|
Tdonaly wrote:
Yep, and you're changing the subject. How does that wave, that flip flops like a jump rope, move in and out of your coil? Approximately the same way it does on a transmission line. When the forward and reflected current are in phase at zero degrees, both are flowing toward the load. Therefore, their sum (standing wave current positive maximum) is flowing toward the load. When the forward and reflected current are in phase at -180 degrees, both are flowing toward the source. Therefore, their sum (standing wave current negative maximum) is flowing toward the source. (This assumes that the source output is the zero phase reference.) The standing wave reverses phase every 1/2 cycle. From Kraus: "... the phase is constant over a 1/2WL interval, changing abruptly by 180 degrees between intervals." Install a one ohm resistor at a current loop. Observe the voltage. That voltage is a sine wave, proportional to the current, changing polarity (direction) every 1/2 cycle. RF current simply cannot stand still. In a wire driven by an AC source, the current flows away from the source for 1/2 cycle and then flows toward the source for 1/2 cycle. In a multi- wavelength RF transmission line, the individual electrons may never make it from the source to the load. Some electrons are just pumped back and forth through the source. -- 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 Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:08:12 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: reflected current ... flowing toward the load. Uh-huh |
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:08:12 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: forward ... current ... flowing toward the source. Uh-huh |
Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"Nope, it`s not. (phase difference between forward and reflected waves locked in phase)." At any specific point on a transmission line, the phase angle between the incident and reflected waves is unvarying. That`s what makes standing waves. At any specific point on a transmission line, the incident wave arrives a fixed number of degrees after its departure from the transmitter.If there is a reflected wave it is delayed by the time it takes to travel the route of the incident wave, plus the delay in traveling the aditional path to the reflection point. Then, either the voltage or the current is going to experience a phase reversal upon reflection. If the load impedance on the transmission line is too high, the current undergoes a phase reversal upon reflection. If the load impedance on the transmission line is too low, the voltage undergoes a phase reversal upon reflection. Then the reflected wave still must take more time to come back from its reflection point to the point "P" on the line where we are considering the phases and magnitudes of the incident and reflected waves. Terman says on page 95 of his 1955 4th edition: "However, irrespective of the relative amplitudes of incident and reflected waves, the phase of both voltage and current will advance exactly pi radians (180-degrees) when the distance toward the generator decreases by a half wavelength. Although in the absence of a reflected wave the variation in phase is at a uniform rate within this distance, this is not the case when a reflected wave is present." Terman is looking at the sums of incident and reflected waves above. Back on page 89 he was considering incident and reflected waves separately when there has has been a reflection from an open circuit. Terman says: "Consider now how these two waves behave as distance l from the load increases. The incident wave advances in phase beta radians per unit length, while the reflected wave lags correspondingly; at the same time magnitudes do not change greatly when the attenuation constant alpha is small." Terman is saying that as you look at points closer to the generator you aare looking at the emerging wave sooner in its history, but for the reflected wave the same points show the wave after it has more history paradoxically as you move closer to the generator. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Cecil Moore
...Standing waves don't stand still... http://einstein.byu.edu/~masong/HTMs...newave2EX.html Good grief ! Semantic nonsense. Ref. webpage (URL above): 1) Red wave moving (has direction: right). 2) Green wave moving (has another direction: left). 3) Black wave is (by any reasonable definition) NOT MOVING. Neither left nor right. It has no direction. It IS standing still. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE WEBPAGE EVEN HAS TWO ARROWS AT THE TOP INDICATING THE DIRECTIONS FOR THE TWO WAVES THAT ARE NOT STANDING STILL - THE RED AND GREEN WAVES. IT DOESN'T HAVE A THIRD ARROW FOR THE BLACK STANDING WAVE. Of course, the black wave is still 'AC' (a pointlessly obvious point). It might be worth pointing out this 'duh!-obvious' up-and-down motion of the black standing wave to eager RF newbies, but it is not worth making an argument. Cecil, your point is pure, unadulterated semantic nonsense. |
