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