On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 23:59:56 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

standing wave currents

Hi Dan,

When these three keywords are braced with quotes, Google reveals all
of 19, non-duplicated sources. Not a very compelling testimony to
this phrase's usage when the phrase "current standing wave" results in
at least 10 times that amount. Even more so, neither amount to many
references.

When googling the separate term Current from the phrase "standing
wave;" then the hits count climbs through the ceiling to nearly
200,000 links or 1000 to 10000 times the unique phrases above.

Simple deconstruction would suggest that
standing wave currents
is about as useful as downloading a windows patch from
www.micorsoft.com. Would you? (Try the link and see if you would
trust the source.)

Deconstruction aside, what I see missing in your enquiry into this
"current" is any question about what information it contains. I've
seen the suggestion of phase, and Roy has answered that, but in
isolation (no reference) there is magnitude only. Cecil's
reconstructed, but revisionist measurement that disputes Tom's data
published on the web; it was nearly identical to Tom's when phases
were reconciled in his test arrangement.

Even here in the post you've responded to, Roy demonstrated the
normalization of scope channel's separate delays. Given it was his
trade for umpteen years in their design (as it was my trade to
calibrate them), and Cecil's trade was building flip flops (the only
phase there is 180 degrees and nothing in between); then who has a
better grasp on the fundamentals? An IQ of 260 doesn't mean anyone is
educated or has a skill.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC