On 25 Dec 2007, 04:26, "Dave" wrote:
or FAQ depending on how you look at it... I should probably repeat this
regularly on here.

This newsgroup should NOT be used as a reference source for concepts or
equations regarding fields, waves, transmission lines, or other physical
phenomena. *Please consult published text books and peer reviewed journals
for analysis of technical questions. *The regular contributors in this group
have a wide variety of misconceptions and erroneous views which they
frequently throw in as if they were well known facts.

On the lighter side, it can be fun now and then to throw them a simple
problem and watch them swarm around like a kicked hornet nest.

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. No need for books if you quest is an arguement.
Thus you are a model member of this newsgroup.What goes around comes
around.
Your buddy
Art

art wrote:
On 25 Dec 2007, 04:26, "Dave" wrote:
or FAQ depending on how you look at it... I should probably repeat this
regularly on here.

This newsgroup should NOT be used as a reference source for concepts or
equations regarding fields, waves, transmission lines, or other physical
phenomena. Please consult published text books and peer reviewed journals
for analysis of technical questions. The regular contributors in this group
have a wide variety of misconceptions and erroneous views which they
frequently throw in as if they were well known facts.

On the lighter side, it can be fun now and then to throw them a simple
problem and watch them swarm around like a kicked hornet nest.

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. No need for books if you quest is an arguement.
Thus you are a model member of this newsgroup.What goes around comes
around.
Your buddy
Art

Hi Art,
The arrogance and false superiority evidenced in Dave's post can
only be learned in a university. Dave is an old regular on this
newsgroup who has posted under many different names over the years.
Pay him no attention.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On 6 Jan, 17:04, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
art wrote:
On 25 Dec 2007, 04:26, "Dave" wrote:
or FAQ depending on how you look at it... I should probably repeat this
regularly on here.

This newsgroup should NOT be used as a reference source for concepts or
equations regarding fields, waves, transmission lines, or other physical
phenomena. *Please consult published text books and peer reviewed journals
for analysis of technical questions. *The regular contributors in this group
have a wide variety of misconceptions and erroneous views which they
frequently throw in as if they were well known facts.

On the lighter side, it can be fun now and then to throw them a simple
problem and watch them swarm around like a kicked hornet nest.

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. No need for books if you quest is an arguement.
Thus you are a model member of this newsgroup.What goes around comes
around.
Your buddy
Art

Hi Art,
* * * * *The arrogance and false superiority evidenced in Dave's post can
only be learned in a university. Dave is an old regular on this
newsgroup who has posted under many different names over the years.
Pay him no attention.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But Tom,
this newsgroup is for auguments. Nobody is responding to the science
of antennas. Nobody has the knoweledge to refute statements supplied
How about just you and I discuss radiation and how it is created?
That sort of thing may interest people other than the instant experts.
For instance, I would love a counter discussion to what I have
theorised
even if it shows me to be in error, but this requires more than
handwaving . I know you are knoweledgable about the things I have
discussed where as others are still back in the old days and thus
cannot contribute on a modern basis..
If we make a "field" all will follow and leave the puffed up pretend
experts in the dust. At least the thread would NOT consist mainly of
one person which would be a change.On top of that they would read a
civil discussion that has not happened in a long while.
As for Dave he has not had what is known as a education,Witness his
denials of static versus dynamic fields, where I know of no written
text book that alignes with him. You just can't fake an engineering
structured education.
Best regards
Art

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 21:07:11 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

But you said (in CAPS), "8:1 as evidenced by CURRENT on the wire. :-), You
cannot make a SWR measurement on a receive antenna any other way." Sorry if
the CAPS made my response look terse but I was only repeating your word
verbatim.

Hi Dan,

All very true, but the meaning to you is what you are questioning I am
quite sure, and as I am quite comfortable with what I meant (I wrote
it after all), just what is your question?

Given that, just as with the voltage VSWR, the current standing wave is
merely a depiction of the envelope of maximum amd minimum current values at
the various points along distance kx, how do you measure the standing wave
current on the wire?

It is reported with every other aspect of the antenna by EZNEC. You
should acquaint yourself with the common reports provided by it or
other modelers in the NEC field.

Do you use a current loop and measure the maxima and
minima of a great number of points on a line and then plot the ISWR outer
envelope on graph paper? My point is that standing wave current does not
travel through the wire, it merely oscillates at different max/min
amplitudes on each of the infinite number of points on the line. It cannot
be measured directly with a current loop.

