|
Dish reflector
Jim Kelley wrote:
But you're doing all the talking, Cecil - providing profound and knowledgeable insights as in the above observation that phase shift and delay are unrelated. I guess I should provide a context for the uninitiated. If the system contains only traveling waves, the delay is proportional to the phase shift. If the system contains only standing waves, the delay is completely unrelated to the phase shift since the phase shift is always zero over any 1/2WL between the current nodes. EZNEC supports that fact and w7el has admitted such in a previous posting. Kraus and Balanis both agree with the above assertion. I believe that you are aware of that fact so I have no choice but to assume that you are deliberately trying to hoodwink the uninitiated as are w7el and w8ji. Your ulterior motives remain unclear to me since you will not doubt be proven technically wrong at some point. You guys cannot possibly plead ignorance after all these years of discussion. Traveling wave current changes phase relative to the source current. Every technical person agrees on that fact of physics. Standing wave current does not change phase relative to the source current. Everyone technical person agrees on that fact of physics. Therefore, standing wave current phase cannot be used to measure delay through a wire or through a coil. This is such a simple concept that any disagreement must be considered to be a conspiracy to hoodwink the uninitiated. Exactly what do you guys have to gain from hoodwinking the unwashed masses??? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
On Apr 14, 1:09*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
JIMMIE wrote: On Apr 14, 3:29 pm, Jim Kelley wrote: Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has actually measured it to be? I would like to hear anyones opinion on it. Jimmie Does anyone besides me suspect that JIMMIE talking to Jim is the same person? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com The voices say aye. ac6xg |
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, the delay is completely unrelated to the phase shift since the phase shift is always zero over any 1/2WL between the current nodes. EZNEC supports that fact and w7el has admitted such in a previous posting. Kraus and Balanis both agree with the above assertion. I'm surprised they ever used EZNEC, or discussed systems that have standing waves, and nothing else. Standing wave current does not change phase relative to the source current. Everyone technical person agrees on that fact of physics. Yes, and that's by virtue of the fact that standing waves are entirely dependent on traveling waves. In fact, standing waves don't do anything on their own. What's amazing is that you continue to insist on attributing interference with supernatural powers - "redistribution" being one, "delaying" itself apparently being another. Therefore, standing wave current phase cannot be used to measure delay through a wire or through a coil. We've seen how you can calculate it. So, given that phase and delay are completely unrelated as you have explained, please describe if you would how one would go about actually measuring standing wave current delay - whatever that is. This is such a simple concept that any disagreement must be considered to be a conspiracy to hoodwink the uninitiated. Exactly what do you guys have to gain from hoodwinking the unwashed masses??? The suggestion sounds a little nutty to me, to be honest. Is it possible that you might be mistaken about any of this? ac6xg |
Dish reflector
Jim Kelley wrote:
I'm surprised they ever ... discussed systems that have standing waves, and nothing else. I'm not surprised because you have obviously never cracked open their books - tsk, tsk. Reference page 288 of "Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition, 7.1.4 Standing Waves. What's amazing is that you continue to insist on attributing interference with supernatural powers - "redistribution" being one, ... Obviously, you have never read the following FSU web page: micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html "... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that are 180-degrees ... out of phase with each other meet, they are not actually annihilated, ... All of the photon energy present in these waves must somehow be recovered or *redistributed* in a new direction, according to the law of energy conservation ... Instead, upon meeting, the photons are *redistributed* to regions that permit constructive interference, so the effect should be considered as a *redistribution* of light waves and photon energy rather than the spontaneous construction or destruction of light." Exactly what is it about the *redistribution* of energy that you don't understand? ... please describe if you would how one would go about actually measuring standing wave current delay - whatever that is. I cannot improve on Hecht's words in "Optics": "This is the equation for a STANDING or STATIONARY WAVE, as opposed to a traveling wave. Its profile does not move through space; ... It doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant wave it represents doesn't progress through space - its a standing wave." In other words, "standing wave current delay" does not exist. Only an ignorant fool would think that it could exist given the equation for a standing wave. Yet this is the current that w7el and w8ji tried to use to measure the delay through a 75m mobile loading coil. The suggestion sounds a little nutty to me, to be honest. Is it possible that you might be mistaken about any of this? I could be mistaken about your ulterior motive but it is hard for me to accept the fact that you guys are just dumb as a stump. I would rather think that you, w7el, and w8ji have a modicum of intelligence and are merely engaged in a conspiracy to hoodwink the uninitiated. Your motive for such is unclear. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:35:00 -0500, Cecil Moore
