On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:55:37 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
A traveling-wave antenna needs an SWR close to ~1:1 to be
a good example. Whether by accident or on purpose, yours
is a very poor example.

I used your Traveling Wave antenna. :-

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

Good grief, Richard! You cannot use the 8.4:1 50 ohm SWR
reading for the SWR on a wire with a characteristic
impedance of 411 ohms. I see what you did now and it
is was more than stupid.

The load resistor is 411 ohms.

So it was, so it is, and so shall it always be to demonstrate a
dramatic variation of CURRENT. All rather standard stuff. The SWR
report from EZNEC is source based, and that source was 100km distant
from the RECEIVE antenna - wholly remote from my care and
consideration. I didn't make your mistake, you made it alone for
yourself. Mount it like a trophy on your mantle with the rest.

With great misfortune, TravWave.EZ is, as you say, an atrocious
antenna, and nothing like what Beverage designed which my second
example more clearly reveals. I simply used your poor antenna so as
to increase the likelihood of its impeachment by its designer. This,
of course, triggered the script where that author condemned his own
creation; and all the choreographed marks were hit precisely as
anticipated.

Dear readers,

With such limp struggles as offered by Cecil, this has long passed the
point of being a challenge. It rarely takes much effort to crack his
arguments open, but having done it several times here alone, it can
only be described as a Sado-Masochistic spectacle. My arm is getting
tired with swinging the whip and Cecil's groans have long since lost
their siren call. Perhaps some future outrage from Cecil will
invigorate the song of the lash.

When dawn breaks, it will no doubt reveal TravWave.EZ disowned and
cast out of the home as a fraud. I will undoubtedly be described as
its immoral progenitor because TravWave.EZ is so obviously the spawn
of a demented troglodyte slipped into Cecil's nest like a cuckoo's
egg.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:
There is zero real power in standing
waves.

The sentence is true, and is without need of the words 'real' and
'standing' to make it so.

Therefore, standing waves did not destroy the
coax.

:-) Yes and no. Were it not for waves standing on the coax, there
would have been no damage to the coax, and there wouldn't be an
explanation for the damage pattern. So your 'truism' has some
significant caveats. I guess that makes it more of a ....'half-truism'.

By the process of elimination, it was traveling
waves that destroyed the coax.

Kinda tough to have a standing wave in the absence of traveling waves
now, isn't it.

During the initial transient state, traveling wave
energy becomes standing wave energy that exists
through steady-state.

So there's energy in the standing waves, but not power. Apparently
they're like traveling waves......that stand!

Probably best not to assume it's a 'different kind of wave' in the
first place. Maybe it would be better just to think of it as a
pattern formed by traveling waves - an appearance that traveling waves
can have under certain circumstances which produces stationary effects.

Yes I know that's basically what you've been trying to say "all
along", but you were saying it so poorly that it was indistinguishable
from fantasy.

J. C. Slater says it is more likely that the damage
occurred at the current nodes rather than at the
voltage nodes.

I didn't even know he was there! But it is consistent with what J.W.
Kelley has said about it. :-)

73, ac6xg

I haven't been following this particular discussion of "standing wave
antennas" vs "traveling wave antennas" because it looks to me like just
another diversion to avoid confronting the sticky problems with
alternative theories, and one that's been used and discussed many times
before. But I see that EZNEC's report of SWR has been mentioned, so I'd
like to make sure that readers understand what it means.

EZNEC reports an "SWR" for each source, and will also plot this as a
function of frequency. This is *not* the SWR on an antenna (assuming
that you can even rigorously define it), nor is it necessarily the SWR
on a transmission line to which the source is connected, if it is
connected to a line. It's only an alternate way of describing the
impedance seen by the source, just like your transmitter's SWR meter.
The reported SWR is the the SWR which would exist on a 50 ohm
transmission line if that transmission line were connected between the
source and its load, whether one is or not. It shows the same value as
your transmitter SWR meter would if you replaced the source with your
transmitter. An alternate SWR Z0 value can be specified so you can also
see what the SWR would be on a transmission line of some other
impedance. It's not necessary, or even likely, that there will be a
transmission line or even wire (again, if you can even define SWR for a
single conductor) which actually has an SWR equal to the value reported
by EZNEC.

If you were to connect your transmitter to a 50 ohm load through a half
wavelength 300 ohm transmission line, the SWR on the transmission line
would be 6:1, but your rig's SWR meter would read 1:1. If you modeled
this with EZNEC, it would show the 50 ohm SWR as 1:1 (like your
transmitter SWR meter). If you set the alternate SWR Z0 to 300 ohms, it
would correctly show the 300 ohm SWR to be 6:1. If you connected your
transmitter directly to a 150 ohm resistor, your rig's SWR meter (and
EZNEC's 50 ohm SWR) would read 3:1, even though there is no transmission
line of any impedance and therefore no standing waves anywhere.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:55:37 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
A traveling-wave antenna needs an SWR close to ~1:1 to be
a good example. Whether by accident or on purpose, yours
is a very poor example.
I used your Traveling Wave antenna. :-
http://www.w5dxp.com/TravWave.EZ

Good grief, Richard! You cannot use the 8.4:1 50 ohm SWR
reading for the SWR on a wire with a characteristic
impedance of 411 ohms. I see what you did now and it
is was more than stupid.

The load resistor is 411 ohms.

So it was, so it is, and so shall it always be to demonstrate a
dramatic variation of CURRENT. All rather standard stuff. The SWR
report from EZNEC is source based, and that source was 100km distant
from the RECEIVE antenna - wholly remote from my care and
consideration. I didn't make your mistake, you made it alone for
yourself. Mount it like a trophy on your mantle with the rest.

With great misfortune, TravWave.EZ is, as you say, an atrocious
antenna, and nothing like what Beverage designed which my second
example more clearly reveals. I simply used your poor antenna so as
to increase the likelihood of its impeachment by its designer. This,
of course, triggered the script where that author condemned his own
creation; and all the choreographed marks were hit precisely as
anticipated.

Dear readers,

With such limp struggles as offered by Cecil, this has long passed the
point of being a challenge. It rarely takes much effort to crack his
arguments open, but having done it several times here alone, it can
only be described as a Sado-Masochistic spectacle. My arm is getting
tired with swinging the whip and Cecil's groans have long since lost
their siren call. Perhaps some future outrage from Cecil will
invigorate the song of the lash.

When dawn breaks, it will no doubt reveal TravWave.EZ disowned and
cast out of the home as a fraud. I will undoubtedly be described as
its immoral progenitor because TravWave.EZ is so obviously the spawn
of a demented troglodyte slipped into Cecil's nest like a cuckoo's
egg.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
The load resistor is 411 ohms.

So it was, so it is, and so shall it always be to demonstrate a
dramatic variation of CURRENT. All rather standard stuff. The SWR
report from EZNEC is source based, ...

That's your stupid mistake. The SWR on the wire is load-
based and is equal to 1.025:1, close enough to call that
wire a traveling-wave configuration. If you are so stupid
that you don't even recognize your stupid mistake, I don't
think anything can be done for you.

The load is 411 ohms. The Z0 of the wire is close to 411
ohms. The SWR on the wire is close to 1:1. It is a traveling
wave configuration essentially devoid of standing waves.
The traveling wave current pattern is obvious.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:33:28 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

But I see that EZNEC's report of SWR has been mentioned, so I'd
like to make sure that readers understand what it means.

Hi Roy,

Cecil simply presumed (without reading the antenna specification, nor
trusting his own design) that my report of SWR was based on a source
exciting the line.

First, and evidence of his poor reading skills, I specified that I had
constructed a remote transmitter antenna to excite the test antenna
(there were two). As you offer in unquoted material, the SWR report
would have related to that source, in its own environment. I was
wholly unconcerned with that, specifically. All SWR determinations
followed the rather more prosaic method of simply observing current
magnitudes along the length of the line, much like my work at the
bench when I made similar measurements with similar techniques
traceable to NBS.

Second, and with attention to his own reference citation that a
Beverage antenna "...has no standing waves resulting from radio
signals;" I introduced this remote excitation to provide just that:
"radio signals" and not transmit excitation. Obviously, Cecil spends
more time Xeroxing authorities than reading them.

So, the net effect is I used his model, and his referenced authority,
pulled them together into a simple test which shows that, yes,
standing waves inhabit the length of HIS traveling wave antenna when
it is excited externally (as it must to conform to his authority). As
Cecil has condemned his own design, I then also repeated this exercise
with a design that more faithfully follows Beverage's design
principles.

Rather simple stuff.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:
Were it not for waves standing on the coax, there would
have been no damage to the coax, ...

Were it not for traveling waves, there would be no
standing waves and no damage to the coax.

Kinda tough to have a standing wave in the absence of traveling waves
now, isn't it.

Exactly, but that supports my side of the argument.

So there's energy in the standing waves, but not power.

At the risk of you developing apoplexy, there is reactive
power in the standing waves, as defined in The IEEE Dictionary.

Probably best not to assume it's a 'different kind of wave' in the first
place.

Sorry Jim, but [Io*cos(kx)*cos(wt)] and [Io*cos(kx+wt)] *ARE*
different. If you don't know enough math to realize that by
looking at the equations, please go alleviate your ignorance.

Yes I know that's basically what you've been trying to say "all along",
but you were saying it so poorly ...

Sorry, my native tongue is Texan. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I haven't been following this particular discussion of "standing wave
antennas" vs "traveling wave antennas" ...

It certainly has a bearing on whether standing wave current
can be used to determine the delay through a 75m loading coil
like you have said it can. Please take a look at the current
phase reported by EZNEC and tell us once again how an constant
phase at all points on the antenna at any particular time can
be used to measure delay through the wire.

This is *not* the SWR on an antenna ... An alternate SWR Z0
value can be specified so you can also see what the SWR would
be on a transmission line of some other impedance.

Richard C., are you reading this straight from the horse's mouth?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:03:04 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The SWR on the wire is load-
based and is equal to
8:1 as evidenced by CURRENT on the wire. :-)

You cannot make a SWR measurement on a receive antenna any other way.

Richard Clark wrote:
So, the net effect is I used his model, and his referenced authority,
pulled them together into a simple test which shows that, yes,
standing waves inhabit the length of HIS traveling wave antenna when
it is excited externally (as it must to conform to his authority). As
Cecil has condemned his own design, I then also repeated this exercise
with a design that more faithfully follows Beverage's design
principles.

I didn't even look at what you were doing but you were
*NOT* using my model so please quit fibbing about it.
If you are going to excite my example remotely, you
need a 411 ohm load resistor on each end of the wire.
I assume you are ignorant of that fact of physics.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:03:04 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The SWR on the wire is load-
based and is equal to
8:1 as evidenced by CURRENT on the wire. :-)

You cannot make a SWR measurement on a receive antenna any other way.

My TravWave.EZ file doesn't have a receive antenna so
your comment is irrelevant.

By your way of thinking, The SWR on the transmit antenna
has to be the same as the SWR on the receive antenna.
I have rarely ever heard such absolute cagada.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com