r.r.a.a WARNING!!!
 

On 7 Jan, 18:39, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

...





On 6 Jan, 18:39, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

....

"Did you ever think that your post would last this long? Obviously the
regular contributors
in this group cannot handle the truth and thus will not consult
anything.Now the experts are argueing over the term SWR a very, very,
deep discussion revealing things unknown to the amateur community at
this time. [...]"

Hello Art, the concept of SWR is extremely misunderstood even by people
with
degrees in electronics engineering. It is assumed to be simple, yet many
people get it wrong. Indeed, a good understanding is essential for
antenna
development. I do not fault anyone for not understanding the concept
because
standing waves, simple as they may seem, are actually expressed as the
product of a cos wave over distance and a sine wave over time. Many
things
are happening over the length of the antenna as the function is
operating.
If you think of it, it is the essence of space-time and it may be
productive
for you to consider it even more broadly in your own hypotheses, more
broadly that is by possibly incorporating the mechancial SWR analogues to
voltage/current SWR's and who knows what new ideas may come to mind with
your model.

I don't understand a lot of this talk about waves bouncing which is
fortunate. Icould not possibly stay on a thread where everybody is
talking past each other and then changing the subject as they didn't
understand the subject in the first place. In ham radio nothing is
believed if it is contrary to the norm.This bouncing wave thing will
never come to closure as all participants are deaf. As *far as me
getting involved all the answers involved in my description of radio
are known facts in the scientific world and fully coroberated. Heck
they are even corroberated by existing antenna computor programs and
actual tests. I can't see how these waves fit in with classical
science so it must be another invented science that it referes to. Now
if the trend changed to debate the voracity of existing accepted data
is proved to be incorrect then they would have my attention but the
group is not competant enough for that trail.
Regards
Art

You are a mechanical engineer, right? Consider acoustic "radiation". Pluck a
guitar string; the fundamental wavelength of the sound your hear (and its
harmonics) will be related to the length of the string and the speed of the
wave in the string (not the speed of sound) which depends on the tension and
density of the string. f*length = v. The 'radiation resistance' is the
string's standing wave pushing against the air and producing sound energy
from applied kinetic energy stored in the *vibrating string*. The musical
note you hear does move at the speed of sound. This is somewhat analagous to
an antenna. Now I agree that to be a musician it is not neccesary to
understand these principles but to design guitar strings (antennas) it would
be advantageous to understand it (though not mandatory). In order to discuss
the reasons why certain guitar strings work better or sound different than
others, it is essential to understand this and to understand it, you must
first understand what an acoustic standing wave is. You are working on an
antenna model; you may be a ham and you may even be designing antennas but
you do not know how standing waves work. It is not compusory. You can still
operate and design antennas without knowing how this works. But, *it sounds
like you need some more tools. You are dealing with EM fields and waves and
you are also dealing with vibrations of particles making your model, if it
works, almost as related to a mechancial wave as an electrical wave...a
combination of both? I think on the track that you are on, which is not real
clear to me, I would advise getting out the physics books and getting
familiar with these concepts...they are not only EE related, there is an ME
analog (as there often is for fundamental EE problems).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was being facietious in my comments regarding the change of
direction to SWR.
If it upset you I apologise,as I do to David and Richard with their
comments
with respect to SWR meters and I thus withdraw said comment.
Best regards
Art

Standing morphing to travelling waves. was r.r.a.a Laugh Riot!!!
 

AI4QJ wrote:

The NEC program is just a computer model, for discussion purposes only. I
think there are far too many variables in real life for the program to take
into account. It may be valuable but I am not yet convinced it is
infallible.


Oh darnit! Here I went and built several antennas designed with Eznec,
and they have worked just like the program said they would.


I guess I'll have to take the remaining ones down, since I was only
supposed to discuss them, not actually make and use them. Thanks for the
correction!


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On Jan 8, 2:39 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
But when you write the equation for the superposition of
traveling waves and claim that resultant standing wave is a different
kind of electromagnetic wave, that is a misguided point of view.

That's not true unless you consider Eugene Hecht to be misguided. He
said standing waves are so different from traveling waves that they
probably shouldn't even be considered to be waves at all since they
are not even moving. Standing waves could hardly be any different from
traveling waves and tend to create strange illusions in human brains.
I have plotted the envelopes of the waves at http://www.w5dxp.com/TravStnd.gif
Those waveforms could hardly be any different yet you asserted that
they are linked by a trig identity.

A standing wave is not only different from an EM traveling wave, it
cannot correctly even be called an EM wave because it is not moving at
the speed of light in the medium, a technical requirement for EM
waves.

I have asked you to prove your assertion that, using your trig
identity, cos(kx-wt) = cos(kx)+cos(wt). Where is that proof?

... you almost inevitably end up lying ...

Misunderstanding you and repeating it back to you is not lying.
Neither are my personal opinions proof of lying. I joke a lot but
lying is against my ethics and religion. Being called a liar by liar
is unacceptable proof. Would it be too much to ask to post one of my
alleged lies instead of hoping that your handwaving and implications
will accomplish that underhanded trick.

P.S. I'm on my daughter's computer posting from Google.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves. was r.r.a.a Laugh Riot!!!
 

On Jan 8, 3:54 pm, art wrote:
Yes 50/60 is frequency just like 10 metrrs. Now go homw and cut the
wire in the kitchen to make it an open circuit Now ham r5adio says the
cuyrrent will turn around where you cutt it and it will go back. Well
science has not seen a trace of this new frequency of 100, 110 0r 220
line double its frequency to twice what it was before.

Art, please think about what you are saying.

The wavelength of 20 MHz is 70 ft. The wavelength of 60 Hz is
16,400,000 feet (3100 miles).

There is a power factor correcting capacitor every city block or so on
the 60 Hz system, i.e. approximately every 0.00003 wavelength. Are
there any power factor correcting capacitors hanging on a 20m dipole?
If the standing wave power factor was corrected on a 20m dipole, the
standing waves would disappear just like they do on the power wires.
Correcting the power factor on a standing wave dipole antenna would
turn it into a traveling wave antenna and there would be no
reflections from the end of the dipole. Our 50/60 Hz power
distribution systems are overwhelmingly traveling wave systems. The
power companies simply don't allow reflections to exist because they
don't get paid for reflected energy and they sure don't want it coming
back to the generator.

If you had a 60Hz generator feeding a low-loss 3100 mile open-
circuited transmission line, you would certainly observe a forward
wave, reflected wave, and standing wave all obeying the distributed
network reflection model rules.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
..

A standing wave is not only different from an EM traveling wave, it
cannot correctly even be called an EM wave because it is not moving at
the speed of light in the medium, a technical requirement for EM
waves.

Cecil,

I showed you exactly how the energy in a standing wave travels at the
speed of light. Did you miss that message, or are you just pretending it
didn't happen?

Neither you nor your buddy Hecht are likely to overturn more than 100
years of successful use of standing waves.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing morphing to travelling waves. was r.r.a.a Laugh Riot!!!
 

On Jan 8, 9:19 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
I
explicitly described changes of one or two parameters (expressly
demanded by Cecil) and revealed that Traveling Wave antennas have
Standing Waves upon them. This is hardly a monumental observation -
except when it upsets the horse cart of celebrity.

You wasted your time, Richard. Everyone should already know that there
are received reflected waves of all different frequencies on a
traveling wave antenna. However, they can all be completely ignored
since we are only interested in the one frequency on which we are
transmitting *and* in the direction to which we are transmitting.
Introducing all the other extraneous frequencies and directions that
exist is an act of desperation.

In particular, we are not interested in the received standing waves
that are incident upon our terminated rhombic when they are coming
from the side or back of the antenna. That they exist proves
absolutely nothing of value.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

On Jan 9, 2:42 pm, Gene Fuller wrote:
I showed you exactly how the energy in a standing wave travels at the
speed of light. Did you miss that message, or are you just pretending it
didn't happen?

I don't think I missed it, Gene, but it is possible. There is no net
energy movement in a standing wave because the forward Poynting
vector, Pz+, and reverse Poynting vector, Pz-, are equal magnitude and
opposite directions. Therefore, no net energy movement is possible in
a standing wave.

In contrast to that standing wave, there is always net energy movement
in a traveling wave. If you can prove net energy movement in a
standing wave, you will have violated the definition of a standing
wave.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jan 8, 2:39 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:

But when you write the equation for the superposition of
traveling waves and claim that resultant standing wave is a different
kind of electromagnetic wave, that is a misguided point of view.


