.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:
I cannot recall a single instance of you ever agreeing with anything
I've written on the subject - including (V3 + V4) * (I3 + I4) = 0,
and P3+P4-(2*SQRT(P3*P4)=0.

You really need to get your head checked. I am the person who first
posted P3+P4-[2*Sqrt(P3*P4)]=0. It is proof of wave cancellation, the
event you vehemently denied for about six weeks. And I agree that
(V3*I3) + (V4*I4) + interference = (V3+V4)*(I3+I4) = 0. In fact,
since you admitted that wave cancellation exists at an impedance
discontinuity in a Z0-matched line, we have very little disagreement
left. The only thing we disagree on now is how long it takes the two
rearward-traveling wavefronts to cancel. I say it happens in a dt of
time as dt approaches zero. You say it happens in zero time. Just how
far apart are those two concepts?

You've always argued with the validity of these equations.

BS! You argue loud and long, eventually change your mind, and then
come back in a few days with The Big Lie - that is what you believed
all the while. Anyone who has been following this discussion has
witnessed you using that underhanded technique any number of times.

It was a mistake to try again to be civil to you.

When did that happen?

I tried to be nice to you, Jim, and you spit in my face all over again.
Please find someone else to abuse.

But back to the point, for what amount of time do the cancelled waves
"exist" in order that they might then be able to "cease to exist"? If
you say during the transient period between T0 and steady-state, then
we're in agreement.

Exactly what laws of physics completely change during the transient period
between TO and steady-state? Photons start moving sideways instead of carrying
energy up and down the transmission line???? More bafflegab!

Pref2(1-|rho|^2) obviously exists all the way from the mismatched load back
to the impedance discontinuity. You have avoided explaining that momentum
reversing mechanism like the plague. How do you get those photons turned
around?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"That`s where you are wrong."

This argument has evoked plain statements, i.e., "When waves cease to
exist, they are forced to give up their intrinsic energy." And, "Waves
don`t cease to exist."

The statements need qualifications. Perhaps waves "cancel" without
ceasing to exist.

My speculation is that two radiated fields which cancel don`t eliminate
each other at all. They simply coincide out-of-phase, and their
resultant is zero along an azimuth where cancellation of their effect
continues. If we had a way to identify the vectors composing the zero
resultant, we could prove them there. Separate modulation might be
contrived to perform identification. The modulation idea comes from what
happens as a null azimuth in a MW BC radiation pattern is approached.
Carrier and sideband frequencies don`t cancel exactly together and it
sounds weird.

On wires, it`s different. Connect same-frequency energy exactly
out-of-phase, and you have a short circuit. In space, you don`t have an
electric current. You may have zero electrons. You have only fields
until you encounter a conductor.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Huh? You haven't figured that SWR is bad for transmission lines?

An SWR between 4:1 and 16:1 is what allows me to use a 130 ft.
$20 dipole fed with 400 ohm window line on all HF bands without
needing an antenna tuner. What's wrong with live and let live?
I find your approach to antennas boring as heck but I am not
going to rag on you about it. Different strokes for different
folks. One has to have a transmission line anyway - might as
well let it perform the matching function.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



Did I deny to let you live with your SWRed piece of wire? Be happy.

If my 7 el Razor, Quad Yagi log driven design is boring, and your piece of wire
is exciting, may the SWR be with you!

Gee, what a revolutionary concept, let your transmission line do the matching
for your doublet with open wire feeders. Yo everybody, tear down your coax fed
beams, arrays, towers, just put up doublet and work the WAS in no time. Can you
picture all those stupid contesters, serious DXers with decent antennas wasting
their efforts to eliminate SWR from their feedlines? Yep, I can picture trying
to use coax feedlines for matching kilowats to non-resonant antennas. Good for
melting the ice in the gutters.

Be happy with your doublet, I am looking for "boring" killer antennas that can
hear and work stuff that others can't. To me much more fun and challenge than
your SWR endeavors.

da (Quagi) Razor BUm

Art Unwin wrote:
"Way back in this thread you alludedd to antennas as being
transformers."

Art seems ready to bring up #*+@%$! ("the thing" as Phil Harris would
say) yet another time.

I would like to see Art produce some hard numbers indicating improvement
by his "thing" as compared with other antennas. Art has indicated he
wants others to produce his numbers, even refine his design. I`d like
Art to even differentiate his "thing" from a "T" or "Delta" match,
regardless of where the feedline wires go.

Fresh participants might be persuaded to do Art`s work or salute his
design.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
The statements need qualifications. Perhaps waves "cancel" without
ceasing to exist.

Some waves cancel without ceasing to exist. But if the cancellation
is permanent, the waves simply cease to exist.

My speculation is that two radiated fields which cancel don`t eliminate
each other at all.

That is true, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing
permanent wave cancellation within the confines of a transmission line.

On wires, it`s different. Connect same-frequency energy exactly
out-of-phase, and you have a short circuit.

No you don't, Richard. Maximum current occurs at a short circuit.
The net current from two canceled waves is zero. The net voltage
from two canceled waves is zero. It is neither a short circuit
nor an open circuit to the canceled waves. It is simply wave
cancellation. To the canceled waves, it looks like both a short
circuit to the two voltages and an open circuit to the two currents.

It is the same thing that happens at the air to thin-film interface
in perfect non-glare glass when the incident beam is coherent.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Thought I'd change the thread name to more accurately reflect its
content. This seems to be the fate of nearly all threads in this newsgroup.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:38:13 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Thought I'd change the thread name to more accurately reflect its
content. This seems to be the fate of nearly all threads in this newsgroup.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Danny, K6MHE

Roy, you've been getting blamed for everything lately.

Now we can blame you for the new thread ... you started it! grin

DD, W1MCE

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Thought I'd change the thread name to more accurately reflect its
content. This seems to be the fate of nearly all threads in this newsgroup.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Dave Shrader wrote:
Roy, you've been getting blamed for everything lately.
Now we can blame you for the new thread ... you started it! grin

Roy doesn't seem to appreciate me making hamburger out of ham radio's
sacred cows. :-) I actually enjoy the T-Bones best of all.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----