Traveling? You've got yourself twisted around the axle. I've
measured these phenomenon professionally, to NBS standards across the
full range of RF out to 12GHz. Although the technique can be heavily
invested with up-front work, and certain methods must be chosen with
care, conceptually it is quite simple.

The VSWR meter on the ham rig is merely looking at the balance of forward
and reflected "power" and it is calibrated to read it out as VSWR (or SWR).
It may as well say "ISWR"; it is all the same thing. But it is not measured
by sensing either voltage ot current going into the antenna...it measures
the delta power.

99% of correspondents here have never had any experience with
determining SWR beyond the meter you just described. SWR was being
measured long before its invention, and you would be hard pressed to
find one in a laboratory (except as a customer's item to be tested).

Now, if you would simply take my advice to heart: strip away the
static and ask the question that is plaguing you.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
It is reported with every other aspect of the antenna by EZNEC.

TravWave.EZ is not really an antenna. It is a loaded 1/4WL single-
wire transmission line designed to display the nature of
traveling waves. Take a look at the current phase vs the current
phase of StndWave.EZ. Both files are available from my web page.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:18:04 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
It is reported with every other aspect of the antenna by EZNEC.

TravWave.EZ is not really an antenna.

It is more an artificial ground toaster. It bears no more
relationship to an antenna than its applicability to
Standing/Traveling Waves does to the Prince of Orange.

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:18:04 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
It is reported with every other aspect of the antenna by EZNEC.
TravWave.EZ is not really an antenna.

It is more an artificial ground toaster. It bears no more
relationship to an antenna than its applicability to
Standing/Traveling Waves does to the Prince of Orange.

Your motive with all this handing waving is unclear.
It's only purpose is to illustrate traveling waves on a
single piece of wire. You can make the wire 1/4WL or any
other length. And the same thing can be illustrated by a
model of a terminated rhombic antenna in free space.

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

This is a terminated rhombic in free space. The termination
resistor is 880 ohms and the 880 ohm feedpoint SWR is 1.032:1.
Take a look at the current with and without the phase. Then
compare that traveling-wave current to the standing-wave current
on a 1/2WL dipole. Or simply learn enough math to tell the
difference between Io*cos(kx)*cos(wt) and Io*cos(kx+wt).
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Sorry Jim, but [Io*cos(kx)*cos(wt)] and [Io*cos(kx+wt)] *ARE*
different.

Evidently, you can't recognize a trig identity when you see one.

One really should take a look at the math before waving one's
hands and opening one's mouth in ignorance.

Please enlighten us as to exactly what trig "identity" will make
the following terms equal.

E1*e^j(wt-kx) ?=? E2*e^j(wt-kx) + E2*e^j(wt+kx)

Seems to me the only condition for which they are equal is when
E2=0, i.e. when reflections (and therefore standing waves) don't
exist.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:09:44 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Your motive with all this handing waving is unclear.
It's only purpose is to illustrate traveling waves on a
single piece of wire.

Three pieces of wire, one of them yours (a piece of trash as you
describe it; and two of mine, following the conventions of their
designers). The demonstration is remarkable enough to accomplish what
you set out to do, clear up the confusion about standing waves on a
Rhombic, and then later a Beverage

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:09:44 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:


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

This is a terminated rhombic in free space. The termination
resistor is 880 ohms and the 880 ohm feedpoint SWR is 1.032:1.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with Standing Waves ON THE
ANTENNA.

On wire 1, the variation that is swinging along the line like any
other Standing Wave antenna of length greater than a quarter wave. The
value is higher than your "source SWR," of course.

Take a look at the current with and without the phase.

Swinging 180 degrees at 6 or 7 degrees per segment. Exactly like my
earlier reports in contrast to your proclamations.

Then
compare that traveling-wave current to the standing-wave current
on a 1/2WL dipole. Or simply learn enough math to tell the
difference between Io*cos(kx)*cos(wt) and Io*cos(kx+wt).

I was there weeks ago ahead of you where the formula applies (on the
wire, not an EZNEC report of source SWR).

It was more interesting to compare your Rhombic to itself in a closer
to ground situation (elevated 12 feet above a real, high accuracy
ground).

SWR there, out of the gate (not at the source) and on the antenna wire
itself (where traveling waves would be presumed to inhabit the
design):
SWR: 1.15
Further down the wires, radiation loss does ameliorate this
SWR: 1.08
Still in excess of your Source SWR, which, obviously has nothing to do
with STANDING/TRAVELING WAVES ON THE WIRE.

Nice of you to confirm every point I made in refuting your claims.

Others are free to observe every classic indication of Standing Waves
upon a "Traveling Wave" antenna, complete with phase shift as I had
reported some time ago.