Tdonaly wrote:
Maybe you can't, but I can. Actually, you can, too. Just move
the probe a little bit, laterally, and observe the amplitude on the O'scope
screen.

Forgot to say, this is a hands off experiment. No moving allowed.
One and only reading is taken at one point and only one point. Is
that one reading standing wave current or forward current or reflected
current?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
You have argued loud
and long that current phase has nothing to do with current direction.

If that's what you think, then you misunderstood.

Would you like for me to re-post your posting where you said phase
had nothing to do with direction? When you change your mind about
something, it would be nice if you were man enough to admit it.
Saying that you already knew everything that will ever be known
is getting pretty old.

I also
note that you no longer say the current into the bottom of the coil is
greater than the current our of the top of the coil.

OK, I will repeat that the current into the bottom of the coil is
greater than the current out of the top of the coil (during the
1/2 cycle when they are both positive). The words in parentheses
are always implied by convention when talking about something like
this but you already knew that. Please don't tell me that the hard
time you have been giving me was over an implied semantic context that
everyone already understands is a standard accepted convention.

Those currents are not standing still.

Never said current stands still, Cecil.

Would you like for me to re-post your posting that says the standing
wave current doesn't move and never enters the coil? You said because
that was true, I didn't understand standing waves.

They are flowing
in and out of the coil and have been proven not to be equal by actual
measurements.

Exactly what I've been saying ...

Now everyone can see that you are just flat out lying. You insisted that
standing wave current does not flow into a coil and argued with me when
I said it did. Hint for you, Jim: The current cannot flow in and out
without first flowing in, which you asserted doesn't happen.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:13:02 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Tdonaly wrote:
Maybe you can't, but I can. Actually, you can, too. Just move
the probe a little bit, laterally, and observe the amplitude on the O'scope
screen.

Forgot to say, this is a hands off experiment.
you mis-spelled waving.

SWR = Standard hands Waving Ridiculousness

Cecil,
Let me show you what I mean about being specific when comparing antennas.
You spoke of a "simple" dipole that was not rotatable that had a high gain
per Eznec
The dipole I believe was for 10 metres with a lobe gain in the order of 10
db,
you didn't say what the minimum gain was which is crucial when comparing
antennas
So I just designed an antenna with a computor program for 160 metres based
around a patent write up of mine which probably will not be issued until
sometime next year.
The beam is rotatable and is at a height of
20 metres. The max gain is 7.35 dbi at 87degrees. Minimum gain at this TOA
is a few db less. Compared to another antenna, and that is what you are
doing, the gain exceeds a Beverage at any angle over 10 degrees even if the
beverage was rotatable.
Unlike the Beverage the antenna can be used for transmitting. Now my antenna
in the backyard has slightly different dimensions because the material used
was available so the gain is down somewhat and ofcourse the ground is not
perfect.
So Cecil, that is what I mean about supplying relevant data tho perhaps it
would be better if I described the antenna
as a very SHORT dipole.
Cecil you now have a SPECIFIC antenna that can be used for comparison
purposes based on keyboard design that is horizontally polarised
Cheers
Art Unwin KB9MZ
PS Nothing wrong with the browser I am just abstaining for a while because
of work time limits at this time.
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Cecil we have severe weather here that it requires a real snow job from
me
to emerge back into this particular thread !!!!!

Just remember when Einstein said, "God doesn't roll dice", one of the QED
physicists replied that, "Not only does God roll dice, he rolls them in
the dark." :-) What's wrong with your browser?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Saying that you already knew everything that will ever be known
is getting pretty old.

:-) I think that's your trick, Cecil. Funny how when you get backed
into a corner you start doing a lot of projecting - projecting your very
distinctive personality flaws onto others.

Please don't tell me that the hard
time you have been giving me was over an implied semantic context that
everyone already understands is a standard accepted convention.

You started an enormous argument with a whole group of people on this
newsgroup because of your alleged "accepted convention". Had you not
worded the idea of a current taper in the way you did, you could have
avoided much of it. Since I've supported Yuri's claim from the very
beginning, my only point to all of this was to try to peruade you to put
forward the most cogent argument. Obviously, you care for little other
than the arguing part of it.

More alternating current does NOT go into one end of ANY series
component than comes out the other. It's a completely stupid idea no
matter how many words you use to try to get around it. It's just bloody
wrong.

Those currents are not standing still.

Never said current stands still, Cecil.

Would you like for me to re-post your posting that says the standing
wave current doesn't move and never enters the coil?

Would you like for me to try to explain to you again what the words I
used mean? Evidently I need to. Perhaps then you would be able to
recite them more accurately.

They are flowing
in and out of the coil and have been proven not to be equal by actual
measurements.

Exactly what I've been saying ...

Now everyone can see that you are just flat out lying.

I used exactly those words in a previous post, Cecil. You apparently
have a pretty low opinion of 'everyone' if you think they're that
gullable. Although it does seem Steve fell for it hook, line, and
sinker. I guess my congrats would be in order for that.

You insisted that
standing wave current does not flow into a coil and argued with me when

Nope. I'm on record here as having observed simply that standing waves
stand, hence the name. The 'wave' does not move. As most others here
were probably able to ascertain, I was illustrating the simple fact that
the graph you refer to is a standing wave plot. A standing wave plot
shows current amplitude as a function of postion. It doesn't show
current moving in some direction - i.e. into the bottom or out of the
top of something. Unless you're talking about wave propagation, there's
no utility in that notion - particularly since any useful information
about the waveforms is conveyed in the wave function equation.

I said it did. Hint for you, Jim: The current cannot flow in and out
without first flowing in, which you asserted doesn't happen.

:-) Is there no limit to how asinine you allow yourself to be?

73, Jim AC6XG

Art, did you intend to compare a 'CLOUD WARMER' against an 'OVER THE
HORIZON' class of antenna? Isn't that apples and oranges?

BTW, who limits Beverages to received ONLY? There are some very long
Beverages in VK land for long haul low band DX.

DD, W1MCE

aunwin wrote:
SNIP

So I just designed an antenna with a computor program for 160 metres based
around a patent write up of mine which probably will not be issued until
sometime next year.
The beam is rotatable and is at a height of
20 metres. The max gain is 7.35 dbi at 87degrees. Minimum gain at this TOA
is a few db less. Compared to another antenna, and that is what you are
doing, the gain exceeds a Beverage at any angle over 10 degrees even if the
beverage was rotatable.
Unlike the Beverage the antenna can be used for transmitting.

SNIP

aunwin wrote:
So Cecil, that is what I mean about supplying relevant data ...

Well, in a nutshell, I route my dipole such that the four 11 dBi lobes on
10m are aimed at the English speaking land masses of the world. That works
like a charm (for me). If I ever have trouble reading someone, I switch over
to my rotatable dipole with only a 9 dBi gain and TOA of 10 deg to see if
the QSO can be improved. I seriously doubt that any vertical monopole can
beat my rotatable dipole with 9dBi gain and TOA of 10 degrees. I also
doubt that any two element vertical phased array can beat 9 dBi at 10 deg
TOA.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:
More alternating current does NOT go into one end of ANY series
component than comes out the other. It's a completely stupid idea no
matter how many words you use to try to get around it. It's just bloody
wrong.

BS, Jim. It happens all the time in distributed networks, especially
in transmission lines with reflections. You are so hung up on lumped
circuit theory that you have forgotten there ever was such a thing as
distributed network analysis. I notice you have deleted everything in
my postings that proves you wrong. One wonders why.

Hint for you, Jim: The current varies from point to point all up and
down a transmission line with reflections. Saying that the current
doesn't vary in a transmission line with reflections is absolutely
ridiculous. The AC current at a current node may be zero. The AC
current at a current loop may be 100 amps. Jim, by any stretch of
the imagination, zero amps is NOT equal to 100 amps.

For instance, for an open-circuited 1/4WL stub, the current flowing
into the stub is very high. The current at the open end is zero. How
you can assert that they are equal is beyond belief.

Nope. I'm on record here as having observed simply that standing waves
stand, hence the name. The 'wave' does not move.

But the subject isn't waves, it is current. Standing wave current
CANNOT stand still. Within the standing wave, the current is flowing
in the opposite direction every 1/2 cycle. Why is that so difficult
for you to comprehend?

Is there no limit to how asinine you allow yourself to be?

If quoting your ridiculous assertions makes me asinine, then so
be it. How you can assert that there is a current taper in a coil,
yet argue that the current cannot be different at each end of the
coil is pathological. If the current cannot be different, where
does the current taper come from?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:
And "somehow?" This adverb presumes odds for which there were never
any chance to offer odds for in the first place. At least such
statements are consistent with the topic (you keeping notes Steve?).

The word, "somehow", in that context, Richard, is reserved for two-year
olds and r.r.a.a readers with the comprehension level of a two-year old.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Dave Shrader" wrote in message
news:%huZb.24701$Xp.104370@attbi_s54...
Art, did you intend to compare a 'CLOUD WARMER' against an 'OVER THE
HORIZON' class of antenna? Isn't that apples and oranges?

No it is not, both have gain.It is just that the maximum gain is at
different angles both vertically and horizontally.Extra gain in an undesired
direction is just plain useless.
There is absolutely no reason why a rotatable antenna cannot beat a standard
beverage depending where your interest are. If your interests are ambiguos
then so will be your comparison responses , something I am sure you
understand.

BTW, who limits Beverages to received ONLY? There are some very long
Beverages in VK land for long haul low band DX.

I will give you that but in general they are used for listening but that
was not the message I was trying to supply, Cecil supplied simple dipole
gain as stated by EZNEC so I had the computor supply a 'better' antenna but
what does it really mean. Suppliers of computor programs state if it does
not look real then it is not! So the simple statement of gain is meaningless
if it is directed at not acceptable areas which is why I pointed to
ambiguety. Now for my actual antenna which is rotatable on 160, what is the
gain at 90 degrees which you label as NVIS would be acceptable if the
computor supplied it to you ?
If given the the gain at 90 degrees would you interpret that as having zero
over the horizon at say 15 degrees ?. Zero at 30 degrees? I would say that
if an antenna is a cloud warmer it does not necessarily discriminate against
low angle signals so it is not or should not be a statement of derisement.
Frankly this business of comparing antennas is pretty stupid UNLESS one
prescribes a specific object . Cecil gave such a comparison but did not
reveal that in many directions his antenna was just plain deaf. Good for
confusion or for an ensuing augument but other than that it had no value.
I would also add that if a computor gives you a surprising figure then you
must have a second opinion or make one. To do anything else is to admit all
is known and figures of merit are known for every shape and size and are
printed in books so one can learn what is not real when shown on a monitor.
Were you not ever surprised during your years on the range at what your
equipment revealed? Did you ever compare antennas where one had more gain
than the other but proved to be actually deaf in some directions ? I am
quite sure that during your working career any statements you made with
regard to antennas was specific and to the point and devoid of vague
statements which were not pertinent to the assignment given. If it wasn't
then your career was short.
Nothing personal intended above I was just trying to make a point with Cecil
to whom I addressed the posting but I welcome your remarks.
Regards
Art
..
aunwin wrote:
SNIP

So I just designed an antenna with a computor program for 160 metres
based
around a patent write up of mine which probably will not be issued
until
sometime next year.
The beam is rotatable and is at a height of
20 metres. The max gain is 7.35 dbi at 87degrees. Minimum gain at this
TOA
is a few db less. Compared to another antenna, and that is what you are
doing, the gain exceeds a Beverage at any angle over 10 degrees even if
the
beverage was rotatable.
Unlike the Beverage the antenna can be used for transmitting.

SNIP