"J. Harvey" wrote in message om... Cecil Moore ...Standing waves don't stand still... http://einstein.byu.edu/~masong/HTMs...newave2EX.html Good grief ! Semantic nonsense. Ref. webpage (URL above): 1) Red wave moving (has direction: right). 2) Green wave moving (has another direction: left). 3) Black wave is (by any reasonable definition) NOT MOVING. Neither left nor right. It has no direction. It IS standing still. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE WEBPAGE EVEN HAS TWO ARROWS AT THE TOP INDICATING THE DIRECTIONS FOR THE TWO WAVES THAT ARE NOT STANDING STILL - THE RED AND GREEN WAVES. IT DOESN'T HAVE A THIRD ARROW FOR THE BLACK STANDING WAVE. Of course, the black wave is still 'AC' (a pointlessly obvious point). It might be worth pointing out this 'duh!-obvious' up-and-down motion of the black standing wave to eager RF newbies, but it is not worth making an argument. Cecil, your point is pure, unadulterated semantic nonsense. lets have more fun... the 'standing wave' isn't really a wave at all. it doesn't move, it doesn't transfer energy, it really doesn't do anything except sit there.... and part of the time it doesn't even exist, being zero at all points along the line at the same time when the two traveling waves cancel each other. so i propose that the term 'standing wave' is a complete misnomer and in fact is probably an oxymoron and should be abolished, along with the term 'standing wave ratio' and the infamous (at least in the news group) 'swr meter'! ok, i'll go back to lurking now. |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:08:12 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote: forward ... current ... flowing toward the source. Uh-huh Richard, do you actually believe that 60 Hz AC current flows the same direction all the time into your refrigerator? Wouldn't that make it DC? AC current flows into the refrigerator for 1/2 cycle and flows out of the refrigerator during the next 1/2 cycle. In the AC hot wire, AC current flows toward the generator just as often as it flows toward the refrigerator. Every 8.333 mS, it goes through a zero-crossing and changes direction. -- 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 Harrison wrote:
Cecil, W5DXP wrote: "Nope, it`s not. (phase difference between forward and reflected waves locked in phase)." At any specific point on a transmission line, the phase angle between the incident and reflected waves is unvarying. That`s what makes standing waves. That you were talking about "at any specific point" wasn't apparent to me from your following assertion. I apologize for misunderstanding. To keep it simple, phase difference between forward and reflected waves is locked. -- 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! =----- |
J. Harvey wrote:
3) Black wave is (by any reasonable definition) NOT MOVING. Neither left nor right. It has no direction. It IS standing still. The Black wave loop is moving up and down indicating that the phase is changing from positive to negative. The cosine of the phase angle indicates the direction of current flow. How can you say it has no direction? And only a blind person would assert that the current loop is standing still while moving up and down. Current that stands still is zero current. A jump rope is a standing wave. Do you also assert that a jump rope in motion is standing still? -- 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 wrote:
lets have more fun... the 'standing wave' isn't really a wave at all. it doesn't move, it doesn't transfer energy, it really doesn't do anything except sit there.... and part of the time it doesn't even exist, being zero at all points along the line at the same time when the two traveling waves cancel each other. so i propose that the term 'standing wave' is a complete misnomer and in fact is probably an oxymoron and should be abolished, along with the term 'standing wave ratio' and the infamous (at least in the news group) 'swr meter'! Like a traveling wave, a standing wave changes phases except at the nodes. In fact, by looking at only one toroidal pickup at one point on the line (anywhere except a node) you cannot tell if that current wave is standing or traveling or both. And the standing wave does transfer energy from the source to the I^2*R losses in the transmission line. That's why feedlines with high standing wave ratios are lossier than matched lines. -- 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 Sat, 07 Feb 2004 09:55:18 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote: On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:08:12 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote: forward ... current ... flowing toward the source. Uh-huh Richard, do you actually believe forward ... current ... flowing toward the source. Uh-huh |
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 10:36:24 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: a standing wave changes phases except at the nodes. Uh-huh and travels towards the source when it is a forward traveling wave and travels towards the load when it is a reverse traveling wave and moves instantaneously as *net* current and now changes phases too |
Richard Clark wrote:
wrote: a standing wave changes phases except at the nodes. and now changes phases too As illustrated in Kraus' book. Just because the ink on a page of a book doesn't move, do you think that is proof that the illustrated signal doesn't move in real time? -- 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 Sat, 07 Feb 2004 10:30:12 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: phase is changing from positive to negative Uh-Huh. What happened to the other 358 degrees? No such angles in the Cecilian Quasi-Electromagnetics. Phase = +/- This has been more fun than fractals. |
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: lets have more fun... the 'standing wave' isn't really a wave at all. it doesn't move, it doesn't transfer energy, it really doesn't do anything except sit there.... and part of the time it doesn't even exist, being zero at all points along the line at the same time when the two traveling waves cancel each other. so i propose that the term 'standing wave' is a complete misnomer and in fact is probably an oxymoron and should be abolished, along with the term 'standing wave ratio' and the infamous (at least in the news group) 'swr meter'! Like a traveling wave, a standing wave changes phases except at the nodes. In fact, by looking at only one toroidal pickup at one point on the line (anywhere except a node) you cannot tell if that current wave is standing or traveling or both. And the standing wave does transfer energy from the source to the I^2*R losses in the transmission line. That's why feedlines with high standing wave ratios are lossier than matched lines. this is almost too easy... i'll let someone else have it if you want. |
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 10:56:30 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: Just because the ink on a page of a book doesn't move Uh-huh. Ink doesn't conduct either. Definitely more fun than fractal theory |
Cecil wrote,
Richard Clark wrote: On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:08:12 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote: forward ... current ... flowing toward the source. Uh-huh Richard, do you actually believe that 60 Hz AC current flows the same direction all the time into your refrigerator? Wouldn't that make it DC? AC current flows into the refrigerator for 1/2 cycle and flows out of the refrigerator during the next 1/2 cycle. In the AC hot wire, AC current flows toward the generator just as often as it flows toward the refrigerator. Every 8.333 mS, it goes through a zero-crossing and changes direction. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp No, Cecil, it's the charge that moves, not the current. The current is just the rate at which the charge is moving at a particular time. In a traveling current wave, the *value* of a current will move along a line but the charge itself stays put and just oscillates. They sure put some funny ideas in your head at that engineering school you went to. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Richard Clark wrote:
wrote: phase is changing from positive to negative Uh-Huh. What happened to the other 358 degrees? No such angles in the Cecilian Quasi-Electromagnetics. Phase = +/- This has been more fun than fractals. There's no other 358 directions of travel, Richard. There are only two directions in a transmission line. The sign of the cosine of the phase angle determines the direction of travel. Unless you believe in the supernatural, the cos(phase_angle) parameter yields both the real relative magnitude and the real direction of travel. But I don't doubt that you live in an unreal world. -- 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:
wrote: Just because the ink on a page of a book doesn't move ... Uh-huh. Ink doesn't conduct either. Glad you agree. I was beginning to wonder. Did you know there indeed exists conductive ink? -- 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 Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:26:05 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: There's no other 358 directions You've offered up/down back/forth.... that's enough? but then you do offer the supernatural |
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:31:36 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: Glad you agree. I was beginning to wonder. You have more problems than wondering. |
Tdonaly wrote:
Instantaneous current changes with time in a standing wave but it doesn't go anywhere. You dig your logical hole ever deeper, Tom. Current that doesn't move means that dQ/dt equals zero. Hint: current cannot exist without movement. Even DC current cannot stand still. AC/RF current is even worse for your illogical premise. -- 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:
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:26:05 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote: There's no other 358 directions You've offered up/down back/forth.... that's enough? but then you do offer the supernatural. I'm sorry, Richard, that you misunderstood. It is you who offer the supernatural, not me. There are only two directions of travel in a wire. Positive phase is toward the load, negative phase is toward the source, by conventional definition. I realize that you are unconventional. -- 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! =----- |
