John Popelish wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Please give us the equation for "ordinary AC voltage or current".

The simplest (without a reference phase) would be cos(wt). The standing
wave function contains this term, with a modifier to tell you how
amplitude varies with position. But at any point, cos(wt) times some
amplitude describes the ordinary AC voltage or current swing.

But please notice that cos(kx+wt) is different from that term.
The only time they are the same is if 'x' = 0. Is 'x' always
equal zero? No. All your equation tells us is that whatever
current it represents, it is always in phase with the reference
source at 'x' = 0. So your equation is too simple to be useful.
Please try again.

EZNEC must take those within a cycle currents and voltages into account
to come up with the amplitude values.

"Must" or "does". I have no idea.

At a given point the traveling wave phasor doesn't rotate, either.

On the contrary - at any given point 'x', the traveling wave
phasor is rotating with respect to the source phasor. That's
what makes it different from a standing wave phasor which
doesn't rotate with respect to the source phasor.

Phasor rotation only applies to the phase change over length for a
traveling wave.

No, that's wrong. Take another look at cos(kx+wt). Holding 'x'
at a constant value, the phase keeps on changing. The traveling
wave phasor is rotating with respect to the source. The standing
wave phasor is not rotating with respect to the source, just
as Hecht says speaking of standing waves: "The resultant
phasor is E1 + E2 = E ... Keeping the two [traveling wave]
phasors tip-to-tail and having E1 rotate counterclockwise as
E2 rotates (at the same rate) clockwise, generates E [total] as a
function of 't'. ... It doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant
wave it represents doesn't progress through space - it's a
standing wave."

You really need to get you a copy of Hecht's "Optics". It the
best treatment of standing waves that I have ever seen - also
best at superposition and interference explanations.

You don't add superposed RMS values to get the resultant RMS value.

Sure you do. Current #1 is an RMS value at angle 1. Current #2
is an RMS value at angle 2. The superposition is:

RMS#1*cos(A1) + RMS#2*cos(A2) = RMS(total)

There is no discussion of RMS envelope values.

Where have you been? The currents displayed by EZNEC are RMS
envelope values. The antenna currents plotted in Kraus and
Terman are RMS envelope values. The currents measured at the
top and bottom of the coils by W8JI and W7EK are RMS envelope
values.

I am waiting for you to realize that you can measure the phase shift of
each of the traveling waves that superpose in a standing wave process
that includes a coil (or any other network) by using only the RMS
amplitude envelope, with no reference to phase, in an EZNEC simulation
or a real experiment. That was the whole point that began this
discussion, wasn't it?

Yes, I said that months ago but nobody would buy the argument.
Over those months, I have given countless examples proving that
to be true. Everyone just ignored those technical facts as they
have ignored 95% of the technical content of my postings only
to concentrate on the 5% containing feelings or bad humor.

Now, measure the phase shift of that coil ...

Sorry, the coil is obviously not the problem. Everyone understands
how a coil works. What everyone doesn't understand is how standing
waves in a wire work. That will be my topic of discussion from now
on. But feel free to continue the coil topic with anyone else.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp