Keith Dysart wrote:
On Apr 28, 8:54 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
A) E(x,t) = Eot[sin(kx+wt) + sin(kx-wt)]
B) E(x,t) = 2*Eot*sin(kx)*cos(wt)

In the same
sense that B) (called by you the standing wave expression) is
artificial, they are all equally artificial.

A) is easy to understand. The amplitude is where it needs
to be and the phase is where it needs to be to be properly
comprehended.

B) is what has everyone confused. The phase information
readily apparent in A) is embedded in the amplitude in
equation B). For a lot of people, comprehension has
disappeared.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Apr 28, 11:01 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
It seems to be the
key in determining what phase shift occurs through a 75m
loading coil.

Cecil, don't even THINK of dragging that stinky old thing out again.
You're reminding me how incredibly rude you were to me one of the
previous times you beat your head against loading coils. What happens
with them is crystal clear to me and not in need of any further
discussion.

:-(

Tom

K7ITM wrote:
Cecil, don't even THINK of dragging that stinky old thing out again.
You're reminding me how incredibly rude you were to me one of the
previous times you beat your head against loading coils. What happens
with them is crystal clear to me and not in need of any further
discussion.

I remember being rude to another Tom, but I don't remember
being rude to you. I don't even remember your position.

Would you mind summarizing your crystal clear position on
how many degrees a 75m bugcatcher coil occupies in a resonant
mobile antenna?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

K7ITM wrote:
On Apr 28, 11:01 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
It seems to be the
key in determining what phase shift occurs through a 75m
loading coil.

Cecil, don't even THINK of dragging that stinky old thing out again.
You're reminding me how incredibly rude you were to me one of the
previous times you beat your head against loading coils. What happens
with them is crystal clear to me and not in need of any further
discussion.

:-(

Tom



Cecil is trolling for an argument again. Ignore him.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil is trolling for an argument again. Ignore him.

Actually, I am trolling to reopen a technical discussion
that was not resolved in the past. What is your aversion
to a technical discussion?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil is trolling for an argument again. Ignore him.

Actually, I am trolling to reopen a technical discussion
that was not resolved in the past. What is your aversion
to a technical discussion?

Nice try, Cecil.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

K7ITM wrote:
. . .
I'm very curious now to see exactly what Pearson & Maler and Van
Valkenburg say in their texts. Are they clear with a mathematical
definition, or do they end up just using words that can be interpreted
in different ways? . . .

Sorry, I've been swamped, but will post some quotes soon.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Apr 28, 8:40 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
Cecil, don't even THINK of dragging that stinky old thing out again.
You're reminding me how incredibly rude you were to me one of the
previous times you beat your head against loading coils. What happens
with them is crystal clear to me and not in need of any further
discussion.

I remember being rude to another Tom, but I don't remember
being rude to you. I don't even remember your position.

Would you mind summarizing your crystal clear position on
how many degrees a 75m bugcatcher coil occupies in a resonant
mobile antenna?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Yes, I would mind. It's in the archives of the newsgroup if you care
to look.

Tom

K7ITM wrote:
Yes, I would mind. It's in the archives of the newsgroup if you care
to look.

Millions of postings are in the archives. Would you please give
a subject line and date? If it was in 2003, everyone was wrong
back then.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Apr 29, 2:18 pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
. . .
I'm very curious now to see exactly what Pearson & Maler and Van
Valkenburg say in their texts. Are they clear with a mathematical
definition, or do they end up just using words that can be interpreted
in different ways? . . .

Sorry, I've been swamped, but will post some quotes soon.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


More from my research (which is probably at an end at this point):

Bell, "Fundamentals of Electric Circuits," calls a phasor a rotating
vector, period.

IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronic Terms has
entries for both non-rotating and rotating definintions.

Christiansen, "Electronic Engineers' Handbook," defines a phasor
clearly as a non-rotating quantity.

This has been educational. Clearly there are people in both camps.
I'm obviously in the non-rotating camp, and it seems to be one with a
high population. I'll be careful to ask when someone writes of
phasors and their definition is not clear from the context, at least
if the distinction between the two definitions matters in that case.

Cheers,
Tom