That's not true unless you consider Eugene Hecht to be misguided.

Of course it's true, and Dr. Hecht does post here.

He
said standing waves are so different from traveling waves that they
probably shouldn't even be considered to be waves at all since they
are not even moving.

On what page has Dr. Hecht written "a standing wave is a different
kind of electromagnetic wave"?

Those waveforms could hardly be any different yet you asserted that
they are linked by a trig identity.

I asserted that expression for the sum of traveling waves and the
expression for the resulting standing wave pattern are related by trig
identity, as per page 140 of the 28th Edition of the CRC Standard
Mathematical Tables Handbook.

A standing wave is not only different from an EM traveling wave, it
cannot correctly even be called an EM wave because it is not moving at
the speed of light in the medium, a technical requirement for EM
waves.

The 'wave' which stands is merely an amplitude envelope for the waves
which move. It's not a "different kind of electromagnetic wave." If
you were to instead characterize a 'standing wave' as a different kind
of interference pattern, then we would in fact be in agreement.

ac6xg

Standing morphing to travelling waves. was r.r.a.a Laugh Riot!!!
 

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:48:12 -0800 (PST), Cecil Moore
wrote:

On Jan 8, 9:19 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
I
explicitly described changes of one or two parameters (expressly
demanded by Cecil) and revealed that Traveling Wave antennas have
Standing Waves upon them. This is hardly a monumental observation -
except when it upsets the horse cart of celebrity.

You wasted your time, Richard. Everyone should already know that there
are received reflected waves of all different frequencies on a
traveling wave antenna. However, they can all be completely ignored
since we are only interested in the one frequency on which we are
transmitting *and* in the direction to which we are transmitting.
Introducing all the other extraneous frequencies and directions that
exist is an act of desperation.

In particular, we are not interested in the received standing waves
that are incident upon our terminated rhombic when they are coming
from the side or back of the antenna. That they exist proves
absolutely nothing of value.

Hi Dan,

I want you to take this quote above and observe that it offers nothing
of data, and certainly says nothing of any model (except by the
slightest of inference), and there is nothing of a practical
measurement.

It does touch on the gray matter you aspire to keep active in the
game, but only to recite homilies that do not attend the discussion.
One could as easily demand that Ohm's law describes conduction, but
say nothing about current, voltage, or resistance. Yes, all very true
about Ohm, but hardly dismissive of prior models presented or their
data that they deliver (by whatever means), nor how the sum of these
typical engineering considerations fails to conform to the logic of
Cecil's proposed argument.

By the points:
!. different frequencies is not an issue, only one has ever been
expressed;
2. direction is not an issue, excitation is by degree only, nothing
changes the energy distribution in relative phases nor period;
3. termination was not my issue (although I conformed to Cecil's
demand that it should be) as I had already accounted for it;
4. they (Standing Waves) exist may be nothing of value, but only for a
desperate celebrity who discounts his argument, impeaches his models
and disinherits their data.

If you still find EZNEC a poor mechanism to support an argument
through its means of presenting what you might call suspect data, then
the quoted response to my posting above, has to be light years further
from a rational conclusive demonstration. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing morphing to travelling waves, and other stupid notions
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jan 9, 2:42 pm, Gene Fuller wrote:
I showed you exactly how the energy in a standing wave travels at the
speed of light. Did you miss that message, or are you just pretending it
didn't happen?

I don't think I missed it, Gene, but it is possible. There is no net
energy movement in a standing wave because the forward Poynting
vector, Pz+, and reverse Poynting vector, Pz-, are equal magnitude and
opposite directions. Therefore, no net energy movement is possible in
a standing wave.

In contrast to that standing wave, there is always net energy movement
in a traveling wave. If you can prove net energy movement in a
standing wave, you will have violated the definition of a standing
wave.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


So do we now have a new requirement for waves and photons that there
must be *net* energy flow? Who cares what the average or *net* is. Think
*instantaneous* if you want to understand photons. After all, they don't
stand still, and they don't interact with each other.

You claimed that standing waves cannot be real waves because they cannot
obey photon rules. I easily demonstrated that idea is incorrect.

The message was sent on January 3, at 4:32 pm, in the thread "
Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current".


73,
Gene
W4SZ