colinear representation in NEC
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Exactly why I plonked him a few years ago.

Roy, I remember it well. You plonked me when I
reminded you that an antenna is a distributed
network and NOT a lumped circuit. Anyone can
verify that simply by googling the newsgroup.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
It's like having a conversation with a recorded message.

On my end, it's like trying to communicate with
an I/O interface that is all output and no input.
I have no other choice but to repeat the questions
that you, so far, have refused to answer.

So here is it again: How can one use the total
current in a 1/4WL monopole, which changes phase
by 3 degrees in 90 degrees of antenna, to measure
the delay through a wire or a loading coil?

It's a really simple question, Jim. Either one
can or one cannot.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Owen Duffy wrote in
:

....
I have been quiet here, but have been modelling and writing notes up
on the results. I have asked for comment on a draft model, and subject
to that, I will post the URL for further comments, hopefully in a day
or two.

http://www.vk1od.net/antenna/ccps/index.htm

Owen

colinear representation in NEC
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
It's like having a conversation with a recorded message.

I have no other choice but to repeat the questions
that you, so far, have refused to answer.

Beeep. Check Google newsgroups, yesterday at 7:11 PM.

ac6xg

colinear representation in NEC
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Beeep. Check Google newsgroups, yesterday at 7:11 PM.

Beeep. Check this very newsgroup. I already responded
to that posting. You didn't answer the question. We
are not talking about discontinuities. We are talking
about a straight 1/4WL piece of wire. So allow me to
keep asking until I get a reasonable response:

EZNEC says there is ~3 degrees of phase change in the
current in 90 degrees of monopole. How can that current
be used to measure the delay through 'n' degrees of
monopole?

For instance - in 30 degrees of monopole, the current
shifts phase by one degree. What *exactly* does that
indicate? Wouldn't the delay be more accurately
measured by comparing the ARCCOSine of the amplitudes?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Richard Clark wrote:
You have experienced the famous time conjugated
answer-preceding-the-question paradox of Cecil's information
transformation.

OK, Richard, I admit that you caught me asking rhetorical
questions - Congratulations!
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Richard Clark wrote in
:

Richard,

If it doesn't come through on an initial read, I have tried to deconstruct
the fig a) / Fig 1 configuration, and then synthesise it with another
structure with and without the common mode current path, and observe the
effect on current distribution... then compare that with the TL
representation.

If the development isn't clear, I have some more work to do!

....
I will have to revisit the comments in this thread and tie them to the
cogent points of your page.

Constructive comments are always welcome, and appreciated.

Thanks
Owen

colinear representation in NEC
 

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:05:05 -0700 (PDT), Jim Kelley
wrote:



Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
It's like having a conversation with a recorded message.

I have no other choice but to repeat the questions
that you, so far, have refused to answer.

Beeep. Check Google newsgroups, yesterday at 7:11 PM.

Hi Jim,

You have experienced the famous time conjugated
answer-preceding-the-question paradox of Cecil's information
transformation. What Cecil is saying (we are now employing the random
byte discard from the data babblefield):
you have misunderstood your answer to the question I am asking now.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

colinear representation in NEC
 

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:13:36 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

Owen Duffy wrote in
:

...
I have been quiet here, but have been modelling and writing notes up
on the results. I have asked for comment on a draft model, and subject
to that, I will post the URL for further comments, hopefully in a day
or two.

http://www.vk1od.net/antenna/ccps/index.htm

Owen

Hi Owen,

This is a lot to digest at this time, but at least it is all in one
place and done well.

You offer several many solutions (to what are arguably straw men
hypothesis such as the W5GI mystery antenna) and there are certainly
gaps that beg filling: Fig. 2 is rather anemic as is the original
supporting commentary.

I offered a comment long ago that my best guess was that phasing would
seem to separate your two examples. That seems to have been both
vindicated and rejected through the numerous examples - I've lost
track of the focus.

I will have to revisit the comments in this thread and tie them to the
cogent points of your page.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

colinear representation in NEC
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
EZNEC says there is ~3 degrees of phase change in the
current in 90 degrees of monopole. How can that current
be used to measure the delay through 'n' degrees of
monopole?

I have absolutely no idea. Sounds like you've made an error somewhere.

ac6xg

colinear representation in NEC
 

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:27:57 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

I will have to revisit the comments in this thread and tie them to the
cogent points of your page.

Constructive comments are always welcome, and appreciated.

Hi Owen,

I can well appreciate the issue of common mode driven by coupling to
the field. The work-arounds I would have expected Roy to have offered
would have been a combination of the TL faculty of NEC for the
differential mode, and an appendix-like wire to support the common
mode contribution. The lack of this discussion where it often appears
in other threads leaves me to wonder if other issues are being
discussed here; hence my problem with topic focus.

As for the modeling of a coaxial transmission line by wires, I have
fairly convinced myself that that approach is thoroughly dead (having
seen no contrary response to my comment about the concept of a Faraday
Shield being unknown to NEC).

By these two, it would seem that modeling coaxial components in NEC is
intractable and claims applied to their use will only be
proven/disproven in the lab or the field.

Proceeding from this last conclusion, I cannot see any purpose to the
comparison of the two colinear representations. You certainly bring
many issues to bear, but except for vague references that are 60 years
old, I don't see any solution to your original questions (which is
where I thought the focus resided).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

colinear representation in NEC
 

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:08:52 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

OK, Richard, I admit that you caught me asking rhetorical
questions - Congratulations!

Congratulations? In noting the absolute uniform homogeneity for the
technical equivalent of:
"Are we there yet?"

Cheap kudos with the equivalent buying power of shares in Lehman
Brothers.
"Are we solvent yet?"

colinear representation in NEC
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
EZNEC says there is ~3 degrees of phase change in the
current in 90 degrees of monopole. How can that current
be used to measure the delay through 'n' degrees of
monopole?

I have absolutely no idea. Sounds like you've made an error somewhere.

Nope, there's no error. Roy once verified that the total
current in a standing wave antenna, like a dipole, changes
phase very little over the 180 degree length of the 1/2WL
dipole. Yet, he used that same total current with its unchanging
phase to try to measure the delay through a loading coil.

In "Antennas", Kraus' plot of the total current on a dipole,
(Figure 14-2 on page 464 in the 3rd edition) also shows that
same 3 degree phase change in the total current over the 180
degree length of a 1/2WL dipole thus agreeing with EZNEC.

If one cannot detect a phase shift in 25 degrees of 1/4WL
monopole or 1/2WL dipole using the total current, how can
one expect to detect a phase shift in 25 degrees of loading
coil using that same constant phase current?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
According to the plots that I've seen, the standing wave pattern will
show a discontinuous change in amplitude at positions where there is an
abrupt change in phase of the traveling waves.

There's no discontinuity because the 180 degree phase shift
occurs at an amplitude zero crossing, i.e. when the phase
shift occurs, the amplitude is zero. But please note the
phase shift doesn't occur at all on a 1/4WL (or shorter)
monopole.

Since a
standing wave can be considered an amplitude vs phase plot (where both
phase and amplitude vary with position) ...

For the standing wave function, I(x,t)=Io*cos(x)*cos(wt),
the phase at any point x, for a particular (t), doesn't
change phase. Set t=0 and vary x to see what happens.
Only the amplitude changes with x. That's why standing
wave current phase cannot be used to measure the delay
through a loading coil.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:27:57 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:


By these two, it would seem that modeling coaxial components in NEC is
intractable and claims applied to their use will only be
proven/disproven in the lab or the field.


Depends on what you want to do with modeling coaxial components. A wire
to represent the (radiating)outside, and an appropriate NT or TL to
represent the (non radiating) inside works fairly well.

If you actually want to model the cable itself (including the fields
inside), I suspect it won't work so well. MoM codes in general often
don't deal with modeling the fields inside closed boxes very well.

I suspect that the cases where it doesn't are basically in the category
of things that MoM codes don't do well with in general, and you need to
go to a different kind of model (FDTD? etc.)

colinear representation in NEC
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Since a standing wave can be considered an amplitude vs phase plot
(where both phase and amplitude vary with position) ...

For the standing wave function, I(x,t)=Io*cos(x)*cos(wt),
the phase at any point x, for a particular (t), doesn't
change phase. Set t=0 and vary x to see what happens.
Only the amplitude changes with x. That's why standing
wave current phase cannot be used to measure the delay
through a loading coil.

The term x is the phase of the cosine function, Cecil. The phase of the
standing wave function varies by 90 degrees along the length of a 1/4
wave resonant standing wave antenna.

ac6xg

colinear representation in NEC
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
The term x is the phase of the cosine function, Cecil. The phase of the
standing wave function varies by 90 degrees along the length of a 1/4
wave resonant standing wave antenna.

I'm sorry, Jim, that is just not true. The standing-wave
function has a *constant phase* along the length of a 1/4WL
monopole for any fixed (t). Cos(x) is the *envelope amplitude*
function (not phase function) for any fixed (t).

What Gene Fuller said previously is true regarding the
cos(kz)*cos(wt) term in a standing wave:

Gene Fuller, W4SZ wrote:
In a standing wave antenna problem, such as the one you describe,
there is no remaining phase information. Any specific phase
characteristics of the traveling waves died out when the startup
transients died out.

Phase is gone. Kaput. Vanished. Cannot be recovered. Never to be
seen again.

The only "phase" remaining is the cos (kz) term, which is really
an amplitude description, not a phase.

One can ask EZNEC to display the phase of the total current.
When one does that, one will see that the phase is ~constant
for a 1/4WL thin wire monopole over mininec ground. The change
in amplitude is what allows us to calculate the actual delay
through the wire using an ARCCOS function.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
The term x is the phase of the cosine function, Cecil. The phase of
the standing wave function varies by 90 degrees along the length of a
1/4 wave resonant standing wave antenna.

I'm sorry, Jim, that is just not true. The standing-wave
function has a *constant phase* along the length of a 1/4WL
monopole for any fixed (t). Cos(x) is the *envelope amplitude*
function (not phase function) for any fixed (t).

Refer to a table of sines and observe the two things which vary
throughout the period of any sinusoidal wave. One of them is amplitude.
What would you prefer I call the other one?

ac6xg

colinear representation in NEC
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Refer to a table of sines and observe the two things which vary
throughout the period of any sinusoidal wave. One of them is amplitude.
What would you prefer I call the other one?

Did you not understand what Gene Fuller said?
Io*cos(kx) is the amplitude term. If kx=0 then
the amplitude is Io. If kx=pi/4, the amplitude
is 0.707*Io. If kx=pi/2, the amplitude is zero.
cos(wt) does not vary with (x), only with time.
At any snapshot in time, e.g. t=0, the phase
does not vary at all.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Refer to a table of sines and observe the two things which vary
throughout the period of any sinusoidal wave. One of them is
amplitude. What would you prefer I call the other one?

Did you not understand what Gene Fuller said?

Somebody once made a claim about answering a question with a question.
He said that it was a means of diversion. Clearly that is the case.

It's no coincidence that the phase of the standing wave varies by 90
degrees along the length of a 90 degree standing wave antenna.

ac6xg

colinear representation in NEC
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
It's no coincidence that the phase of the standing wave varies by 90
degrees along the length of a 90 degree standing wave antenna.

But it doesn't, Jim. Both Kraus and EZNEC agree that
standing wave current phase varies by only ~3 degrees
over the entire length of a 180 degree wire dipole
(referenced to the phase at the feedpoint).

If you slide a current probe up and down a 1/2WL wire
dipole, you will find that the phase referenced to
the phase at the feedpoint barely changes and cannot
be used to determine position on the dipole. The
position along the dipole is contained in the amplitude.
The ARCCOS of the relative amplitude will yield the
position along the dipole.

Please read what Gene Fuller said:

Gene Fuller, W4SZ wrote:
In a standing wave antenna problem, such as the one you describe,
there is no remaining phase information. Any specific phase
characteristics of the traveling waves died out when the startup
transients died out.

Phase is gone. Kaput. Vanished. Cannot be recovered. Never to be
seen again.

The only "phase" remaining is the cos (kz) term, which is really
an amplitude description, not a phase.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
It's no coincidence that the phase of the standing wave varies by 90
degrees along the length of a 90 degree standing wave antenna.

Here's the phase of the standing wave along 90 degrees
of monopole as reported by EZNEC. Clearly, your assertion
is false as the current phase varies by only 2.62 degrees
between segment 1 and segment 10.

1/4WL Vertical over real gnd 4/7/2009 7:33:02 AM
--------------- CURRENT DATA ---------------
Frequency = 7.2 MHz
Wire No. 1:
Segment Conn Magnitude (A.) Phase (Deg.)
1 Ground 1 0.00
2 .97418 -0.40
3 .92577 -0.80
4 .85611 -1.14
5 .76657 -1.44
6 .65894 -1.71
7 .53532 -1.96
8 .39796 -2.20
9 .24889 -2.42
10 Open .08785 -2.62

--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
It's no coincidence that the phase of the standing wave varies by 90
degrees along the length of a 90 degree standing wave antenna.

But it doesn't, Jim. Both Kraus and EZNEC agree that
standing wave current phase varies by only ~3 degrees
over the entire length of a 180 degree wire dipole
(referenced to the phase at the feedpoint).

You're always trying to drag other people into your messes. So now, in
addition to waves of average power and the 4th mechanism of reflection,
we have waves that don't change phase. :-)

Fine business OM.

ac6xg

colinear representation in NEC
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
So now, in we have waves that don't change phase. :-)

Yes, and w7el has verified that fact either on this
newsgroup or another newsgroup. If you have EZNEC,
you can easily verify it for yourself - anyone can.

Here's what Hecht said in "Optics" regarding standing
wave phase: "It (the standing wave phasor) doesn't
rotate at all, and the resultant wave it represents
doesn't progress through space - its a standing wave."
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
So now, in we have waves that don't change phase. :-)

Yes, and w7el has verified that fact either on this
newsgroup or another newsgroup. If you have EZNEC,
you can easily verify it for yourself - anyone can.

It's absurd to talk about waves that don't change phase, Cecil. If 'it'
does not change phase in some dimension, then 'it' is not a wave. Again
I refer you to a table of sines.

Here's what Hecht said in "Optics" regarding standing
wave phase: "It (the standing wave phasor) doesn't
rotate at all, and the resultant wave it represents
doesn't progress through space - its a standing wave."

Hecht knew exactly what he was talking about. It's not always evident
that you know exactly what Hecht is talking about.

ac6xg

colinear representation in NEC
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
So now, in we have waves that don't change phase. :-)

Yes, and w7el has verified that fact either on this
newsgroup or another newsgroup. If you have EZNEC,
you can easily verify it for yourself - anyone can.

It's absurd to talk about waves that don't change phase, Cecil. If 'it'
does not change phase in some dimension, then 'it' is not a wave. Again
I refer you to a table of sines.

Here's what Hecht said in "Optics" regarding standing
wave phase: "It (the standing wave phasor) doesn't
rotate at all, and the resultant wave it represents
doesn't progress through space - its a standing wave."

Hecht knew exactly what he was talking about. It's not always evident
that you know exactly what Hecht is talking about.

ac6xg

There's not much point in arguing with Cecil, Jim. He won't stop
playing the one-note samba until he's too old to whistle the tune.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

colinear representation in NEC
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
It's absurd to talk about waves that don't change phase, Cecil. If 'it'
does not change phase in some dimension, then 'it' is not a wave.

Yes, my point exactly and that's what a couple of my
references say - that standing waves are not waves at
all. I'm glad that we agree that a standing wave does
not meet the definition of a wave.

"College Physics", by Bueche and Hecht:
"These ... patterns are called *standing waves*, as
compared to the propagating waves considered above.
They might better not be called waves at all, since
they do not transport energy and momentum."

"Electrical Communication", by Albert:
"Such a plot of voltage is usually referred to as a
*voltage standing wave* or as a *stationary wave*.
Neither of these terms is particularly descriptive
of the phenomenon. A plot of effective values of
voltage, appearing as in Fig. 6(e), *is not a wave*
in the usual sense. However, the term "standing wave"
is in widespread use."

Please contact w7el and ask him if the total current
on a 90 degree monopole changes by 90 degrees over
its length. Please tell us what he says.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
There's not much point in arguing with Cecil, Jim. He won't stop
playing the one-note samba until he's too old to whistle the tune.

No technical content - just an ad-hominem attack.
Sometimes I feel like Galileo up against the Catholic
priests. Like Galileo, I may not live to see the
technical facts accepted by you gurus.

Tom, you cannot seriously assert that the standing wave
current changes by 90 degrees in 90 degrees of monopole
when simply mathematics proves that is not the case.

For a pure standing wave, Io*cos(kx) is the amplitude.
cos(wt) is the phase. It is obvious that the phase of
a standing wave doesn't change with (x) - it only changes
with (t). What is it about Gene Fuller previous posting
with which you disagree?

Gene Fuller, W4SZ wrote:
In a standing wave antenna problem, such as the one you describe,
there is no remaining phase information. Any specific phase
characteristics of the traveling waves died out when the startup
transients died out.

Phase is gone. Kaput. Vanished. Cannot be recovered. Never to be
seen again.

The only "phase" remaining is the cos (kz) term, which is really
an amplitude description, not a phase.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
So now, in
addition to the 4th mechanism of reflection, ...

Three years ago, I removed that 4th mechanism of
reflection from my energy article in favor of
"redistribution" instead of "reflection". About
a year ago, I told you that and predicted that
you would regurgitate that same old dead horse
sometime in the future. Thanks for proving me
correct in my prediction.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:17:50 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Sometimes I feel like Galileo

A doddering pro-hominem defense by consuming a corpse's reputation as
a Nobel laxitive.

colinear representation in NEC
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
There's not much point in arguing with Cecil, Jim. He won't stop
playing the one-note samba until he's too old to whistle the tune.

No technical content - just an ad-hominem attack.
Sometimes I feel like Galileo up against the Catholic
priests. Like Galileo, I may not live to see the
technical facts accepted by you gurus.

Tom, you cannot seriously assert that the standing wave
current changes by 90 degrees in 90 degrees of monopole
when simply mathematics proves that is not the case.

For a pure standing wave, Io*cos(kx) is the amplitude.
cos(wt) is the phase. It is obvious that the phase of
a standing wave doesn't change with (x) - it only changes
with (t). What is it about Gene Fuller previous posting
with which you disagree?

Gene Fuller, W4SZ wrote:
In a standing wave antenna problem, such as the one you describe,
there is no remaining phase information. Any specific phase
characteristics of the traveling waves died out when the startup
transients died out.

Phase is gone. Kaput. Vanished. Cannot be recovered. Never to be seen
again.

The only "phase" remaining is the cos (kz) term, which is really an
amplitude description, not a phase.

Cecil,
I don't know how to break this to you, but, you're not Galileo,
not even close. You and Gene also got the formula wrong, or at least you
didn't get the complete formula for two waves passing in opposite
directions deep in the night. It's doubtful you even know what the kx
in your formula really stands for.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

colinear representation in NEC
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
So now, in addition to the 4th mechanism of reflection, ...

Three years ago, I removed that 4th mechanism of
reflection from my energy article in favor of
"redistribution" instead of "reflection". About
a year ago, I told you that and predicted that
you would regurgitate that same old dead horse
sometime in the future. Thanks for proving me
correct in my prediction.

At least you were correct about something - all thanks to me, evidently.
:-)

ac6xg

colinear representation in NEC
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
You and Gene also got the formula wrong, or at least you
didn't get the complete formula for two waves passing in opposite
directions deep in the night.

What I posted was the equation for a pure standing wave.
What you may be referring to is the omission of the
real world traveling wave component that gets radiated.
Since the radiated component amounts to only about
10% of the wave energy on a standing-wave antenna, it
can be considered to be mostly negligible. The phase
of that small traveling wave is completely swamped
by the 90% wave energy that is in the standing wave
on the 1/4WL standing-wave monopole.

The components of a pure standing wave are two equal
amplitude traveling-waves moving in opposite directions.
Their phasors are equal in magnitude and opposite in
direction of rotation.

What is the phase of the sum of two equal amplitude phasors
moving in opposite directions? Assuming each phasor has an
amplitude of 1.0, here are some points in 1/4WL:

Ifor + Iref = Itot
1.0 at 0 deg + 1.0 at 0 deg = 2.0 at 0 deg
1.0 at -15 deg + 1.0 at +15 deg = 1.9 at 0 deg
1.0 at -30 deg + 1.0 at +30 deg = 1.7 at 0 deg
1.0 at -45 deg + 1.0 at +45 deg = 1.4 at 0 deg
1.0 at -60 deg + 1.0 at +60 deg = 1.0 at 0 deg
1.0 at -75 deg + 1.0 at +75 deg = 0.5 at 0 deg
1.0 at -90 deg + 1.0 at +90 deg = 0.0 at 0 deg

In 90 degrees of wire, the phase of the total
(pure standing wave) current doesn't change.
This makes the phase of the total current on a
standing-wave antenna invalid for measuring
the delay through the wire or through a coil.

Note how the above values roughly correspond
to the current amplitude and phase distribution
on a 1/4WL monopole. From "Antennas" by Kraus:

"It is generally assumed that the current distribution
of a (thin wire dipole) is sinusoidal, and that the
*phase is constant over a 1/2WL interval* ..."

All illustrated on page 464 of the 3rd edition.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
You and Gene also got the formula wrong, or at least you
didn't get the complete formula for two waves passing in opposite
directions deep in the night.

What I posted was the equation for a pure standing wave.
What you may be referring to is the omission of the
real world traveling wave component that gets radiated.
Since the radiated component amounts to only about
10% of the wave energy on a standing-wave antenna, it
can be considered to be mostly negligible. The phase
of that small traveling wave is completely swamped
by the 90% wave energy that is in the standing wave
on the 1/4WL standing-wave monopole.

The components of a pure standing wave are two equal
amplitude traveling-waves moving in opposite directions.
Their phasors are equal in magnitude and opposite in
direction of rotation.

What is the phase of the sum of two equal amplitude phasors
moving in opposite directions? Assuming each phasor has an
amplitude of 1.0, here are some points in 1/4WL:

Ifor + Iref = Itot
1.0 at 0 deg + 1.0 at 0 deg = 2.0 at 0 deg
1.0 at -15 deg + 1.0 at +15 deg = 1.9 at 0 deg
1.0 at -30 deg + 1.0 at +30 deg = 1.7 at 0 deg
1.0 at -45 deg + 1.0 at +45 deg = 1.4 at 0 deg
1.0 at -60 deg + 1.0 at +60 deg = 1.0 at 0 deg
1.0 at -75 deg + 1.0 at +75 deg = 0.5 at 0 deg
1.0 at -90 deg + 1.0 at +90 deg = 0.0 at 0 deg

In 90 degrees of wire, the phase of the total
(pure standing wave) current doesn't change.
This makes the phase of the total current on a
standing-wave antenna invalid for measuring
the delay through the wire or through a coil.

Note how the above values roughly correspond
to the current amplitude and phase distribution
on a 1/4WL monopole. From "Antennas" by Kraus:

"It is generally assumed that the current distribution
of a (thin wire dipole) is sinusoidal, and that the
*phase is constant over a 1/2WL interval* ..."

All illustrated on page 464 of the 3rd edition.

You still got it wrong. That's o.k., though. You at least
think you have it right, which is 3/10 of the battle.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

colinear representation in NEC
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
You still got it wrong.

It's easy to say someone is wrong - why don't you
post the correct equation so we can discuss it?

Whether the (kx) term is a sine or cosine is a
function of where x=0. Whether the (wt) term
is a sine or cosine function is arbitrary.

Hecht in "Optics" uses this equation for a pure
standing wave:

E(x,t) = 2Eo1*sin(kx)*cos(wt)

Ramo and Whinnery write it a little differently:

E(z,t) = 2E+*sin(kz)*sin(wt)

My definition of Eo in my previous equation is
Eo = |E+|+|E-| = 2Eo1 = 2E+

E(x,t) = Eo*cos(kx)*cos(wt)

I fail to see anything wrong with that equation
for a pure standing wave.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

colinear representation in NEC
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
You still got it wrong.

It's easy to say someone is wrong - why don't you
post the correct equation so we can discuss it?

Whether the (kx) term is a sine or cosine is a
function of where x=0. Whether the (wt) term
is a sine or cosine function is arbitrary.

Hecht in "Optics" uses this equation for a pure
standing wave:

E(x,t) = 2Eo1*sin(kx)*cos(wt)

Ramo and Whinnery write it a little differently:

E(z,t) = 2E+*sin(kz)*sin(wt)

My definition of Eo in my previous equation is
Eo = |E+|+|E-| = 2Eo1 = 2E+

E(x,t) = Eo*cos(kx)*cos(wt)

I fail to see anything wrong with that equation
for a pure standing wave.

In the past, Cecil, I've learned that trying to discuss anything with
you has been a complete waste of time. There's no discussing anything
with someone who makes things up in his head, cherry picks phrases
from authorities to justify his fantasies, and then doggedly keeps
repeating himself - without understanding, by the way - not in an
effort to promote whatever truth that may lie in his assumptions, but to
always, and perpetually, and dogmatically crush all doubts about the
wisdom of his assertions by other people. If you would spend anywhere
near the time studying your subject as you do defending it, you might
even have something intelligent to say about it, in which case, your
posts might even be worth reading. In the meantime, they are mere
cheap red wine: plonk.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

colinear representation in NEC
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
plonk.

Aha, one more guru who can't stand to be proved wrong.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com