Jim Kelley wrote:
The only current flowing on an antenna is the current traveling from one
end to the other.

Let's assume you are correct. Here are a few questions:

1. Given a 90 degree monopole fed against an infinite
ground plane, what would be the phase at the top of the
antenna compared to the phase at the feedpoint for any
instant in time?

2. Why would the feedpoint impedance of a 1/4WL monopole
be more than a magnitude less than the feedpoint impedance
of an infinite monopole?

3. Where does the above current go when it hits the open-
circuit at the top of the monopole?

4. Why is the total energy in the E-field at the top of the
monopole so high?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com
"Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government
persecution..." Ayn Rand

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
The only current flowing on an antenna is the current traveling from
one end to the other.

Let's assume you are correct. Here are a few questions:

1. Given a 90 degree monopole fed against an infinite
ground plane, what would be the phase at the top of the
antenna compared to the phase at the feedpoint for any
instant in time?

2. Why would the feedpoint impedance of a 1/4WL monopole
be more than a magnitude less than the feedpoint impedance
of an infinite monopole?

3. Where does the above current go when it hits the open-
circuit at the top of the monopole?

4. Why is the total energy in the E-field at the top of the
monopole so high?

In what way are any of the questions relevant to, or deterministic of
the assumption?

73, ac6xg

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:20:07 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
The only current flowing on an antenna is the current traveling from
one end to the other.

Let's assume you are correct. Here are a few questions:

1. Given a 90 degree monopole fed against an infinite
ground plane, what would be the phase at the top of the
antenna compared to the phase at the feedpoint for any
instant in time?

2. Why would the feedpoint impedance of a 1/4WL monopole
be more than a magnitude less than the feedpoint impedance
of an infinite monopole?

3. Where does the above current go when it hits the open-
circuit at the top of the monopole?

4. Why is the total energy in the E-field at the top of the
monopole so high?

In what way are any of the questions relevant to, or deterministic of
the assumption?

Ah Jim!

You have the essence of Cecil's (r) Sub-optimal Conjugated Hypothesis
Information Transform before you, the SCHIT (c) model.

He has taken the ordinary postulate of current flow, conjugated it
into a new hypothesis through his sub-optimization. By removing
random bytes, it becomes more intelligible (I will take a stab at it
here):
1. a 90 degree monopole fed against an infinite ground plane
2. the feedpoint impedance of a 1/4WL monopole
3. current go[es]
4. the total energy
now makes perfect sense and whitens your teeth at the same time.

Returning to the process - through sub-optimization by adding
bafflegab, the future deconstruction (posts that would follow the one
above and for which I have already deconvoluted) would find Cecil
eventually unwinding the original conjugation, proving he was right by
proving you right - except you were wrong in what you "thought" (the
information transform) because he thought you were wrong.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Returning to the process - through sub-optimization by adding
bafflegab, ...

As far as bafflegab goes, Richard, no one can hold a candle
to you. Your posting is a perfect example.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com
"Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as
government persecution..." Ayn Rand

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:32:15 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Returning to the process - through sub-optimization by adding
bafflegab, ...

As far as bafflegab goes, Richard, no one can hold a candle
to you. Your posting is a perfect example.

You must be flattered (an example of information transformation) at
this imitation of you then (your comment here so unabashedly basking
in the intended conjugate of these congratulations).

[Gad this so easy, I should have gotten an AIG bonus for derivative
design!]
:-0

Richard Clark wrote:
You must be flattered (an example of information transformation) at
this imitation of you then (your comment here so unabashedly basking
in the intended conjugate of these congratulations).

Just send me some of what you are smoking and I will die happy. :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com
"Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government
persecution..." Ayn Rand

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:59:21 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
You must be flattered (an example of information transformation) at
this imitation of you then (your comment here so unabashedly basking
in the intended conjugate of these congratulations).

Just send me some of what you are smoking and I will die happy. :-)

A double conjugation which reveals the source of this side thread.
Deconstructing the bafflegab by random byte dispersal gives us Cecil's
information transform:
what I am smoking isn't good enough.

[gad, this is so easy I could be double-dipping AIG bonuses and
getting favored IRS status too!]

Jim Kelley wrote:
In what way are any of the questions relevant to, or deterministic of
the assumption?

Answering a question with a question is a well known
diversion. Please answer my questions and you will
automatically answer yours.

Here's some mo How can a current that changes
phase by 3 degrees in 90 degrees of wire be used
to measure the EM wave delay through the wire?

How can that current be used to measure the delay
through a coil positioned in the middle of that wire?

How fast does EM wave energy travel through a wire?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com
"Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as
government persecution..." Ayn Rand

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
In what way are any of the questions relevant to, or deterministic of
the assumption?

Answering a question with a question is a well known
diversion. Please answer my questions and you will
automatically answer yours.

One could claim that the questions exemplify your point about diversion.
:-)

Here's some mo How can a current that changes
phase by 3 degrees in 90 degrees of wire be used
to measure the EM wave delay through the wire?
How can that current be used to measure the delay
through a coil positioned in the middle of that wire?

Assuming the antenna is 90 degrees in length, the relevant currents can
be measured, the maximum is known and the minimum is zero, then:
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. Since it's fair to
assume propagation velocity is the same in both directions, waves would
be phase delayed by the same amount in both directions at a
discontinuity, and the combined sum of the two delays would account for
the total delay and for the resulting change in amplitude. Since a
standing wave can be considered an amplitude vs phase plot (where both
phase and amplitude vary with position) and the amplitude is known on
both sides of the discontinuity, the amplitude on each side of the
discontinuity relates functionally to a corresponding phase on the
abscissa of the standing wave curve. The total change in phase is equal
to the difference in phase on the two sides of the discontinuity. The
phase delay for each traveling wave is then half the total phase change.
Whether all of the assumptions are true for the cited case, I don't
know. The assumptions that you've made are not always clearly or
completely communicated, but would obviously weight heavily in the
results. This is also true for EZNEC results.

Why not take some actual phase shift measurements for yourself?

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Why not take some actual phase shift measurements for yourself?

I have already done that at my previous QTH and
reported it two years ago. Remember these graphs
from software that you recommended?

http://www.w5dxp.com/travstnd.gif

My dual-trace scope measurements agreed within
the accuracy to which I could measure.

Point is that the delay through a transmission
line, a wire, or a coil is the same no matter
what type of current (standing wave or traveling
wave) is flowing. EM waves are EM waves. If the
current is primarily standing wave current with
essentially unchanging phase, the phase shift
in the standing wave current is unrelated to the
delay through the T-line, wire, or coil. Yet
standing wave current phase is what was used to
"prove" a 3 nS delay through a 100T, 2" dia, 10TPI
coil on 75m. If traveling wave current had been
used, as I did on my 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil,
the delay would have been shown to be ~26 nS.

In a 1/4WL monopole or 1/2WL dipole, the total
current is about 90% standing wave current.

Did you take a look at the current phase in these
two inverted-Vs?

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

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