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