On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:33:23 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

There seems to be mass confusion even among the gurus on
this newsgroup as to the difference between standing-wave
current, as exists on a 1/2WL dipole, vs traveling-wave
current, as exists on a terminated antenna like a rhombic.

:-)
Confusion appears to be selective here, and not to be found generally
in the remainder of the group.

For instance, in the quote above, we are introduced to two antennas
THAT ARE NEVER AGAIN EMPLOYED, AS EXPLICITLY INFERRED, AS THE BASIS OF
COMPARISON!

In short, the author immediately dismissing these practical antennas,
never again approaches the problem as described above. The solution
to this confusion appears to be of no true concern. So, what's the
problem? No question follows in the remainder of the post, only
statements. No statements illustrate the difference between any
antennas that are the source of the presumed confusion. The original
model wires draped 1/200th wavelength above ground are certainly not
to be confused with conventional rhombic, nor dipoles.

Diligent readers would back away from this dead horse.

Modeling a rhombic is not outside the art of the practitioner, only
one practitioner for whom the data does not support the premise for
these antennas (quickly discarded as I have pointed out).

Four 4 wavelength wires built into a symmetric diamond, one source at
22MHz, one load, and the whole model is described. As a variation,
put it in free space, test; repeat with it 65 feet above ground, test.
As another variation, load with a matched R, test; load with an
open/short, test.

What monumental results follow from all results?

65 feet above ground we observe:
w/Rl = 816 Ohms:
I magnitude declines end-to-end due to radiation;
I magnitude varies insignificantly seg-to-seg (1%);
I phase varies ~160-~100 degrees per 10 segments;
I phase inverts every 10 segments.
w/Rl = 1e9 Ohms:
I magnitude declines end-to-end due to radiation;
I magnitude varies seg-to-seg (~10%-~40%);
I phase varies ~160-~100 degrees per 10 segments;
I phase inverts every 10 segments.

In free space we observe:
w/Rl = 816 Ohms:
I magnitude declines end-to-end due to radiation;
I magnitude varies insignificantly seg-to-seg (1%);
I phase varies ~160 degrees per 10 segments;
I phase inverts every 10 segments.
w/Rl = 1e9 Ohms:
I magnitude declines end-to-end due to radiation;
I magnitude varies seg-to-seg (~5%-~25%);
I phase varies ~160 degrees per 10 segments;
I phase inverts every 10 segments.

All variations support the notion of traveling and standing wave
antennas (unless, of course, some novel re-definition of terms is
injected into the debate). The presumption of traveling waves is well
defined in the current data when placing a "matched load" on the
antenna-as-transmission line is performed. The presumption of
standing waves is well defined in the current data when the "matched
load" is opened on the antenna-as-transmission line.

What does not conform to well tailored expectations? The phase swings
under all conditions are well defined, extensive, and repeat with
regularity. Further, we can also observe how ground's proximity, even
with a substantial height against wavelength begins to intrude into
current dynamics.

We can then proceed into where confusion might reside (it not being
found in these antennas): GROUND. Yes, the death embrace of the
original models with GROUND profoundly skews the data. I would note
that there is the usual crafting of the original post to insure
plausible deniability. In short, the reader is left to be astonished
by the data (corrupt as it is, given the tantalizing premise of
Rhombics and Dipoles being so confusing to the crowd of readers) and
to then be lead further away from that initial dismissal of those
antennas, only to be drawn back to them through Byzantine
extrapolations and copious mathematical "proofs."

As always, fun. I doubt anything new in the technical vein will
follow, so I look forward to the parade that is sure to fill this
thread.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:53:06 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

We can then proceed into where confusion might reside (it not being
found in these antennas): GROUND. Yes, the death embrace of the
original models with GROUND profoundly skews the data.

Hi All,

Well, I find there is more technical content to dissect in at least
one dead horse.

Let's look at the "traveling wave" model and see what it has to offer
in the cold harsh light of reality.

Right off the bat with its performance: -23.74dB
What could possibly account for all this loss? The "load?"?

Instead of tossing the load, let's toss ground and put this corpse in
free space. It's performance: -0.30dB

I don't know how any math error like this could be used to validate a
model, but the efficiency as an antenna that hugs ground so vigorously
hardly measures up to either a dipole or a rhombic. On the plus side,
confusion certainly offers many vendors an income, and suckers are
born every minute who would love a low noise antenna.

However, what happened to the currents when we discarded ground? Well,
the pristine constant current of the former model plunges right down
the toilet of expectations (while performance shot through the ceiling
at the same time - one has to wonder what was confusing about this?).
Phase change? That cute 90 degrees formerly nudged and cosseted onto
center stage has now been nailed to the floor with no more total
variation than 2.15 degrees. Hard to imagine how a transmission line
could so thoroughly rape its inventor.

Turning to the "standing wave" model, would it be instructive how a
ground free performance might similarly fare?

Right off the bat with its performance: -1.69dB
it would seem a stretch to find any more efficiency (and shows how
that traveling wave model really sucks). However, without ground for
completeness' sake: -0.28dB

However, what happened to the currents when we discarded ground? Well,
roughly the same 2 degree shift we found when the "traveling wave"
model split the sheets with ground, but beyond that, an almost
identical current taper and phase lock-down found with the "traveling
wave" model free of ground (or in comparison to itself close to
ground).

So, is there any substantial difference between the two models once
ground's death grip is released? I will leave that question for
tea-leaf analysis, because engineers would have buried this dead horse
long ago.

***** Irony meter pegged *****

I would like to point out that the only things changed with these
original models was a switch from 2D to 3D analysis to reveal total
loss; and a switch from the ground offered to free space. I look
forward to Cecil, once again, impeaching his own evidence (and
typically without once mentioning the data).

I am sure I have sunken to new lows and once I am exposed for what I
am (an English major), vindication will taste sweeter than wine. (may
as well steal that thunder too)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:42:00 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

Let's look at the "traveling wave" model and see what it has to offer
in the cold harsh light of reality.

Right off the bat with its performance: -23.74dB
What could possibly account for all this loss? The "load?"?

Hi All,

Being one to never leave too many unanswered questions (Cecil merely
questions questions); I poured 100W into the original model (the only
change made was from constant I/E to constant P).

In fact, the proximity of ground allowed 99.38 watts to be absorbed by
the load!

How much reaches the load once this dead horse wrenches free from
ground's death grip and is allowed to ascend the stairway to heaven?
0.4982 watts

You heard it here first. ;-)

And, yes, another change (2 total) was made to the ground offered to
make it, instead, free space.

Who knows, maybe the "traveling wave" model is for a new matching
device for greater load efficiency. Unfortunately it would be best
suited for 80M speakers.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Let's look at the "traveling wave" model and see what it has to offer
in the cold harsh light of reality.

Right off the bat with its performance: -23.74dB
What could possibly account for all this loss? The "load?"?

You are wasting your time. The entire purpose of the model
is to illustrate the phase shift in the traveling wave
current - absolutely no other purpose.

So how do you explain the phase shift in the current which
is obviously traveling wave current?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:42:00 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:53:06 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

We can then proceed into where confusion might reside (it not being
found in these antennas): GROUND. Yes, the death embrace of the
original models with GROUND profoundly skews the data.

Hi All,

Well, I find there is more technical content to dissect in at least
one dead horse.

Let's look at the "traveling wave" model and see what it has to offer
in the cold harsh light of reality.

Well first, mea culpa's to the readership in using Cecil's models
(never a good idea as they did not attend the question he introduced
whereas mine did). However, moving on to the nut of my copping a
plea. I had not noticed that Cecil drove his wires into MiniNEC
ground - something I have never done in all my modeling. So, my
"changes," as reported, were faithful, but very much unbalanced the
implicit return path through that MiniNEC ground.

Being the good analyst, I then considered my previous work in an even
colder, harsher light of brutal reality. What I did was to replace
that ground path with a wire symmetrical to the 60 footer and then
raised the assembly an inch.

Right off the bat with its performance: -23.74dB
-42.04dB
What could possibly account for all this loss? The "load?"?
And through a follow-up last time, the same conclusion. The
transmission line apparent load for a 100W constant power consumes
99.25 watts

Instead of tossing the load, let's toss ground and put this corpse in
free space. It's performance: -0.30dB
-42.20dB

I don't know how any math error like this could be used to validate a
model, but the efficiency as an antenna that hugs ground so vigorously
hardly measures up to either a dipole or a rhombic. On the plus side,
confusion certainly offers many vendors an income, and suckers are
born every minute who would love a low noise antenna.
Now it enjoys nearly 20dB less noise than before my mistake.

However, what happened to the currents when we discarded ground? Well,
the pristine constant current of the former model plunges right down
the toilet of expectations (while performance shot through the ceiling
at the same time - one has to wonder what was confusing about this?).
Phase change? That cute 90 degrees formerly nudged and cosseted onto
center stage has now been nailed to the floor with no more total
variation than 2.15 degrees. Hard to imagine how a transmission line
could so thoroughly rape its inventor.
The current is still not constant (the original model must rely on a
poor return path to accomplish this). The phase does vary by 90
degrees.

As modified, the current slope reveals this is no longer a traveling
wave antenna (but it never was anyway). This can be remedied by
shifting the last load (the apparent transmission line load) to 750
Ohms.

This, of course, improves nothing in performance.

Turning to the "standing wave" model, would it be instructive how a
ground free performance might similarly fare?

Right off the bat with its performance: -1.69dB
-21.43dB
it would seem a stretch to find any more efficiency (and shows how
that traveling wave model really sucks). However, without ground for
completeness' sake: -0.28dB
-21.12dB

However, what happened to the currents when we discarded ground? Well,
Not enough to discuss.
roughly the same 2 degree shift we found when the "traveling wave"
model split the sheets with ground, but beyond that, an almost
identical current taper and phase lock-down found with the "traveling
wave" model free of ground (or in comparison to itself close to
ground).


So, is there any substantial difference between the two models once
ground's death grip is released? I will leave that question for
tea-leaf analysis, because engineers would have buried this dead horse
long ago.

Well, after sifting my own tea-leaves (one has to wonder how this
escaped the intrepid author's scrutiny) - no not much difference after
all. Transmission lines are pretty robust when designed correctly.

However, neither bear any resemblance to the original post's mention
of rhombic or dipole antennas; and my models of those clearly discard
Cecil's confusion over his named currents by using conventional
designs of conventional antennas. After all, who ever heard of a
traveling wave transmission line? [This is probably the only point
Cecil could ever hope to argue as he would immediately seize on the
opportunity to force that term into the canon.]

***** Irony meter pegged *****

I would like to point out that the only things changed with these
original models was a switch from 2D to 3D analysis to reveal total
loss; and a switch from the ground offered to free space. I look
forward to Cecil, once again, impeaching his own evidence (and
typically without once mentioning the data).

I am sure I have sunken to new lows

Having beaten Cecil in the game of analysis, even to my own, I must be
pond scum by now.

and once I am exposed for what I
am (an English major), vindication will taste sweeter than wine. (may
as well steal that thunder too)

Imagine, I got to the wine decanter first too! :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:42:00 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:53:06 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

We can then proceed into where confusion might reside (it not being
found in these antennas): GROUND. Yes, the death embrace of the
original models with GROUND profoundly skews the data.
Hi All,

Well, I find there is more technical content to dissect in at least
one dead horse.

Let's look at the "traveling wave" model and see what it has to offer
in the cold harsh light of reality.

Well first, mea culpa's to the readership in using Cecil's models
(never a good idea as they did not attend the question he introduced
whereas mine did). However, moving on to the nut of my copping a
plea. I had not noticed that Cecil drove his wires into MiniNEC
ground - something I have never done in all my modeling. So, my
"changes," as reported, were faithful, but very much unbalanced the
implicit return path through that MiniNEC ground.

Being the good analyst, I then considered my previous work in an even
colder, harsher light of brutal reality. What I did was to replace
that ground path with a wire symmetrical to the 60 footer and then
raised the assembly an inch.

Right off the bat with its performance: -23.74dB
-42.04dB
What could possibly account for all this loss? The "load?"?
And through a follow-up last time, the same conclusion. The
transmission line apparent load for a 100W constant power consumes
99.25 watts

Instead of tossing the load, let's toss ground and put this corpse in
free space. It's performance: -0.30dB
-42.20dB
I don't know how any math error like this could be used to validate a
model, but the efficiency as an antenna that hugs ground so vigorously
hardly measures up to either a dipole or a rhombic. On the plus side,
confusion certainly offers many vendors an income, and suckers are
born every minute who would love a low noise antenna.
Now it enjoys nearly 20dB less noise than before my mistake.

However, what happened to the currents when we discarded ground? Well,
the pristine constant current of the former model plunges right down
the toilet of expectations (while performance shot through the ceiling
at the same time - one has to wonder what was confusing about this?).
Phase change? That cute 90 degrees formerly nudged and cosseted onto
center stage has now been nailed to the floor with no more total
variation than 2.15 degrees. Hard to imagine how a transmission line
could so thoroughly rape its inventor.
The current is still not constant (the original model must rely on a
poor return path to accomplish this). The phase does vary by 90
degrees.

As modified, the current slope reveals this is no longer a traveling
wave antenna (but it never was anyway). This can be remedied by
shifting the last load (the apparent transmission line load) to 750
Ohms.

This, of course, improves nothing in performance.

Turning to the "standing wave" model, would it be instructive how a
ground free performance might similarly fare?

Right off the bat with its performance: -1.69dB
-21.43dB
it would seem a stretch to find any more efficiency (and shows how
that traveling wave model really sucks). However, without ground for
completeness' sake: -0.28dB
-21.12dB

However, what happened to the currents when we discarded ground? Well,
Not enough to discuss.
roughly the same 2 degree shift we found when the "traveling wave"
model split the sheets with ground, but beyond that, an almost
identical current taper and phase lock-down found with the "traveling
wave" model free of ground (or in comparison to itself close to
ground).

So, is there any substantial difference between the two models once
ground's death grip is released? I will leave that question for
tea-leaf analysis, because engineers would have buried this dead horse
long ago.

Well, after sifting my own tea-leaves (one has to wonder how this
escaped the intrepid author's scrutiny) - no not much difference after
all. Transmission lines are pretty robust when designed correctly.

However, neither bear any resemblance to the original post's mention
of rhombic or dipole antennas; and my models of those clearly discard
Cecil's confusion over his named currents by using conventional
designs of conventional antennas. After all, who ever heard of a
traveling wave transmission line? [This is probably the only point
Cecil could ever hope to argue as he would immediately seize on the
opportunity to force that term into the canon.]

***** Irony meter pegged *****

I would like to point out that the only things changed with these
original models was a switch from 2D to 3D analysis to reveal total
loss; and a switch from the ground offered to free space. I look
forward to Cecil, once again, impeaching his own evidence (and
typically without once mentioning the data).

I am sure I have sunken to new lows

Having beaten Cecil in the game of analysis, even to my own, I must be
pond scum by now.

and once I am exposed for what I
am (an English major), vindication will taste sweeter than wine. (may
as well steal that thunder too)

Imagine, I got to the wine decanter first too! :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil's decanter has too much lead in the glass.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

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

Richard Clark wrote:
As modified, the current slope reveals this is no longer a traveling
wave antenna (but it never was anyway). This can be remedied by
shifting the last load (the apparent transmission line load) to 750
Ohms.

Duhhhhhhhh! When you changed the conditions, you changed
the characteristic impedance. The reason for your confusion
is obvious below.

This, of course, improves nothing in performance.

This is not a performance issue. This is a current phase
issue. The purpose for the existence of that EZNEC file
is to illustrate traveling-wave current - nothing else.

After all, who ever heard of a traveling wave transmission line?

Who indeed? Richard, FYI, a transmission line terminated
in its characteristic impedance *IS* a traveling wave
transmission line. Do you understanding the meaning of
a "flat" transmission line? A flat transmission line *is*
a traveling wave transmission line. Here is one modeled
in EZNEC. Download and click on "Load Dat".

http://www.w5dxp.com/stub514R.EZ

Why is the ignorance level about traveling waves so high
on this newsgroup? It's the result of those inadequate
lumped circuit models.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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! :-)

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