|
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Roy Lewallen wrote:
The current reported by EZNEC isn't referenced to source phase. If the source phase is set to zero and I want EZNEC to reference the antenna currents to 77 degrees, how would I go about that? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:42:29 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: The phase assigned by the user to the source obviously becomes the default reference phase. On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:53:03 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: If the source phase is set to zero and I want EZNEC to reference the antenna currents to 77 degrees, how would I go about that? Hmm, still confused about two different phases? In all of four lines you whip-saw from knowing it all to knowing nothing at all for what appears to be the same phase. At the fear of being presumptions, why don't you move the source 77 degrees along the radiator? Or insert a line 77 degrees long (which phase?). Or insert a lumped reactance that offers 77 degrees phase (which phase?). This is getting fun. Who woulda thunk? :-) |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:09:50 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:42:29 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:53:03 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: I've just solved the phase duality problem!!!!!!!!! [observe above] Set your system clock to CST when you design the circuit/antenna/whatever and then reset your system clock to GMT before you press the Currents button. That should give you 90 degrees shift. Sorry, but this method only works in cardinal points of 15 degrees. Perhaps there is some neighboring county that uses Mars Twilight Savings Time for finer granularity. [These last two messages were performed as a public service to Roy, whose newsreader e-barfz in gag reflex to fuller quotations from Cecil.] 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Cecil Moore wrote: Take a look at the current reported by EZNEC and you will understand. Until you do that, I'm afraid you will just continue to show your ignorance. Hint: Given a reference zero phase for the source signal, EZNEC reports all current phases with respect to that source phase. So either choose to understand or remain ignorant - I just don't care which. It's probably a matter of perspective, because from here it seems that you are the one reporting the nonsensical results. I use Mathcad and Sigma Plot for plotting functions like I(x,t) = Imax sin(kx) cos(wt). Maybe you could give one of those a try. 73, ac6xg |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: As usual you have twisted the question so that you can provide some type of answer. You still have not answered the original question posed by Keith. What was that question? I suspect the question was irrelevant because Keith didn't understand what phase shift I was talking about. I also suspect that Keith is beginning to understand what I am talking about. His silence seems a little strange. What are you going to do when your realize you are on the wrong side of the technical argument? Sandbag - like some others have done and try to obscure the technical facts? How about an answer from you? What is the phase shift through the impedance discontinuity between Vfor1 and Vfor2 below? --43.4 deg 600 ohm line--+--10 deg 100 ohm line--open Vfor1--|--Vfor2 I doubt that you even know how to solve the problem. Your lack of an answer will speak volumes. Twist, twist, twist. Do you also open the (black) box to see how Schroedinger's cat is doing? 73, Gene W4SZ |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Richard Clark wrote:
At the fear of being presumptions, why don't you move the source 77 degrees along the radiator? I don't think that will make Roy's statement true. Roy said: "The current reported by EZNEC isn't referenced to source phase." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Jim Kelley wrote:
I use Mathcad and Sigma Plot for plotting functions like I(x,t) = Imax sin(kx) cos(wt). Maybe you could give one of those a try. Sorry, EZNEC doesn't use that equation. EZNEC needs a reference phase. Roy seems to know how to make that reference a different phase angle than the specified source phase angle but I don't know how to do that. Here's the plot for that equation above: http://www.chemmybear.com/standing.html Obviously, EZNEC cannot report those results in tabular form. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
Do you also open the (black) box to see how Schroedinger's cat is doing? I do whatever I need to do to solve the problem, Gene. If I have to open the box to see if the cat is dead or alive, that's what I will do. I do not believe in erecting silly artificial barriers in the quest for knowledge - and we are not talking about a quantum physics paradox. So let me repeat: The phase shifts at the -j567 points in the two following 1/4WL stubs are not the same. --43.4 deg 600 ohm line--+--46.6 deg 600 ohm line--open --43.4 deg 600 ohm line--+--10 deg 100 ohm line--open The phase shift at '+' in the 1st example is zero. The phase shift at '+' in the 2nd example is 36.6 deg. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Jim Kelley wrote:
It's probably a matter of perspective, because from here it seems that you are the one reporting the nonsensical results. I'm not reporting the results, Jim. EZNEC is reporting the results. Choose the "Loads Dat" display. http://www.w5dxp.com/coil512.ez http://www.w5dxp.com/travstnd.gif Have you ever even looked at those files? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Jim Kelley wrote:
Maybe you could give one of those a try. I'm well aware of what the math models show, Jim. Let's say we have current probes installed at 'x' and 'y' in a 1/4WL wire. 'x' and 'y' are 30 degrees apart. We apply a standing wave with the equation I(xt) = Imax*cos(kx)*cos(wt) source------------x---------------y-------------open What will be the relative phase difference between the current measured at 'x' and the current measured at 'y'? Now apply a traveling wave with the equation I(x,t) = Imax*cos(kx+wt) source------------x---------------y-------------load to ground What will be the relative phase difference between the current measured at 'x' and the current measured at 'y'? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:07:30 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: At the fear of being presumptions, why don't you move the source 77 degrees along the radiator? I don't think that will make Roy's statement true. Roy said: "The current reported by EZNEC isn't referenced to source phase." Still confused? Who is talking about source phase? And why? This must sting, the start of another round of 20 questions to measure the depression of your attention deficit, when you could have as easily informed us all what you meant before having to be prompted. |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:09:16 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
When you do that, how does this show up in the coordinates? Hi Dan, Mathcad allows for as many coexisting simultaneous axis as you care. As for 3D, this is called a contour plot (which can be done either flat, or with relief). Excel will do this too (but with no particular panache). Seeing you are funds challenged, search the web for OpenDX (an IBM project deeded to the public domain, and otherwise called Data eXplorer). It can do the same thing. There is also a package called XD3D, that is also from the OpenSource community. The IBM package is the one most used by the research community; or at least the ones I've been attending for 7 years. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
On Dec 18, 2:33 am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:09:16 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote: When you do that, how does this show up in the coordinates? Hi Dan, Mathcad allows for as many coexisting simultaneous axis as you care. As for 3D, this is called a contour plot (which can be done either flat, or with relief). Excel will do this too (but with no particular panache). Seeing you are funds challenged, search the web for OpenDX (an IBM project deeded to the public domain, and otherwise called Data eXplorer). It can do the same thing. There is also a package called XD3D, that is also from the OpenSource community. The IBM package is the one most used by the research community; or at least the ones I've been attending for 7 years. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC I already know what a static 3D plot would like like. But to put it in motion, including the illustration of the forward and reflected length over distance x; showing the surface of periodic waves for each value of x; that would be a nice visual. |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
AI4QJ wrote:
I myself would never attempt to observe the cat in Schrodinger's box since it is not definitive of the state of the cat prior to observation. I do not believe the same is true of the -j567 ohm impedance in Keith's box ;-) In the real world, the person who manufactured our black box in the first place has already collapsed the probability function a long time ago. Now if that person dies without telling anyone what's in the black box, does the black box's contents revert to any possibility? :-) The difference is that Schrodinger's cat can die at any time but the inanimate contents of our black box cannot change with time. If we don't know what's in the black box, we are simply ignorant. What we know or don't know does not effect or affect the reality of what's already in the black box. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Roy Lewallen wrote:
The current reported by EZNEC isn't referenced to source phase. The phases of all currents and voltages -- wire, source, and load -- are all referenced to the same arbitrary point. Source phase can be assigned by the user to any value relative to this point. I'm sorry, Roy, I just changed the source phase in a single source system and changed nothing else. The reported phase of the antenna currents changed in step with the source phase. Since all you did was provide a GUI interface to NEC, might it be possible that you don't understand how NEC works? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Cecil Moore wrote: I'm not reporting the results, Jim. EZNEC is reporting the results. To my knowledge EZNEC has never reported a single result to this newsgroup, Cecil. Choose the "Loads Dat" display. http://www.w5dxp.com/coil512.ez http://www.w5dxp.com/travstnd.gif Have you ever even looked at those files? I looked at travstnd the first time you posted it, and I even commented to you about it. I assume that coil512.ez is what you used to create the plot on the left that says "No Phase information in the Magnitude" and has the words "Straight Line" by the straight line. It's all very scientific. :-) Let me ask you this: how would you go about calculating the phase shown on your Standing Wave Current graph, and what meaning if any does it hold for you? 73, ac6xg |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote: The current reported by EZNEC isn't referenced to source phase. The phases of all currents and voltages -- wire, source, and load -- are all referenced to the same arbitrary point. Source phase can be assigned by the user to any value relative to this point. I'm sorry, Roy, I just changed the source phase in a single source system and changed nothing else. The reported phase of the antenna currents changed in step with the source phase. Since all you did was provide a GUI interface to NEC, might it be possible that you don't understand how NEC works? Cecil, I think you are misunderstanding Roy's response. If the currents were referenced to the source phase, they would not change when the source phase was changed. That observable fact that the antenna current phases do change when the source phase is changed supports Roy's explanation completely. 73, Gene W4SZ |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