Tdonaly wrote: Instantaneous current changes with time in a standing wave but it doesn't go anywhere. You dig your logical hole ever deeper, Tom. Current that doesn't move means that dQ/dt equals zero. Hint: current cannot exist without movement. Even DC current cannot stand still. AC/RF current is even worse for your illogical premise. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Nope, you got it wrong again, Cecil. It's the charge that moves, not the current. In fact all you have in this situation is space, charge, and time. Current is just the flow rate of charge. I've wondered for a long time where you got your understanding of transmission lines. Now, it seems, you don't even have a good grasp of the meaning of the word "current." I know there's no use arguing with you. Lo Ngow Ok Gow, as the Hoi San people say (Old cow hard to teach). People who read your posts should keep in mind your conceptual infirmities, however. 73, Tom Donaly |
Cecil Moore wrote:
J. Harvey wrote: 3) Black wave is (by any reasonable definition) NOT MOVING. Neither left nor right. It has no direction. It IS standing still. The Black wave loop is moving up and down indicating that the phase is changing from positive to negative. The cosine of the phase angle indicates the direction of current flow. How can you say it has no direction? And only a blind person would assert that the current loop is standing still while moving up and down. Current that stands still is zero current. A jump rope is a standing wave. Do you also assert that a jump rope in motion is standing still? Cecil - you are hereby found GUILTY of UNFAIR and MISLEADING 'snipping'. Here is the part that I wrote that you very unfairly snipped. J. Harvey wrote: Of course, the black wave is still 'AC' (a pointlessly obvious point). It might be worth pointing out this 'duh!-obvious' up-and-down motion of the black standing wave to eager RF newbies, but it is not worth making an argument. You will note that I totally and completely pre-empted your highly-predictable attempt at the next duh!-obvious layer of your feeble semantic nonsense. I even used the exact words, '...up-and-down...'. It was very unfair of you to snip that out and then proceed to make the same duh!-obvious, so-called 'point'. Bad Cop: "Stop, or I'll shoot!" Suspect: "OK! OK! Don't shoot man; I'm like totally frozen!" ~BANG!~ Good Cop: "Why did you shoot him?" Bad Cop: "He was 'moving'..." Good Cop: "But he was standing perfectly still!" Bad Cop: "Ah, but his heart was still beating..." Cecil - you're the Bad Cop. No doughnut for you. ;-) |
1.There is no standing wave, it is an abstraction. Look at the formula for
reflection coefficient, the only terms are Zf and Zr. 2. The standing wave does not cause IR losses, the losses are because of the increase of reflected current. We measure that increased reflected current and from it create a ratio to the forward current and describe it as a standing wave ratio. 3. To argue which way a ratio goes is pointless. 4. The jump rope example shows the forward and reflected wave only. One may observe the constructive and destructive resultant waves. One can NOT see a standing wave, whereas one may be computed from the observations. 5. Set the reflected current equal to the forward current and the field changes from electrical to magnetic twice a second. A pure observable non moving standing wave, some call that resonance. "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Tdonaly wrote: Instantaneous current changes with time in a standing wave but it doesn't go anywhere. You dig your logical hole ever deeper, Tom. Current that doesn't move means that dQ/dt equals zero. Hint: current cannot exist without movement. Even DC current cannot stand still. AC/RF current is even worse for your illogical premise. -- 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! =----- |
Tdonaly wrote:
Nope, you got it wrong again, Cecil. It's the charge that moves, not the current. Uh, Tom, a voltage causes a charge to move and the result is zero current? Do you know how many laws of physics that assertion violates? There exist two currents of one amp at zero degrees. Their sum is 2 amps at zero degrees but you assert that even though the component currents are moving in the same direction, the sum of the two currents is standing still? Care to provide some proof for that ridiculous assertion? -- 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! =----- |
J. Harvey wrote:
Cecil - you are hereby found GUILTY of UNFAIR and MISLEADING 'snipping'. Here is the part that I wrote that you very unfairly snipped. Sorry, when I encounter a false statement, I don't even read the rest of posting. Maybe you should be more careful? -- 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! =----- |
Sorry, when I encounter a false statement, I don't even read the rest of posting. Maybe you should be more careful? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp yep, with hostile audience like this you HAVE to be. I learned that and had to apologize :-) Yuri |
Amen Fred!
