On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:48:12 -0800 (PST), Cecil Moore
wrote:

On Jan 8, 9:19 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
I
explicitly described changes of one or two parameters (expressly
demanded by Cecil) and revealed that Traveling Wave antennas have
Standing Waves upon them. This is hardly a monumental observation -
except when it upsets the horse cart of celebrity.

You wasted your time, Richard. Everyone should already know that there
are received reflected waves of all different frequencies on a
traveling wave antenna. However, they can all be completely ignored
since we are only interested in the one frequency on which we are
transmitting *and* in the direction to which we are transmitting.
Introducing all the other extraneous frequencies and directions that
exist is an act of desperation.

In particular, we are not interested in the received standing waves
that are incident upon our terminated rhombic when they are coming
from the side or back of the antenna. That they exist proves
absolutely nothing of value.

Hi Dan,

I want you to take this quote above and observe that it offers nothing
of data, and certainly says nothing of any model (except by the
slightest of inference), and there is nothing of a practical
measurement.

It does touch on the gray matter you aspire to keep active in the
game, but only to recite homilies that do not attend the discussion.
One could as easily demand that Ohm's law describes conduction, but
say nothing about current, voltage, or resistance. Yes, all very true
about Ohm, but hardly dismissive of prior models presented or their
data that they deliver (by whatever means), nor how the sum of these
typical engineering considerations fails to conform to the logic of
Cecil's proposed argument.

By the points:
!. different frequencies is not an issue, only one has ever been
expressed;
2. direction is not an issue, excitation is by degree only, nothing
changes the energy distribution in relative phases nor period;
3. termination was not my issue (although I conformed to Cecil's
demand that it should be) as I had already accounted for it;
4. they (Standing Waves) exist may be nothing of value, but only for a
desperate celebrity who discounts his argument, impeaches his models
and disinherits their data.

If you still find EZNEC a poor mechanism to support an argument
through its means of presenting what you might call suspect data, then
the quoted response to my posting above, has to be light years further
from a rational conclusive demonstration. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC