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 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 10:56:30 -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

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 17:31:36 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Glad you agree. I was beginning to wonder.
You have more problems than wondering.

"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.