|
Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
J. Harvey wrote: 3) Black wave is (by any reasonable definition) NOT MOVING. Neither left nor right. It has no direction. It IS standing still. The Black wave loop is moving up and down indicating that the phase is changing from positive to negative. The cosine of the phase angle indicates the direction of current flow. How can you say it has no direction? And only a blind person would assert that the current loop is standing still while moving up and down. Current that stands still is zero current. A jump rope is a standing wave. Do you also assert that a jump rope in motion is standing still? God. Now i remember why i stopped posting to this group! Cecil, when are you gonna come out with your 2+2=4 dissertation? Slick |
Dr. Slick wrote:
Cecil, when are you gonna come out with your 2+2=4 dissertation? I already did. 2 amps added in phase with 2 amps equals 4 amps flowing in the same direction. Some people say that 4 amps stands still. Do you think current can stand still? -- 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! =----- |
Gee Cecil, et al, Charge can stand still! It does in a fully charged
capacitor. Charge can move from place. It takes time for charge to move from place to place. The amount of charge moved from place to place divided by the time to move it from place to place is called current. VOILA!! dQ/dt = current!! Ah! Physics is wonderful!!!!!!!! :-) C'mon guys! You're arguing about angels on pin heads. DD |
Do
you think current can stand still? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp I will help :-) Nope, is no current when no flow, is standing water. If flow then current, my dicksionary say so. Charge and credit cards can stay. |
Cecil Moore wrote (in part):
...I don't even read the rest of posting. A very bad policy. In this case, you missed the part where you were completely pre-empted - it made your subsequent response at that point rather useless. Hardly a timesaver. Of course, this assumes that you're being honest about what really happened. I'm willing to make that assumption. I know that you're busy... ;-) Carry on then. |
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
Do you think current can stand still? I will help :-) Nope, is no current when no flow, is standing water. If flow then current, my dicksionary say so. Charge and credit cards can stay. For those who think AC (and RF) current doesn't change directions every 1/2 cycle, here is a simple experiment, installed in a transmission line with or without reflections, to prove otherwise: diode |\ | +----| *|---(DC current meter)--+ | |/ | | -------+ +--------- | | /| | | +--(DC current meter)---|* |----+ | \| diode The upper diode will rectify the current flowing toward the right. The lower diode will rectify the current flowing toward the left. Ideally, the meters will read the same. For those who think current stands still at a standing wave current loop, if one installs the above measuring equipment at a current maximum point on a standing wave, it will read the same current on both meters and that current will NOT be zero. -- 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! =----- |
J. Harvey wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote (in part): ...I don't even read the rest of posting. A very bad policy. Not an official policy, just a bad habit. When I read, "There are no absolutes!", I stop reading and ask, "Are you absolutely sure?" :-) In this case, you missed the part where you were completely pre-empted - it made your subsequent response at that point rather useless. Hardly a timesaver. I apologize and will try to kick that bad habit. It happened twice on the same day. Mea Culpa -- 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, W5DXP wrote:
"That you were talking about "at any specific point" wasn`t apparent to me from your following assertion." I apologize for my lack of clarity. When I try to simplify by omission of detail, lack of specificity may lead to the wrong conclusion. I`ll try to explain succinctly yet in enough detail to avoid misleading. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Richard Harrison wrote:
Cecil, W5DXP wrote: "That you were talking about "at any specific point" wasn`t apparent to me from your following assertion." I apologize for my lack of clarity. When I try to simplify by omission of detail, lack of specificity may lead to the wrong conclusion. I`ll try to explain succinctly yet in enough detail to avoid misleading. My fault, I should have assumed that the problem was my interpretation. Blame it on the spoiled grape juice. :-) -- 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! =----- |
Yuri Blanarovich wrote: Do you think current can stand still? I will help :-) Nope, is no current when no flow, is standing water. If flow then current, my dicksionary say so. Charge and credit cards can stay. For those who think AC (and RF) current doesn't change directions every 1/2 cycle, here is a simple experiment, installed in a transmission line Cecil wrote, with or without reflections, to prove otherwise: diode |\ | +----| *|---(DC current meter)--+ | |/ | | -------+ +--------- | | /| | | +--(DC current meter)---|* |----+ | \| diode The upper diode will rectify the current flowing toward the right. The lower diode will rectify the current flowing toward the left. Ideally, the meters will read the same. For those who think current stands still at a standing wave current loop, if one installs the above measuring equipment at a current maximum point on a standing wave, it will read the same current on both meters and that current will NOT be zero. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp It's the charge flowing, Cecil. There wouldn't be any point in making anything out of the difference between charge and current flow except that you're writing about electromagnetic phenomena rather than network analysis where it's common to write about current flow as if the current itself was was moving. As long as you continue to be blind to these kinds of subtle distinctions, your theories are going to remain little more than crackpot ranting. Yuri's in the same boat. The other day, you made another mistake. You wrote that e^iwt represents a standing wave. It doesn't. If you want to represent a standing wave successfully you have to have length included in the formula as in 2Acos(wt+ph/2)cos(kx+ph/2) where k is 2Pi/Lambda and ph is the phase difference between two equal amplitude waves travelling in opposite directions, x representing length and A, amplitude. You're the victim of sloppy thinking and theorizing, Cecil. You think that you can use a strange combination of network theory and transmission line theory definitions and ideas to make sort of a poor man's electromagnetics, and that if you make a large enough number of posts to this newsgroup your theory will be proved right. If it were that easy, we could burn all the old electromagnetics textbooks, and smugly congratulate one another as we ate our marshmallows - roasted over the bonfire - happy in the knowledge that we had finally rid the world of vector calculus. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com