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