Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
You do understand what a standing wave pattern is, right?

At any instant of time at a standing wave current maximum point
(loop, antinode), the charge carriers are either moving toward
the load (ends of the dipole) or toward the source (feedpoint).

You do understant that a standing wave pattern is NOT a plot of
instantaneous voltages or currents, right?

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Current cannot stand still.

You keep saying that as if it was relevant.

It is relevant to the logical corner into which you have painted yourself.
There exists current at the base of a coil. It either flows into the coil
or away from the coil. There is simply no other place for it to go since
it cannot stand still.

Both in to and out of. Not one or the other.

You are forgetting your conventions. If the current at the bottom of the
coil is in phase with the feedpoint current, it is flowing the same
direction as the feedpoint current. By convention, the feedpoint current is
assumed to be flowing *into* the antenna. Therefore, by convention, the in-phase
current at the bottom of the coil is assumed to be flowing *into* the coil
referenced to the feedpoint current. EZNEC references all currents to the
feedpoint current which (surprise!) is feeding, i.e. flowing into the antenna.
If the current at the bottom of the coil is out of phase with the feedpoint current,
by convention, the current is flowing in the opposite direction to the feedpoint
current, i.e. out of the coil. What you say is irrelevant to the established
conventions.

What is a sophomoric notion is your notion that current doesn't flow when
it's associated with a coil.

I have no such notion.

You can't have it both ways, Jim. Either current flows into a coil or it
doesn't. I say it does for 1/2 cycle referenced to the source. You are
arguing with me about that assertion.

Then I observe that neither you nor Tom completely understands standing
waves.

I don't "completely understand" anything, Jim. It is delusional to believe
that you are unique in completely understanding anything. May I remind you
of something Einstein said: "One thing I have learned in a long life: that
all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike ..."

The current in standing waves flows - it doesn't stand still. You have been
seduced by your math model. Current can only stand if dQ/dt equals zero.
Otherwise, it is flowing in one of two possible directions available in a
wire. Your notion of current phase is literally a figment of your imaginary
number imagination. All real-world non-zero current is real and, in a wire,
flows in only one of two possible directions. By convention, that direction
is the sign of the cosine term referenced to the source. The magnitude of
the current is Imax*cos(x). The phase is always either zero or 180 degrees.
There is absolutely no difference in 1a at 45 deg. and 0.707a at zero deg.
The j0.707a doesn't exist in reality.
--
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:
Yep, and for the same power level, a higher impedance usually means
a lower current and vice versa.

But the impedance *at* such points does not affect the current *at*
those points?

Cause and effect, Jim. Hint: The impedance equals v/i and is completely
virtual, i.e. clearly a result, not a cause. Even the feedpoint impedance
of an antenna is a ratio of v/i which is often simply the result of
interference between forward and reflected waves.
--
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:
There exists current at the base of a coil. It either flows into the coil
or away from the coil.

If it is DC current, you're right. If it is AC, then you're talking
about wave propagation. You're confusing the two things. You have to
decide which one you want to talk about.

Both in to and out of. Not one or the other.

You are forgetting your conventions. If the current at the bottom of the
coil is in phase with the feedpoint current, it is flowing the same
direction as the feedpoint current. By convention, the feedpoint current is
assumed to be flowing *into* the antenna. Therefore, by convention, the in-phase
current at the bottom of the coil is assumed to be flowing *into* the coil
referenced to the feedpoint current. EZNEC references all currents to the
feedpoint current which (surprise!) is feeding, i.e. flowing into the antenna.
If the current at the bottom of the coil is out of phase with the feedpoint current,
by convention, the current is flowing in the opposite direction to the feedpoint
current, i.e. out of the coil. What you say is irrelevant to the established
conventions.

Not at all. What I say is the way AC voltage and currents are summed.
We don't talk about alternating current flowing in only one direction or
another. That would be silly. It's something I've only seen you do.

73, Jim AC6XG

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Yep, and for the same power level, a higher impedance usually means
a lower current and vice versa.

But the impedance *at* such points does not affect the current *at*
those points?

