On Fri, 01 May 2009 11:15:11 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

We would make a measurement of either the forward or the reflected
traveling wave, which are phase delayed along the antenna.

I'm sorry, but that is a false statement. Measuring the forward
or reflected traveling wave, which is less than 10% of the
total energy on the antenna, is exactly what is the problem.

Hmmmm. Perhaps I misspoke. I should have said that's what I usually
measure when I want to know how much power my antenna is radiating. I
guess I don't actually know for sure what other people usually measure.
But if they have a Bird wattmeter for example, that's what they usually
measure too.

Hi Jim,

For the sake of Steve's interest, it would be fair to point out that
no one measures current along the antenna, but many measure the
current INTO the antenna (it is/was, in fact, the preferred method for
FCC power measurements of AM Band transmitters). And by measuring
current INTO the antenna, with it tuned as a resistive load, there is
no issue of reflection. Beyond the feed point, conventional teachings
inform the FCC of expected performance.

Not that Jim has suggested it, but I find it extremely unlikely that
anyone uses a Bird Wattmeter to measure current along the length of an
antenna (of any size or in any state of match) - however, the
electronics of the Bird (and more so the Bruene SWR bridge) could make
it achievable.... except.

Except the lead making the remote measurement would introduce a
significant error as it would inhabit the fields and disturb them.

Another method is the in-line current meter with a meter readout. Then
that meter is read through binoculars. Years back, such a method was
used to kick-start a manufactured controversy which embers now
struggle for oxygen in the ashes of this thread. You will recognize
the flicker of that spark with one word: phase.

Steve, the elements of this discussion you find lacking clarity (in
what would seem an ordinary observation to you) are leveraged meanings
that are the prelude to a larger proof (sic). To follow it, you would
have to suspend your inclination to question odd re-definitions of
perfectly understood concepts and invented terms that "supplement"
conventional science. If you refuse to suspend your judgment and ask
a question along the way, chances are that trolley will jump the
tracks. Otherwise, how could something so ordinary take 300 posts to
arrive nowhere?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC