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

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

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Sleep on it. You may feel better in the morning.

On Dec 19, 3:32 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Try a non-electronic example. If all the dimensions on my
house are referenced to the left front corner, when I move
the left front corner (along with the rest of the house),
none of the numerical values change.

If the dimensions are referenced to the fire hydrant, all the
measurements change by the same amount after the move.

This is your opportunity to demonstrate that you are not
like your "gurus" who never admit mistakes.

Or we could have a fun discussion about Mulroney who
recently said ""The most difficult thing in life, I think, is to
admit one's mistakes . . . ". Clearly Mulroney is not like
the rest of us who make enough mistakes that we have
plenty of practice admitting them. Oh wait. Maybe he
makes them, but just refuses to admit them. Hmmmm.

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
Try a non-electronic example.

OK, what is the *reference interest rate* for an
adjustable rate mortgage? An ever changing prime
rate?

References do not have to be fixed. I was using
the EZNEC source current as the reference. I rarely
ever change that current away from the default
value of 1 amp at 0 degrees.

This is your opportunity to demonstrate that you are not
like your "gurus" who never admit mistakes.

I freely admit that the definition of "reference" that
I was using is different from the definition that others
could choose. It was a mistake not to better define the
word before I used it. However, I did state that I was
using the EZNEC default current as my reference and
nobody objected to that statement at the time.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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

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

Roy Lewallen wrote:
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

Hello, Roy and all. Every unmoderated science newsgroup I've lurked in
always has one or more individuals that seem to delight in bucking
conventional science wisdom even in those cases where experimental
evidence completely validates the predictions of applied mathematics.
(Gosh, what ever happened to cold fusion?) One guy regularly complains
that respected physics journals won't publish his papers. Of course he
imagines there's someone or some agency out to get him, never
considering other reasons for his rejection. Perhaps on usenet he
acquires some validation.

Hey, people are free to view nature and its processes however they
choose but if they want others to view it that way it takes more than
"Because I say so." Especially to a roomful of skeptics. Of course I'm
also reminded of the hornet's nest that Marilyn vos Savant stirred up a
few years back in academia with the "Monty Hall" problem. (Turned out
she was right after all) The truth always emerges eventually. Theories
often have to be modified as new discoveries occur.

Are you sure I can't interest you in an energy-saving power factor
correction capacitor for your home/ham shack? How about a broadband
dipole with a feedpoint VSWR 1.6 over the contiguous 2-30 MHz band?
Sincerely, and 73s N4GGO,

J.B. Wood wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
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.

Hello, Roy and all. Every unmoderated science newsgroup I've lurked in
always has one or more individuals that seem to delight in bucking
conventional science wisdom even in those cases where experimental
evidence completely validates the predictions of applied mathematics.

On this newsgroup, John, it's the gurus who are bucking
conventional science with such concepts as:

1. There's no phase shift at a Z01 to Z02 impedance discontinuity
in a transmission line even though the applied mathematics says
there is. Black boxes are quickly introduced to hide the phase
shift from the unwashed masses.

2. There's no difference between
I*cos(kx)*cos(wt) and I*cos(kx+wt)
i.e. between standing waves and traveling waves even though
the applied mathematics graphs are completely different.

3. Standing wave current can be used to measure the delay
through a loading coil even though applied mathematics says
the standing wave current doesn't change its relative phase
anywhere in the 1/4WL antenna from feedpoint to tip.

4. Reflected waves contain zero energy and therefore cannot
deliver energy back to the source even though applied mathematics
says that ExB is the power density of that reflected wave.

5. EM energy can just "slosh around" inside a transmission line.
It doesn't have to travel at the speed of light even though it
is made up of photons which applied mathematics tells us
cannot slow down.

6. The EZNEC graph of traveling-wave current phase contains
a 64% error yet the author says there's nothing wrong.

John, would you care to comment on those six points?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
6. The EZNEC graph of traveling-wave current phase contains
a 64% error yet the author says there's nothing wrong.

Oops, sorry, should be (100-64) = 36% error.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com