Didn't read your last (promise) until after I sent that. You know who I
meant. BTW, did you just by any chance ever work for me at the PME Lab in
Hawaii ?

Hi Howard,

Hmmm, how to answer that. Did that fellow remind you of me?

Well, to cut to the chase, I was SUBLANT, USS Holland AS-32, Nuclear
Navy; and as far as I know, the closest point of approach would have
been Guam (aside from our time in the yards at Bremerton, across the
water from where I live now).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

OK Robert. (Howard was my uncle. He has the orange top). No, I just knew
that you were into metrology from your postings, and I had the PMEL at
Hickam 1960-63.

Now that you've explained that, I'll inquire someday (but not today) as to
what the SUBLANT folks were doing in the Pacific.

Regards
W4ZCB

Harold E. Johnson wrote:
Everyone on here with the exception of the gifted one has known for the last
3 days that Richard has been just pulling his bobber under.

So now I get blasted for being naive, not for the
technical stuff I am presenting? Why am I not surprised?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Harold E. Johnson" wrote in message
news:H1D9j.253396$Fc.55212@attbi_s21...
Didn't read your last (promise) until after I sent that. You know who I
meant. BTW, did you just by any chance ever work for me at the PME Lab in
Hawaii ?

Hi Howard,

Hmmm, how to answer that. Did that fellow remind you of me?

Well, to cut to the chase, I was SUBLANT, USS Holland AS-32, Nuclear
Navy; and as far as I know, the closest point of approach would have
been Guam (aside from our time in the yards at Bremerton, across the
water from where I live now).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

OK Robert. (Howard was my uncle. He has the orange top). No, I just knew
that you were into metrology from your postings, and I had the PMEL at
Hickam 1960-63.

Now that you've explained that, I'll inquire someday (but not today) as to
what the SUBLANT folks were doing in the Pacific.

Regards
W4ZCB

the Holland served many areas, quite a history for a sub tender.
http://www.tendertale.com/tenders/132/132.html
I don't remember being tied up to her, but we were both in Charleston at the
same time, though we were sailing out of Kings Bay at the time she was
getting overhauled in Charleston.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You missed the point. A terminating capacitor is a two
terminal network. The point where two pieces of feedline
are connected is a four-terminal network. A two-terminal
network is different from a four-terminal network.

This appears to be an unusual definition.

Not unusual at all, Gene. The two input terminals to the
black box are on one side. The two output terminals from
the black box are on the other side. The impedance
discontinuity is inside the box. The black box is extremely
small.

Give me the four s-parameters, s11, s12, s21, and s22
and I can tell you virtually everything about what is
inside the black box without even applying a signal.


BZZZT! Wrong answer.

Nobody ever said anything about the "other side" of the black box.

That's obviously a lie. I said something about the other side
of the black box.

Yet by your models and math the black boxes don't behave the same in
your test circuit.

That's another lie. All my models and math show the black
boxes all behaving exactly the same external to the two input
terminals. In fact, I have said it is impossible for it to
be any other way.

Is there no limit to how dishonest you will be?


No lies; just carelessness in a nit-picking contest.

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.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

I(x,t) = Imax sin(kx) cos(wt)


Standing-wave current phase changes hardly at all up and
down a stub with losses or a wire 1/2WL dipole.


That is correct to the same extent that t in the equation above
"changes hardly at all" with time.


The phase is referenced to the source phase, as it is in EZNEC,
but you already knew that and just want to perform your usual
diversions away from the technical facts.

Actually, I'm trying to figure out what technical meaning there is to
be obtained from your repeated observation "Standing-wave current
phase changes hardly at all up and down a stub with losses or a wire
1/2WL dipole." The phase of the standing wave varies with position
from one perspective, and with time from another, and with amplitude
from yet another. If you hold t fixed, then amplitude and position
remain variable. This is a revelation?

I have said at least a dozen times that the current phase
I am talking about is the same as EZNEC reports. If you don't
like what EZNEC reports, take it up with Roy.

One should be careful not to invite comparisons to a craftsman holding
his tools responsible for poor craftsmanship. ;-)

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

. .
The phase is referenced to the source phase, as it is in EZNEC,
but you already knew that and just want to perform your usual
diversions away from the technical facts.

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.

Actually, I'm trying to figure out what technical meaning there is to be
obtained from your repeated observation "Standing-wave current phase
changes hardly at all up and down a stub with losses or a wire 1/2WL
dipole." The phase of the standing wave varies with position from one
perspective, and with time from another, and with amplitude from yet
another. If you hold t fixed, then amplitude and position remain
variable. This is a revelation?

I have said at least a dozen times that the current phase
I am talking about is the same as EZNEC reports. If you don't
like what EZNEC reports, take it up with Roy.

As far as I can tell, Cecil has never been quite able to understand just
what EZNEC reports. EZNEC doesn't need several different definitions of
current to suit the theory du jour or to do its job, so it doesn't
report "standing wave current" or other fruits of The Gifted One's
overly fertile imagination. It simply reports current. Anyone not
acquainted with this concept can refer to any basic text on electricity
or physics. What EZNEC reports is exactly what you'll find there.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
Actually, I'm trying to figure out what technical meaning there is to be
obtained from your repeated observation "Standing-wave current phase
changes hardly at all up and down a stub with losses or a wire 1/2WL
dipole."

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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:10:24 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

the Holland served many areas, quite a history for a sub tender.
http://www.tendertale.com/tenders/132/132.html
I don't remember being tied up to her, but we were both in Charleston at the
same time, though we were sailing out of Kings Bay at the time she was
getting overhauled in Charleston.

Hi Dave,

Thanx for the link.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
. . The phase is referenced to the source phase, as it is in EZNEC,
but you already knew that and just want to perform your usual
diversions away from the technical facts.

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.

The phase assigned by the user to the source obviously becomes
the default reference phase. What on earth do you have to gain
by obscuring that technical fact?

If the user doesn't do anything, the source phase defaults to zero
and all current measurements are referenced to that zero source
phase. Are you so determined to discredit me that you are willing
to sacrifice your integrity in the process?

Do you deny that there is virtually no phase shift in the current
up and down a 1/2WL dipole referenced to the source current. If you
are up to that denial, please argue with Kraus's graphic. Take a look
at the phase angles at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/krausdip.jpg

Unfortunately, Kraus agrees with EZNEC and that current is
exactly what you used to make your meaningless measurements
of current phase through a loading coil. So please look at
Kraus's graph and tell us again how that current with unchanging
phase can be used to measure phase shift through a loading coil.

As far as I can tell, Cecil has never been quite able to understand just
what EZNEC reports. EZNEC doesn't need several different definitions of
current to suit the theory du jour or to do its job, so it doesn't
report "standing wave current" or other fruits of The Gifted One's
overly fertile imagination. It simply reports current.

My point exactly! If the antenna being modeled is a standing-wave
antenna, EZNEC reports standing-wave current.

If the antenna being modeled is a traveling-wave antenna, EZNEC
reports traveling-wave current. Roy apparently doesn't want anyone
to know this fact.

So Roy, why would the phase shift through a coil be different
when it is used in a 1/2WL dipole vs using it in a rhombic
at the same frequency??? Magic???

Roy has threatened to take EZNEC away from me for using it to
demonstrate traveling-wave current through a loading coil. Here
is what EZNEC says about the delay through that loading coil.

http://www.w5dxp.com/coil512.ez

Click on "Load Dat" and observe what Roy is so afraid that
someone besides me is going to discover.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com