Cause and effect, Jim. Hint: The impedance equals v/i and is completely
virtual, i.e. clearly a result, not a cause.

Little v over little i, Cecil? Are we talking instantaneous impedances
now also? ;-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
At any instant of time at a standing wave current maximum point
(loop, antinode), the charge carriers are either moving toward
the load (ends of the dipole) or toward the source (feedpoint).

You do understand that a standing wave pattern is NOT a plot of
instantaneous voltages or currents, right?

It is whatever you define it to be, Jim. You cannot display a real-
time plot on a piece of paper. The standing wave patterns in The
ARRL Antenna Book are RMS patterns. I have also seen them plotted
as envelope patterns which is, IMO, a better representation. Whatever
is plotted on a sheet of paper is some sort of time-frozen snapshot,
by definition. EZNEC can display the relative phase of standing wave
current, or not, depending upon what you want.
--
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:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
At any instant of time at a standing wave current maximum point
(loop, antinode), the charge carriers are either moving toward
the load (ends of the dipole) or toward the source (feedpoint).

You do understand that a standing wave pattern is NOT a plot of
instantaneous voltages or currents, right?

It is whatever you define it to be, Jim.

If that's what you think, then the answer is you don't know what a
standing wave pattern is, and there really is nothing further I can
discuss with you on the subject.

Good luck, and have fun in the contest OM.

73 de AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
There exists current at the base of a coil. It either flows into the coil
or away from the coil.

If it is DC current, you're right. If it is AC, then you're talking
about wave propagation. You're confusing the two things. You have to
decide which one you want to talk about.

Nope, it is you who are confusing waves (photons) with current (dQ/dt).
I have said nothing about photon waves. Everything I have said applies to
current, i.e. dQ/dt where the charge carriers are electrons and reverse
direction every 1/2 cycle. That the electrons launch photons in waves is
irrelevant to this current discussion. dQ/dt (current) doesn't change much
because of photon acquisition or loss.

We don't talk about alternating current flowing in only one direction or
another.

Of course we do, Jim. We talk about the AC generator source current flowing
from the power stations to our houses. In general, AC current flowing in phase
with the generator current is considered to be flowing away from the generator
toward the load, by convention. This is clearly illustrated in my college
textbooks where AC RMS values replace DC values.
--
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:
Cause and effect, Jim. Hint: The impedance equals v/i and is completely
virtual, i.e. clearly a result, not a cause.

Little v over little i, Cecil? Are we talking instantaneous impedances
now also? ;-)

Give me a break, Jim. I'm reading a book titled, "The Matter Myth",
so my mind is blown and you are mostly empty space. :-)
--
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, as I read the arguement, (and these guys are RIGHT), you are confusing
current being constant, in a media, with POWER being constant in a media
(minus insertion loss's, of corse). for example, visualize a 1/4 wave (or
a 1/2 wave dipole) , at the feedpoint, what is the current? even at a 1:1
swr, in coax, the current is constant, as you predict! But, WHAT, PREY, is
the current, at the far END (S) of that 1/4 wave (DIPOLE) ? answer is 0 !
but the voltage has increased to that necessary to equal the amount of power
impressed on it (I realize that any number times, 0 = 0, but, obviously,
there is a physical limit approaching this, and also, for the power to stay
the same, you would have an INFINANT voltage!! This is the stuff that R.F.
BURNS are made of! And, when SWR is measured in a cable, current (and
voltage) will vary, depending upon WHERE , in the cable that you measure
current, (or voltage, even tho, the POWER must stay the same, again
considering losses in the transmission line: As information, another Jim,
NN7K


--
No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number
of electrons were terribly inconvenienced
"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...


Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Yep, and for the same power level, a higher impedance usually means
a lower current and vice versa.

But the impedance *at* such points does not affect the current *at*
those points?

Cause and effect, Jim. Hint: The impedance equals v/i and is completely
virtual, i.e. clearly a result, not a cause.

Little v over little i, Cecil? Are we talking instantaneous impedances
now also? ;-)

73, Jim AC6XG