|
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
On Dec 16, 9:06 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote: Why would anyone refuse to calculate the length of 600 ohm line needed to produce 0 ohms? I think I was the first to calculate it at 43.4 degrees. So the next question is: What is the phase change at the terminals of the black box? 1) -93 degrees? (previous answer when it was a capacitor) I might be wrong about that one. It might instead be 180 - 93, but that would just be a stupid math mistake. The main thing is that it is different from the other two. 2) 36.6 degrees? (previous answer when it was 10 degrees of 100 ohm line) 3) 0 degrees? (previous answer when it was 46.6 degrees of 600 ohm line) There's nothing wrong with those answers except maybe a stupid math error. Each condition indeed does have a different phase shift that can be measured one inch on the other side of the terminals if one is simply allowed to make those measurements. But the rules for black boxes do not allow measurements on the inside. This is how they help clarify the thinking. This is an example of how models can get you into trouble. Not allowing us to look inside the black box doesn't change the laws of physics and make all the phase shifts the same. Nor has that been claimed. It just means that the phase shifts are unknown and need to be measured. As you say, the phase shifts are unknown so from my list of possible answers, I would have recommended selecting 4) undecidable but this leads to it also being 6) irrelevant since the problem can be solved without the information. ....Keith |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
On Dec 16, 9:24 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote: So the next question is: What is the phase change at the terminals of the black box? It just occurred to me that you and I may be talking about two different phases. ---Z01---+---Z02--- Vfor1--|--Vfor2 Vref1--|--Vref2 I am talking about the phase shift in the forward waves across the impedance discontinuity, i.e. the phase shift between Vfor1 and Vfor2. The list of phase shifts is the phase shift in the forward voltages at the impedance discontinuity. It is different for all the black boxes. If you are talking about the phase between Vfor1 and Vref1, then, yes, that phase is the same for all the black boxes. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. I do think I was keeping them straight, though the mention of 90 degrees of phase shift in the same sentences occasionally required close reading. ....Keith |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
On Dec 17, 7:10 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: As usual you have twisted the question so that you can provide some type of answer. You still have not answered the original question posed by Keith. What was that question? I suspect the question was irrelevant because Keith didn't understand what phase shift I was talking about. I also suspect that Keith is beginning to understand what I am talking about. His silence seems a little strange. Snow storm - ski ski - sleep ISP then breaks DSL - no conectivity ISP breaks PC IP stack while restoring connectivity - time spent fixing IP stack time spent fixing IP stack - employer's work not getting done employer's work not getting done - reduction of free time reduction of free time - no r.r.a.a ....Keith |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Jim Kelley wrote:
Let me ask you this: how would you go about calculating the phase shown on your Standing Wave Current graph, and what meaning if any does it hold for you? Kraus already did it for us. Note the relative phase graph. http://www.w5dxp.com/krausdip.jpg The phase shown on my Standing Wave Current graph is the phase relative to the source phase. For a pure standing wave on a 1/4WL wire, the standing wave current phase is everywhere equal to the source current phase. That's why it cannot be used to "measure" the delay through a wire or through a coil. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
If the currents were referenced to the source phase, they would not change when the source phase was changed. You cannot be serious. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:03:12 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
I am trying OpenDX right now. I am new to x windows and I am trying to figure out a windows interface called cygwin...stay tuned, this could take a while. Hi Dan, The trick with cygwin is that the interface you connect to first, and download, is a package manager. Once you have that installed, you then need to run it and select the right packages - mostly X11 and XFree86. Welcome to _Nix. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Keith Dysart wrote:
But the rules for black boxes do not allow measurements on the inside. This is how they help clarify the thinking. I've not disagreed about anything happening outside the black boxes. I am only interested in what is happening inside so I am getting rid of the black boxes. They are a silly unnecessary handicap. since the problem can be solved without the information. You haven't solved the problem yet with no black box. --43.4 deg 600 ohm line--+--10 deg 100 ohm line--open Vfor1--|--Vfor2 What is the phase shift between Vfor1 and Vfor2? I solved it for you already. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Keith Dysart wrote:
But the rules for black boxes do not allow measurements on the inside. This is how they help clarify the thinking. So instead of sweeping technical facts under the rug, you hide them in a black box. In both cases, the only apparent purpose is to maintain ignorance. It seems that whatever part of the system you don't understand, you draw a black box around it so you don't have to understand it. So I ask you once again, given the following two stubs: --43.4 deg 600 ohm line--+--10 deg 100 ohm line--open Vfor1--|--Vfor2 --43.4 deg 600 ohm line--+--46.6 deg 600 ohm line--open Vfor1--|--Vfor2 What are the phase shifts between Vfor1 and Vfor2 for the two cases? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: If the currents were referenced to the source phase, they would not change when the source phase was changed. You cannot be serious. I am dead serious. You need to think about this a bit more. Why would something "referenced to the source phase" change when that source itself was changed? This is no different than the elementary example of walking in a train car. One's speed relative to the seats does not change simply because the train is traveling at a different speed on the rails. What does your IEEE dictionary say about the meaning of "referenced to"? 73, Gene W4SZ |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Cecil Moore wrote:
It seems that whatever part of the system you don't understand, you draw a black box around it so you don't have to understand it. Cecil, Interesting comment, especially since you frequently reference s-parameter analysis. A direct quote from AN-95-1, the slide version, is: Two-port, three-port, and n-port models simplify the input / output response of active and passive devices and circuits into "black boxes" described by a set of four linear parameters. If you deny the legitimacy of "black boxes" do you need to give up the use of s-parameters? 73, Gene W4SZ |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
Why would something "referenced to the source phase" change when that source itself was changed? In my EZNEC examples the source current reference phase is zero and all the currents at the various points are referenced to that zero source phase. If the source current phase is changed, the phase of all the currents at the various sampling points change. In TravWave.EZ, the current is sampled by a zero ohm load in segment 10 of the wire. Source phase Seg 10 phase 0 deg -47.82 deg -10 deg -57.82 deg +10 deg -37.82 deg The current in Seg 10 is clearly referenced to the phase of the source and obviously lags the source phase by 47.82 degrees. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
A direct quote from AN-95-1, the slide version, is: Two-port, three-port, and n-port models simplify the input / output response of active and passive devices and circuits into "black boxes" described by a set of four linear parameters. Thank you, Gene. That contradicts what you said before about the black box not being allowed to have two of the four terminals on the other side. Play silly games with the facts and you tend to get caught. If you deny the legitimacy of "black boxes" do you need to give up the use of s-parameters? No, you need to give up your assertion that a four- terminal black box doesn't have two terminals on the other side. Your black box and HP's are two entirely different concepts. HP puts a black box around a 4-terminal network to enhance understanding of the contents of the black box. You put a black box around a stub to promote ignorance of the contents of the black box. I have said before. Specify that the black boxes be supplied with the four measured s-parameters stamped on them and I can probably tell you which box is which without even applying a signal. Or, more logically, forget the black box entirely since it is totally irrelevant to the subject being discussed. Exactly what is it that you think you have proved by using black boxes. Please be specific. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: Why would something "referenced to the source phase" change when that source itself was changed? In my EZNEC examples the source current reference phase is zero and all the currents at the various points are referenced to that zero source phase. If the source current phase is changed, the phase of all the currents at the various sampling points change. In TravWave.EZ, the current is sampled by a zero ohm load in segment 10 of the wire. Source phase Seg 10 phase 0 deg -47.82 deg -10 deg -57.82 deg +10 deg -37.82 deg The current in Seg 10 is clearly referenced to the phase of the source and obviously lags the source phase by 47.82 degrees. Isn't that exactly what I said? What you are showing above is the change with respect to some arbitrary point, not with respect to the source. The antenna current phase does not change at all wrt the source. |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: A direct quote from AN-95-1, the slide version, is: Two-port, three-port, and n-port models simplify the input / output response of active and passive devices and circuits into "black boxes" described by a set of four linear parameters. Thank you, Gene. That contradicts what you said before about the black box not being allowed to have two of the four terminals on the other side. Play silly games with the facts and you tend to get caught. If you deny the legitimacy of "black boxes" do you need to give up the use of s-parameters? No, you need to give up your assertion that a four- terminal black box doesn't have two terminals on the other side. Your black box and HP's are two entirely different concepts. HP puts a black box around a 4-terminal network to enhance understanding of the contents of the black box. You put a black box around a stub to promote ignorance of the contents of the black box. I have said before. Specify that the black boxes be supplied with the four measured s-parameters stamped on them and I can probably tell you which box is which without even applying a signal. Or, more logically, forget the black box entirely since it is totally irrelevant to the subject being discussed. Exactly what is it that you think you have proved by using black boxes. Please be specific. I said no such thing about "black boxes" being unable to have more than two terminals. What I said is that the "black boxes" defined by Keith and Roy have only two terminals. If you want to drift off into some other irrelevant chatter, go right ahead. It might make you feel good, but it won't change the real world. |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
The antenna current phase does not change at all wrt the source. That's my argument and appears to be the opposite of what you have been saying. The antenna current phase is referenced, i.e. relative, to the source phase. Are we using different definitions of the word "referenced"? Please provide your definition for "referenced". Let me say the same thing in a different way. The difference between a particular antenna current phase and the source current phase is fixed no matter what reference phase is chosen for the source current. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
I said no such thing about "black boxes" being unable to have more than two terminals. What I said is that the "black boxes" defined by Keith and Roy have only two terminals. But the "black boxes" defined by me have either two terminals or four terminals. Here they are again: --43.4 deg 600 ohm line--+--10 deg 100 ohm line--open --43.4 deg 600 ohm line--+--46.6 deg 600 ohm line--open --43.4 deg 600 ohm line--+--j567 impedor The black boxes are drawn around the '+' point just as I said before. That makes the first two examples four- terminal networks and the last example a two-terminal network. Now tell us again how s11, s12, s21, and s22 are identical for those three black boxes. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
If you want to drift off into some other irrelevant chatter, go right ahead. It might make you feel good, but it won't change the real world. As if imaginary black boxes exist in the real world. :-) Get real, Gene. Any black box you provide, I can open. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: The antenna current phase does not change at all wrt the source. That's my argument and appears to be the opposite of what you have been saying. The antenna current phase is referenced, i.e. relative, to the source phase. Are we using different definitions of the word "referenced"? Please provide your definition for "referenced". Let me say the same thing in a different way. The difference between a particular antenna current phase and the source current phase is fixed no matter what reference phase is chosen for the source current. Cecil, I am sorry that you seem to be having so much trouble with the English language today. 8-) If the antenna current was referenced to the source current, the reported antenna current phase would *not* change when the source phase was changed. As you can see, the reported antenna current phase *does* change in step with adjustment of the source phase. This means that both sets of phases are referenced to the same arbitrary point, not directly to each other. This was exactly what Roy was saying, followed by your challenge of his understanding of NEC. My definition of "reference" is the ordinary definition found in scientific and technical writing. It is the equivalent of "relative to" used by you above. 73, Gene W4SZ |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
If the antenna current was referenced to the source current, the reported antenna current phase would *not* change when the source phase was changed. This gives a whole new meaning to "referenced". The antenna currents are phase-locked to the source current. That's about as good a reference as one can get - being phase-locked. You, like Richard C., are obviously just pulling my leg. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene is of course correct. Perhaps the difficulty with basic concepts
such as phase reference is part of the reason why Cecil finds it necessary to invent and promote his alternative theories. A moment's thought would reveal one good reason not to reference phase angles to "the source" -- NEC and EZNEC allow multiple sources, each having a phase angle chosen by the user. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: It seems that whatever part of the system you don't understand, you draw a black box around it so you don't have to understand it. Cecil, Interesting comment, especially since you frequently reference s-parameter analysis. A direct quote from AN-95-1, the slide version, is: Two-port, three-port, and n-port models simplify the input / output response of active and passive devices and circuits into "black boxes" described by a set of four linear parameters. If you deny the legitimacy of "black boxes" do you need to give up the use of s-parameters? This is simply a diversion to deflect the discussion away from the sticky questions about "electrical degrees" which his theory is unable to resolve. Phase reference is another, and we can expect more. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Loading Coils; was : Vincent antenna
Roy Lewallen wrote:
A moment's thought would reveal one good reason not to reference phase angles to "the source" -- NEC and EZNEC allow multiple sources, each having a phase angle chosen by the user. That's true, but the discussion so far has been about single source systems. What is the phase reference when a single source is used. You say it is not the same as the source so exactly how much does it differ from the source default of zero degrees? What does the reference default to if not the phase of the source signal. Is the reference phase a user selectable option? If so, how do I select and change that reference phase without changing the source phase? I strongly suspect, based on my 20 years of user experience, that the reference phase defaults to the source phase in a single-source system. I personally have never set the reference phase to anything except the single-source phase. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com