RadioBanter - View Single Post - Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current

Richard Clark · January 4th 08, 03:24 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 20:53:14 -0600, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Gene, W4SZ wrote:
"Some people like to treat standing waves as poor distant cousins to
"real" waves, or perhaps as "only envelopes"."

Frederick J. Bueche & Eugene Hecht may have said it best in "Schaum`s
College Physics Outline": "Standing waves---These might better not be
called waves at all since they do not transport energy and momentum."

Hi Richard,

One of the bug-a-boos of definition crafting is using the term within
its own definition. Even worse, is to define in negative terms (there
are an infinite number of things that so qualify) such as a suitcase
is not a planet, not a speaker, not a window, not a.... ad nauseam.

In other words "Standing Waves" are not "Waves" is sloppy writing.
Going on, "transporting momentum?" Egads! Now there's an example of
over-the-top writing. It could only provoke a goggle-eyed question of
"how is momentum transported?" FedEx or UPS?

Does transporting energy mean accelerating a moving charge? Or moving
a static charge? Both are energy, and yet one usage is slightly more
comprehensible than the other. Does a surfer violate this definition?
Would he be classified under traveling waves? (groan)

Hecht may be a commendable spirit, but his acolytes are trashing his
legacy.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC