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

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

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

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

Tom Donaly wrote:
plonk.

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