Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

'Addition' is not a cause.


Superposition is not a cause????


Superposition *IS* addition of phasors.

Like addition, superposition is a mathematical operation. There is
without question a mathematical result to most mathematical
operations. But what does this operation itself actually cause in our
case? A physical result has been obtained, but what is its exact
cause? I don't think 'addition' is the best answer.

73, ac6xg

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:23:02 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

I don't think 'addition' is the best answer.

Hi Jim,

Do you want an actual, legitimate answer guaranteed to end the quest,
or are you having too much fun standing on Cecil's toes as he tries to
tap dance?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Superposition *IS* addition of phasors.

I don't think 'addition' is the best answer.

Well, hang your favorite word on it. A rose
by any other name ...
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:47:27 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

I have a piece of coax around here somewhere that I once burned up.

BTW, in any case in
which insulation melting occurs and we have deviated from the ideal
transmission line,

Ummm, Dan, as this is an explicitly new thread (purposely so to gouge
this thumb into the ideal eye) with such an intro as you are
responding to...
We are not in Kansas any more.

Jim's question is answered quite simply and you have offered one
yourself, generously slathered with doubt about its obvious
application.

However, my guess finds the symptoms would be more aligned with two
current nodes, not voltage. However, voltage or current, either mock
the notion of "traveling waves," as Cecil recoils in shock from the
bitter reality (his bête noire when it fails to serve his agenda) of
this contradiction.

It relates to another bitter round in his own thread of trying to
explain the confusion Hams have with Rhombic antennas and traveling
waves to then discover standing waves line up and down them:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:19:53 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Ideal traveling-wave antennas have no standing waves.

Formula:
1. The guru starts to resolve the confusion about real traveling wave
antennas to the assembled unwashed masses;
2. a voice pipes up with simple data showing standing waves on real
traveling wave antennas;
3. the guru abandons the explanation to resolve the confusion about
real traveling wave antennas;
4. the guru denounces real traveling wave antennas as being
non-ideal.

I get a kick out of Cecil, really. The built in failures of his
arguments are so scripted that mocking them is like writing for the
sit-com where Dick Van Dyke forever trips over the ottoman.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Formula:
1. The guru starts to resolve the confusion about real traveling wave
antennas to the assembled unwashed masses;
2. a voice pipes up with simple data showing standing waves on real
traveling wave antennas;
3. the guru abandons the explanation to resolve the confusion about
real traveling wave antennas;
4. the guru denounces real traveling wave antennas as being
non-ideal.

Anyone following this thread knows that the above is absolutely
false. It is akin to dismissing lossless line analysis because
lossless lines don't exist in reality.

It is true that most real world standing wave antennas also
possess traveling waves. When an antenna is 90% standing waves,
the current on the antenna is primarily standing wave current
with a phase that changes very little end to end. The traveling
wave current is almost invisible.

It is true that most real world traveling wave antennas also
possess standing waves. When an antenna is 90% traveling waves,
the current on the antenna is primarily traveling wave current
with a phase that changes with length. The standing wave current
is almost invisible.

Richard is either very confused himself or deliberately trying
to confuse others. Each reader can decide for him/herself.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:34:25 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Each reader can decide for him/herself.

Shocking!

Are you abdicating your role of Supreme Arbiter of Knowledge and
leading Guru of RF? (I didn't see any white smoke coming out of the
Vatican chimney to announce this portentous event.)

Will there be a retirement party?

Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:23:02 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:


I don't think 'addition' is the best answer.


Hi Jim,

Do you want an actual, legitimate answer guaranteed to end the quest,
or are you having too much fun standing on Cecil's toes as he tries to
tap dance?

I was hoping to get Cecil to think a bit more carefully about what he
has been saying. To provide quality, as well as quantity.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
I was hoping to get Cecil to think a bit more carefully about what he
has been saying. To provide quality, as well as quantity.

This newsgroup is not exactly an IEEE publication
subject to peer review. Methinks you are asking
too much for me to stop talking about phasor
addition of two phasors.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:24:28 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

I was hoping to get Cecil to think a bit more carefully about what he
has been saying. To provide quality, as well as quantity.

Aw, now you are shining us all on!!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 26 Dec 2007, 12:02, Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What I said is the voltage and
current in a standing wave are *always* 90 degrees out of
phase and it is impossible to generate heat when the voltage
and current are 90 degrees out of phase.

So then shouldn't one expect coax to be heated uniformly along its
length at a high SWR?

73, ac6xg

Would it not be the current flowing on the outside copper of the
coax fighting to transfer to ground while traveling to the
transmitter ground as would happen if you chose the wrong
antenna to transmit on?
Art