![]() |
Dish reflector
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:00:43 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Sorry Richard, Ah come on now, you aren't sorry at all. That is probably your worst excuse, but any port in a storm. I am not responsible for your ignorance Given the fog of your memory, we will visit these issues again (like 4 watts in a wave - what a howler!) when they appear fresh to you ;-) |
Dish reflector
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: Having scanned the above posting or what ever it is. I have a new respect for those that hunt for relics with scrip on it and try to decifer the meaning of such a wierd collection of shapes and scrawls. In your case, they usually begin with trying to make sense of your Tudor grammar and spelling (probably why you spit on that up and coming Shakespeare and his new-fangled writing). |
Dish reflector
Richard Clark wrote:
Given the fog of your memory, we will visit these issues again (like 4 watts in a wave - what a howler!) when they appear fresh to you ;-) Our QRP friends would like for you to prove that a wave cannot deliver 4 joules/sec through a transmission line to an antenna. That 4 joules/sec can be measured by a Bird wattmeter installed anywhere on the transmission line. Do you think that advertising a 100 milliwatt laser is false advertising? Again, exactly where did you get your Electrical Engineering and/or Physics degrees? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: So why do you have to go to all that trouble when you want to measure traveling wave current, but not when you want to measure traveling wave energy? When one measures traveling wave energy, one is measuring an average calculated scalar value usually forward power minus reflected power or RMS V*I in a dummy load resistor. Not necessarily. When one is measuring delay, one is measuring instantaneous traveling wave phase in real time. Why not just measure the delay in the instantaneous arrival of energy? That's what pulses generators are for. Or, simply subtract the undesired wave from each measurement. Search on the term 'Thruline' for some tips on how to measure traveling waves. Trigger on the zero crossing of the input signal and measure the delay until the output signal crosses zero. That delay measurement doesn't work for standing- wave current because the zero-crossing on the input and output occur virtually simultaneously, i.e. there is no relative phase shift between input and output or between any two points on a 1/4WL wire monopole. Flummoxed by a 'wave' which, by all accounts, does not actually exist as such - and yet according to you it can have (or can't have, depending on which post one reads) a phase shift or delay, whichever you prefer, and which (according to you) has actually been quantified (3nS) by others. It's worthy of a at least a crank.net citation if not a full article in the Journal of Irreproducible Results. :-) The problem is that it's difficult to put much faith in the measurements you report when you so badly misunderstand and mischaracterize the measurements reported by others. That is the only point of any of this, Art. ac6xg |
Dish reflector
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:36:28 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: Given the fog of your memory, we will visit these issues again (like 4 watts in a wave - what a howler!) when they appear fresh to you ;-) Our QRP friends would like for you to prove Watts in a wave (and still howlin'): the Aurora Cecealis.... QED Need more proof? Tonight, turn out the lights and read a book on optics. ;-) |
Dish reflector
On Apr 16, 3:55*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: So why do you have to go to all that trouble when you want to measure traveling wave current, but not when you want to measure traveling wave energy? When one measures traveling wave energy, one is measuring an average calculated scalar value usually forward power minus reflected power or RMS V*I in a dummy load resistor. Not necessarily. When one is measuring delay, one is measuring instantaneous traveling wave phase in real time. Why not just measure the delay in the instantaneous arrival of energy? That's what pulses generators are for. *Or, simply subtract the undesired wave from each measurement. *Search on the term 'Thruline' for some tips on how to measure traveling waves. Trigger on the zero crossing of the input signal and measure the delay until the output signal crosses zero. That delay measurement doesn't work for standing- wave current because the zero-crossing on the input and output occur virtually simultaneously, i.e. there is no relative phase shift between input and output or between any two points on a 1/4WL wire monopole. Flummoxed by a 'wave' which, by all accounts, does not actually exist as such - and yet according to you it can have (or can't have, depending on which post one reads) a phase shift or delay, whichever you prefer, and which (according to you) has actually been quantified (3nS) by others. It's worthy of a at least a crank.net citation if not a full article in the Journal of Irreproducible Results. *:-) The problem is that it's difficult to put much faith in the measurements you report when you so badly misunderstand and mischaracterize the measurements reported by others. *That is the only point of any of this, Art. ac6xg Jim, you were kind enough to state what the point was. Frankly that problem applies to me because my education was as a mechanical engineer and only a small interest in the electrical stuff as it appeared to be all about mathematics. What I don't understand that the argument and insults are between Americans with the same training at American colleges ( excluding Richard ofcourse who chose literature of olde England) Both sides should be able to understand what the other is saying! It has been debated in earnest for several years now and all have failed to connect.For my ideas that sort of misunderstanding is obviously my fault and I understand that but it allows Richard to jump in with a lack of knowledge but skilled in insults that are buried like a crossword puzzle and his aproach to the killing fields and which many tend to follow.Most of you are skilled engineers with a firm knowledge of radio and yet most of you talk pass each other on the technical subjects. One side or the other must have an understanding of the problem so why not display it point by point in a reasonable debate so that peace can come about? Jim, I mean no disrespect in anyway towards you and look forward to your posts but things have to change on this group or its contributions to radio will come to naught. For me a standing wave is the measurement of disparity between a closed circuit and the period of the frequency in use and nothing more, so all this other talk is beyond my ken Best regards Art |
Dish reflector
Cecil Moore wrote:
If the system contains only traveling waves, the delay is proportional to the phase shift. If the system contains only standing waves, Since a standing wave is an interference pattern created by traveling waves, having 'only standing waves' would obviously be an impossible circumstance. Traveling wave current changes phase relative to the source current. Yes, especially with distance - but only if it's a source of traveling waves. Evidently there's some chance it could be a source that produces only standing waves. :-) Standing wave current does not change phase relative to the source current. I urge you to please investigate the mathematical issues associated with summing counter-rotating vectors. Therefore, standing wave current phase cannot be used to measure delay through a wire or through a coil. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know you are the only one suggesting that standing wave current phase - whatever that is - could be delayed, measured, and calculated. ac6xg |
Dish reflector
Jim Kelley wrote:
Why not just measure the delay in the instantaneous arrival of energy? Why make something difficult out of a simple problem? How can you tell one packet of energy from another? Please do the measurement if you choose and report back what you find. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
Richard Clark wrote:
Watts in a wave (and still howlin') No joules/second in a wave - now that's a howl. No watts/unit-area in irradiance either? :-) -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
Art Unwin wrote:
Both sides should be able to understand what the other is saying! Don't worry about it, Art. My dog doesn't understand it either. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com