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