Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil's decanter has too much lead in the glass.

Tom, why haven't you calculated the phase shift from
Vfor1 to Vfor2 in the following example?

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

Assume that 100v at 0 deg is incident upon the open
at the end of the stub.

I get
Vfor2 = 100v at -10 deg and Vfor1 = 143.33v at -46.6 deg.
Looks like the phase shift is 36.6 degrees after all.
Please feel free to prove me wrong.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:11:23 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

This is a current phase issue.

The Rhombic antenna shows phase variation for every configuration.

The Rhombic is, by the way, a traveling wave antenna, and your own
topic selection.

The Rhombic antenna does not support your thesis. Absolutely no
correspondence (other than my own for a non-antenna) has been offered
to assault my data.

So, the bottom line is that EZNEC faithfully models both traveling
wave antennas, and resonant lines; and no one here is surprised about
that. Still confused? You don't seem to be particularly motivated
with this issue at all - it must be a humbling experience for you to
have introduced this in terms of a real antenna that refuses to toe
any of your absurd propositions.

Clever crafting only makes your theories ever simpler to blow away.

I wait for your next joke, that one was too easy! :-)

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Richard Clark wrote:
The Rhombic antenna does not support your thesis.

Of course it does, Richard. The rhombic is a traveling-
wave antenna. Unlike a 1/2WL dipole, its current phase
changes with distance from the feedpoint.

We certainly have an EZNEC 1/2WL dipole model but
I don't think EZNEC comes with a rhombic model. Do
you happen to have one? If not, I'll be glad to
whip one out. I guarantee the results will be no
different from the 1/4WL terminated wire that I
presented previously.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Richard Clark wrote:
The Rhombic antenna does not support your thesis.

On the contrary, I just whipped out an EZNEC rhombic
without taking any special care. I copied it out of
The ARRL Antenna Book, 20th edition, page 13-13.
I only installed ten zero ohm loads, but clicking
on "Load Dat" clearly shows the phase shift in the
traveling wave current along the wire.

http://www.w5dxp.com/rhombic.EZ

Sorry, a rhombic won't run on the free demo version
of EZNEC.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:06:58 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I don't think EZNEC comes with a rhombic model. Do
you happen to have one?

With that, I can tell you didn't read anything in this thread. That's
OK, the topic was a snooze from the first paragraph.

If not, I'll be glad to
whip one out. I guarantee the results will be no
different from the 1/4WL terminated wire that I
presented previously.

And this proves you didn't read anything in this thread.

But, your comment was a good laugh! You are already several postings
shy of results already here. As the Red Queen informed Alice, "You
have to run awful fast just to keep up in one place."

When that dawns on you (sorry, but you will have to read the posting),
it will probably expose me for what I am (scum of the earth? or is it
wine sipping Liberal Arts major this week?).

Looking forward to your damage control. :-)

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:50:53 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The "traveling wave" antenna
clearly shows
standing waves.

This is just too, too easy! :-)

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:11:41 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:50:53 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The "traveling wave" antenna
clearly shows
standing waves.

This is just too, too easy! :-)

I've just discovered that this "copy" from the ARRL
The ARRL Antenna Book, 20th edition, page 13-13.
must be quite a departure from reality. In outer space?

Well, I trust Cecil hasn't mislaid his glasses once again, performed
another math error, or tried to use his car keys to get into the
house; but when we substitute his former 1/200th wavelength above
ground, this antenna clearly exhibits a SWR of 1.33.

Of course, it can be jimmied back into outer space in an effort to
suppress evidence of standing waves, but like the Ghost of Christmas
Past, those chains will still rattle poor ol' Cec'. (Will he give
Cratchit the day off?)

Cecil's clever crafting can always be mined for simple problems. Pay
dirt every time.

Now that I have been exposed for what I am, I can full well expect a
lump of coal the size of West Virginia in my stocking. I'm going to
need a larger mantle. :-(

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

The "traveling wave" antenna
clearly shows
standing waves.

This is just too, too easy! :-)

Too bad for you the threaded newsreader shows that
the only thing I wrong above was "clearly shows".
It also shows that you wrote the rest. Any idiot
can falsify a posting.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:33:22 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Any idiot
can falsify a posting.

Well, are the standing waves falsified? This is a "traveling wave"
antenna, is it not? Presumably any idiot can figure that one out.
This, of course, has already been answered by me in another posting.
Perhaps you want to look under the bed for idiots there too. ;-)

I don't mind being called an idiot, it elevates me in this thread!

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:33:22 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

The "traveling wave" antenna
clearly shows
standing waves.

This is just too, too easy! :-)

Too bad for you the threaded newsreader shows that
the only thing I wrong above was "clearly shows".
It also shows that you wrote the rest. Any idiot
can falsify a posting.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC