Cecil Moore wrote:

On Jan 10, 9:23 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:

A standing wave is an amplitude vs position envelope.


Sorry, that is a false statement.

No, in the most general sense, it is a precisely accurate statement.

Please reference "Fields and Waves
in Communication Electronics" by Ramo, Whinnery, and Van Duzer, page
343.

Ah. Apparently the only book you know of that contains the
description of a standing wave.

The equation for the standing wave voltage is: Ez = Efor*e^j(wt-
Bz) + Eref*e^j(wt+Bz)

You must belong to the Standing Wave Equation of the Week Club. Nice
letter choices. :-)

The equation for a standing wave *envelope* does not contain an
(omega*t) term.

That right. As I said, it is a function of amplitude vs postion.

The equation for the *standing wave* indeed does
obviously contain (omega*t) terms since the equation for a standing
wave is the sum of the two component traveling waves each containing
an (omega*t) term.

And when Ramo and Whinnery, for example, plots standing wave current
on a vertical radiator, for example, why do you suppose it looks like
an amplitude vs. position curve?

If the (omega*t) term is omitted it is an envelope equation, not a
wave equation.

Ah. So according to Cecil, we have a new definition for a wave which
now stipulates that it must only be expressed as a function of time.

If you only knew how ridiculous you sound.

ac6xg