Dave wrote:
This is all because 'standing waves' don't exist! they are a figment of
early experimenter's attempts to make tuning measurements on open wire lines
using improvised tools. Because the current or voltage peaks and dips they
were measuring seemed to be wave shaped and occured at intervals of 1/2
wavelength along their feedlines, and didn't move, they called them
'standing waves'. A complete misnomer, but quite adequate for the purpose
they were used for... and are still used for. Though today we understand
that the effect is caused by the superposition of forward and reflected
waves and can measure the separate component waves, the legacy term still
remains in common use.

Not only does it remain in common use, but it dictates
reality for some folks, at least in their own mind.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Gene Fuller wrote:
Dave wrote:
This is all because 'standing waves' don't exist! they are a figment
of early experimenter's attempts to make tuning measurements on open
wire lines using improvised tools. Because the current or voltage
peaks and dips they were measuring seemed to be wave shaped and
occured at intervals of 1/2 wavelength along their feedlines, and
didn't move, they called them 'standing waves'. A complete misnomer,
but quite adequate for the purpose they were used for... and are still
used for. Though today we understand that the effect is caused by the
superposition of forward and reflected waves and can measure the
separate component waves, the legacy term still remains in common use.

Yet another person who does not believe in superposition for linear
systems.

No, yet another person who believes that forward
waves and reflected waves do NOT interact and
therefore maintain their separate identities
moving at the speed of light in opposite directions,
in accordance with the wave reflection model.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. . .
Are you still standing by your use of standing wave
current with its unchanging phase to "prove" that
there is no phase shift through a loading coil? I
can also use that same technique to prove there is
no phase shift in a 90 degree stub.

Once again, I request that anyone who is interested in seeing what I
wrote please look it up at groups.google.com, and not rely on Cecil's
recollection and creative interpretation of what I wrote.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Congratulations, Cecil! Your reputation among your peers is intact.
Technical truth is the only winner here, Roy. Nobody
has provided an example of a standing wave existing
without the component forward and reverse waves.
Nobody has explained how the photons in the standing
wave can possibly stand still. Looks like the wave
reflection model is alive and well in spite of the
obvious agenda to kill it off.

Are you still standing by your use of standing wave
current with its unchanging phase to "prove" that
there is no phase shift through a loading coil? I
can also use that same technique to prove there is
no phase shift in a 90 degree stub.

This is all because 'standing waves' don't exist! they are a figment of
early experimenter's attempts to make tuning measurements on open wire
lines using improvised tools. Because the current or voltage peaks and
dips they were measuring seemed to be wave shaped and occured at
intervals of 1/2 wavelength along their feedlines, and didn't move, they
called them 'standing waves'. A complete misnomer, but quite adequate
for the purpose they were used for... and are still used for. Though
today we understand that the effect is caused by the superposition of
forward and reflected waves and can measure the separate component waves,
the legacy term still remains in common use.





WOW!!!

Yet another person who does not believe in superposition for linear
systems.

no, i heartily DO believe in superposition. what i hate the misnomer
'standing waves' that has misled many non technical people to an incorrect
view of how waves work.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:18:24 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Once again, I request that anyone who is interested in seeing what I
wrote please look it up at groups.google.com, and not rely on Cecil's
recollection and creative interpretation of what I wrote.

Hi Roy,

It seems this technique has become rather commonplace as a recent
complaint of mine would reveal, and few are interested in snorkeling
through the sewer to find a lost reputation.

Recommendations for searching the archives should be confined to
finding facts, which are few and more easily described in the
constraints of a search engine; looking for evidence of distortions
would cripple the bandwidth capacity of the Internet.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dave wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Congratulations, Cecil! Your reputation among your peers is intact.
Technical truth is the only winner here, Roy. Nobody
has provided an example of a standing wave existing
without the component forward and reverse waves.
Nobody has explained how the photons in the standing
wave can possibly stand still. Looks like the wave
reflection model is alive and well in spite of the
obvious agenda to kill it off.

Are you still standing by your use of standing wave
current with its unchanging phase to "prove" that
there is no phase shift through a loading coil? I
can also use that same technique to prove there is
no phase shift in a 90 degree stub.

This is all because 'standing waves' don't exist! they are a figment of
early experimenter's attempts to make tuning measurements on open wire lines
using improvised tools. Because the current or voltage peaks and dips they
were measuring seemed to be wave shaped and occured at intervals of 1/2
wavelength along their feedlines, and didn't move, they called them
'standing waves'. A complete misnomer, but quite adequate for the purpose
they were used for... and are still used for. Though today we understand
that the effect is caused by the superposition of forward and reflected
waves and can measure the separate component waves, the legacy term still
remains in common use.




Yep, Darwin was a tool of the Devil, the Earth is flat, faith can heal
all disease, and the Earth is 6000 years old.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Once again, I request that anyone who is interested in seeing what I
wrote please look it up at groups.google.com, and not rely on Cecil's
recollection and creative interpretation of what I wrote.

I doubt that anyone is interested enough to wade through
thousands of postings so I fetched one of yours:

Current Through Coils Mar 22, 2006, 1:11 pm
Roy Lewallen, W7EL wrote:
The total current ("standing wave current" in Cecil's parlance)
certainly does have an associated phase angle, and its phasor certainly
does rotate. (By "phase" I mean time phase.) A sinusoidal traveling
current wave can be expressed as a phasor whose value is a function of
position. When you add a forward traveling wave to a reverse traveling
wave, you're adding two phasors. The result is a phasor whose value is
the vector sum of those two phasors. This is the total current. It has
magnitude and phase like any other phasor, and the same rotational speed
as its components.

The standing wave current phasor has the "same rotational speed
as its components"??? How can that be when the forward current
phasor and the reflected current phasor are rotating in opposite
directions?

Your statement above is in direct contradiction to Kraus's
graph of phase on a 1/2WL dipole where the current phase from
end to end varies away from 0 degrees by only a couple of degrees.
EZNEC agrees with Kraus. That graph is Figure 14-2 on page 464
of "Antennas for all Applications", 3rd edition. EZNEC says
the phase of the current on a 12WL dipole varies by only
two degrees over the entire antenna.

If the phase of the net current doesn't vary end to end on a
1/2WL dipole, how could you and W8JI use it to try to prove
that the phase shift through a loading coil is zero degrees?
Isn't that called assuming the proof?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Tom Donaly wrote:
Yep, Darwin was a tool of the Devil, the Earth is flat, faith can heal
all disease, and the Earth is 6000 years old.

You forgot: Forward waves and reverse waves interact to form
standing waves which is what would have to happen to satisfy
some of the assertions made in this thread.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Apr 23, 1:18 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Amateur transmitters are not designed to be linear
and they are NOT linear. Adding a ten cent resistor
to them is not going to make them linear.
--
73, Cecil,http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

What a crazy Alice-in-Wonderland world you live in, Cecil! It's fun
to visit you there, but I'm glad I don't have to live in it. I do
hope it's an enjoyable place for you, though I am sorry you're unable
to visit ours.

From the labs,
Bunsen

Dr. Honeydew wrote:
What a crazy Alice-in-Wonderland world you live in, Cecil! It's fun
to visit you there, but I'm glad I don't have to live in it. I do
hope it's an enjoyable place for you, though I am sorry you're unable
to visit ours.

Can we at least agree that a class-C amplifier is not linear?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com