Roy Lewallen wrote:
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.

There were no black boxes in the original example so the
black box was the original diversion. Coming back from that
diversion, can you calculate the current amplitude and phases
in the original example? I would be very surprised if you
could do it. I would be even more surprised if you did it
and published the results. Roy, here's your chance to nail
me to the wall. Simply prove that the phase shift between
Vfor1 and Vfor2 below is something other than 36.6 degrees.
(All of Roy's worshipers hold their breath for a response. :-)

This is not "my" theory - this is standard distributed
network reflection theory that I learned at Texas A&M
in the 50's. And the theory is certainly capable of
resolving the electrical degree problems.

Here's the original example again - no black box necessary.

--43.4 deg 600 ohm line--+--10 deg 100 ohm line--open
Vfor1--|--Vfor2

Assuming 100v at 0 deg incident upon the open at the
end of the stub, what is the phase shift between
Vfor1 and Vfor2?

Vfor2 = 100v at -10 deg
Vfor1 = 143.33v at -46.4 deg

The phase shift between Vfor1 and Vfor2 is 36.6 degrees just
as predicted originally. Roy, you are always advising me to
use voltages so I did. The results are easy to verify if you
know how. But I don't think you know how.

Everyone is invited to use any valid model you want to and
prove me either right or wrong.

I predict that Roy will be silent on this subject and rely
on his political power to try to suppress those results.
The emperor has no clothes. The emperor's worshipers have
no clothes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

keep going guys! only 50 more messages to hit 1000 in this thread! thats
got to be a record for r.r.a.a! how many more ways can cecil and roy go
around in circles with phases. can we get roger back in the fray? that
would be good for another dozen or so anyway! jim lux hasn't contributed
recently, where did he drop out? and where, oh where, is art??????????

Dave wrote:
how many more ways can cecil and roy go
around in circles with phases.

For a guru like Roy, it should be easy to nail me to
the wall with a few calculations. But have you noticed
the complete absence of math and equations from Roy to
prove me wrong? One wonders why all he does is kibitz
with ad hominem attacks.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Dave wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

keep going guys! only 50 more messages to hit 1000 in this thread! thats
got to be a record for r.r.a.a! how many more ways can cecil and roy go
around in circles with phases. can we get roger back in the fray? that
would be good for another dozen or so anyway! jim lux hasn't contributed
recently, where did he drop out? and where, oh where, is art??????????



And then there is anonymous Dave, who never contributes anything useful.

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.

Dave wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

keep going guys! only 50 more messages to hit 1000 in this thread! thats
got to be a record for r.r.a.a! how many more ways can cecil and roy go
around in circles with phases. can we get roger back in the fray? that
would be good for another dozen or so anyway! jim lux hasn't contributed
recently, where did he drop out? and where, oh where, is art??????????



Aw, shaddup! This thread hasn't even gotten started yet.

Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Cecil Moore 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.


No, it is a perfectly normal technique to test a theory or model. The
black box reveals just enough information to solve the problem, and
nothing more.

In this particular case, the impedance at the terminals of the black box
is the only *necessary* information to solve the transmission-line
problem (in the steady state, at one frequency). It is not necessary to
know how that impedance was created.

Conventional transmission-line theory handles this situation
effortlessly, thus proving that no more information is needed. Any
theory that claims to need more information has failed the test - for
somewhere it has a soft centre that means it cannot be trusted.

Professional scientists and engineers are quite ruthless about this.
They don't wait for other people to propose such tests - they do it
themselves, beating hardest on their own ideas, to find out what they're
good for and where the limits are. Any ideas that don't stand up to this
treatment are ruthlessly discarded.

That isn't always easy, but a professional scientist or engineer has to
have the clarity and integrity to know when it has to be done. That is
why the professionals are very careful not to keep ideas as pets. As in
farming, it's only the amateurs who can afford that self-indulgence.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

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

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
In this particular case, the impedance at the terminals of the black box
is the only *necessary* information to solve the transmission-line
problem (in the steady state, at one frequency). It is not necessary to
know how that impedance was created.

Black boxes have their function but I doubt that any proponent
of black boxes will admit that the function proposed here is
to obscure technical facts because those technical facts are
distasteful to some people.

Ian, the entire problem (as stated previously by me) is to
ascertain the phase shift at the impedance discontinuity
between Vfor1 in the 600 ohm line and Vfor2 in the 100 ohm
line at point '+' in the following example. That is the
problem as stated. It's a straight forward problem - no
black box necessary.

--43.4 deg 600 ohm line--+--10 deg 100 ohm line--open
Vfor1--|--Vfor2

Assuming the voltage incident upon the open end of the stub
is 100 volts at 0 degrees, I calculate the following voltages
at point '+'.

Vfor2 = 100 volts at -10 degrees

Vfor1 = 143.33 volts at -46.6 degrees

The phase shift between Vfor1 and Vfor2 is 36.6 degrees.

You should be able to prove or disprove those values. In
fact, you seem to be frothing at the mouth wanting to
disprove them. Well, go ahead and prove me wrong (if you
can).

Instead of performing the calculations to disprove my figures,
you attempt to sweep part of the problem under the rug by
putting everything from point '+' to the end of the stub in
a black box thus making the stated problem impossible to solve.
I'm sorry, but that is an unethical diversion away from the
stated problem.

I have already stated that no matter what is in the black box,
if the impedance or impedor is -j567 then the conditions external
to the black box are identical. But that diversion has nothing
to do with solving the original problem.

Why are you afraid to solve the problem as stated? I am going
to keep repeating this posting until someone provides a solution
to the original problem.

My voltage calculations above are either right or wrong. If
they are wrong, as you suggest, please prove it. If they are
right, I don't blame you for trying your best to suppress the
technical facts by hiding things in a black box but now the
whole world is aware of your attempted suppression of
technical facts, not a good reputation to have for a technical
editor.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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