engaged in a conspiracy Hmm, Trilateral commission? Freemasonry? Area 51? Symbionese Liberation Army? Hussein's "Oil for Food?" Illuminati? Ulster Loyalist Central Coordination Committee? Bilderberg Group? the 4th Reich? AUM Shinrikyo? Animal Liberation Front? Leon Czolgosz? Gulf of Tonkin incident? Hollow earth theory? New World Order? Rosicrucians? Servants of the Paraclete? Watergate? The Nazi-American Money Plot? There is a point in a loading coil antenna where the phase shift is instantaneous? [and yet it moves.....] |
Dish reflector
Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:35:00 -0500, Cecil Moore engaged in a conspiracy Hmm, Trilateral commission? It was tongue-in-cheek humor, Richard. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
On Apr 14, 8:16*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
On Apr 14, 1:09*pm, Cecil Moore wrote: JIMMIE wrote: On Apr 14, 3:29 pm, Jim Kelley wrote: Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has actually measured it to be? I would like to hear anyones opinion on it. Jimmie Does anyone besides me suspect that JIMMIE talking to Jim is the same person? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com The voices say aye. ac6xg The voices are wrong, it doesnt take a lot of digging to find out who I am if you really want to know, Ive been here for years. I just dont like my identity plastered on newsgroups. Jimmie |
Dish reflector
On Apr 14, 5:35*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
I cannot improve on Hecht's words in "Optics": You could still improve on your understanding of their meaning. In other words, "standing wave current delay" does not exist. Only an ignorant fool would think that it could exist given the equation for a standing wave. And yet you keep posting your calculations and claiming to have made measurements. I was trying to be polite, but yes. Evidently we're in agreement now? ac6xg |
Dish reflector
On Apr 15, 7:35*am, JIMMIE wrote:
On Apr 14, 8:16*pm, Jim Kelley wrote: On Apr 14, 1:09*pm, Cecil Moore wrote: JIMMIE wrote: On Apr 14, 3:29 pm, Jim Kelley wrote: Do you want him to tell you what he believes it is, or what he has actually measured it to be? I would like to hear anyones opinion on it. Jimmie Does anyone besides me suspect that JIMMIE talking to Jim is the same person? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com The voices say aye. ac6xg The voices are wrong, it doesnt take a lot of digging to find out who I am if you really want to know, Ive been here for years. Yes, but don't you see? That's the clever deception. You could have appended three letters to your first name and typed it in all caps, and then only somebody as smart as Cecil could figure out that you are actually me. Not even we would know it. :-) 73, ac6xg |
Dish reflector
Jim Kelley wrote:
And yet you keep posting your calculations and claiming to have made measurements. As have w7el and w8ji. All their measurements proved is that standing wave current doesn't change phase relative to the feedpoint current phase. They did not measure the delay through a coil. They measured the phase shift through the coil using a current that doesn't change phase relative to the two measurement points. The same thing happens with a wire. To measure the actual delay through a coil, traveling wave current must be used. I am apparently the only one who ran that actual experiment. I guarantee if anyone performs that experiment in a valid manner, they will see similar results to mine. Here's the setup that I used to measure a ~25 nS delay through a 75m bugcatcher coil at 4 MHz. http://www.w5dxp.com/coiltest.GIF You should be able to achieve that setup in your physics lab. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:55:34 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:35:00 -0500, Cecil Moore engaged in a conspiracy Hmm, Trilateral commission? It was tongue-in-cheek humor, Richard. Ah! That is what you thought I was thinking you were thinking I thought and you were wrong twice, right once and on the third hand was a draw. |
Dish reflector
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:38:37 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: setup that I used to measure a ~25 nS delay through a 75m bugcatcher coil at 4 MHz. http://www.w5dxp.com/coiltest.GIF This is just a cartoon with the caption: "Magik happens here." |
Dish reflector
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: And yet you keep posting your calculations and claiming to have made measurements. As have w7el and w8ji. All their measurements proved is that standing wave current doesn't change phase relative to the feedpoint current phase. They did not measure the delay through a coil. They measured the phase shift through the coil using a current that doesn't change phase relative to the two measurement points. The same thing happens with a wire. To measure the actual delay through a coil, traveling wave current must be used. I am apparently the only one who ran that actual experiment. I guarantee if anyone performs that experiment in a valid manner, they will see similar results to mine. Here's the setup that I used to measure a ~25 nS delay through a 75m bugcatcher coil at 4 MHz. http://www.w5dxp.com/coiltest.GIF You should be able to achieve that setup in your physics lab. Did you figure out the Z0 of your coil using the Tesla coil math, and then just assume there were no standing waves, or did you prove the absence of standing waves through experiment? 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Dish reflector
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:08:21 -0700, "Tom Donaly"
wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: they will see similar results to mine. Did you figure out the Z0 of your coil using the Tesla coil math, and then just assume there were no standing waves, or did you prove the absence of standing waves through experiment? Hi Tom, There is only the hint of a gejoken experiment. I notice nothing other than a cartoon, and nothing in the way of instrumentation described, much less the vaunted "results" (no doubt the final metaphysical tabulation came from some alchemistry). Certainly no antenna (nor dish reflector that matter). How it relates to a loaded short monopole would probably provoke an essay as elaborate as the coronation oratory for a pope. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Dish reflector
Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:08:21 -0700, "Tom Donaly" wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: they will see similar results to mine. Did you figure out the Z0 of your coil using the Tesla coil math, and then just assume there were no standing waves, or did you prove the absence of standing waves through experiment? Hi Tom, There is only the hint of a gejoken experiment. I notice nothing other than a cartoon, and nothing in the way of instrumentation described, much less the vaunted "results" (no doubt the final metaphysical tabulation came from some alchemistry). Certainly no antenna (nor dish reflector that matter). How it relates to a loaded short monopole would probably provoke an essay as elaborate as the coronation oratory for a pope. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hi Richard, Cecil has never been too effective when it comes to doing experiments. When asked to do math, he's even more sunk. I'm surprised he even managed to do a "gejoken" experiment. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Dish reflector
Tom Donaly wrote:
Did you figure out the Z0 of your coil using the Tesla coil math, and then just assume there were no standing waves, or did you prove the absence of standing waves through experiment? The standing waves don't have to be eliminated, just reduced until the traveling wave dominates the waveform. I added 600 ohm non-inductive resistors in series until the reflections were negligible and the traveling wave dominated the waveform. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
Richard Clark wrote:
I notice nothing other than a cartoon, ... I'm sorry if this seems like rocket science to you. I used toroidal pickups at the current sample points and viewed the current waveforms on a 100 MHz dual-trace oscilloscope. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
Cecil Moore wrote:
The standing waves don't have to be eliminated, just reduced until the traveling wave dominates the waveform. I added 600 ohm non-inductive resistors in series until the reflections were negligible and the traveling wave dominated the waveform. 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? ac6xg |
Dish reflector
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. When one is measuring delay, one is measuring instantaneous traveling wave phase in real time. 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. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:18:51 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: I notice nothing other than a cartoon, ... I'm sorry if this seems like rocket science to you. And this from the cartoonist. It readily explains how poorly the gejoken experiment started. Let's see how many yuks it will get through conventional issues I used toroidal pickups at the current sample points and viewed the current waveforms on a 100 MHz dual-trace oscilloscope. No mention of make, no readings, no pretense at discussion of those things that contribute to error (and, as such, no need for Cecil to apologize for being wrong until he is painted into his usual corner). So, from this sloppiness called anyone performs that experiment in a valid manner, I suppose I have to fill in the blanks and watch Cecil sputter that it wasn't like that at ALL!!! The cartoonist is most comfortable in simple things, certainly; but measurement is best left to professionals. measure a ~25 nS delay which is the same as a 40 MHz event, but in some "100 MHz" scopes, and depending upon a myriad of settings (anyone practiced in the art would realize how many), signal amplitude being one; that same BW can tumble to 20 MHz to the unsuspecting user's surprise (Cecil can now react in mock surprised shock). With a roll-off of 3dB per octave (another concept that is foreign to digital engineers, such is Cecil's legacy), phase measurement errors begin to run away. We don't even get the Sunday comics form of math! OK, so measure a ~25 nS delay is so much of a hodge-podge, a place marker, a spit into the wind, something summoned up for the unwashed so the author could bask in their awe-shucks. If we were to simply accept it (GASP!), what does it say of the delay introduction of the toroidal pickups at the current sample points More magik happens here no doubt. I won't ask Cecil what his data is for these items because he doesn't have any (at least until he rummages up the dutch courage to fake it). And what about the phase issues of the 4000 Ohm resistor (which conveniently snubs what might be found in the rest of the antenna now long discarded such that this becomes an onanistic exercise)? Again, no point in asking for data that doesn't exist (you can't even fake it). Magik abounds because Cecil's best work is cartoonistry, not science, and certainly not rocket science. So, a very quick enumeration of points any experimenter would have come into the discussion with, rather than trailing behind like a dancing bear with blisters. But I like gejoken experiments, and Cecil's clowning offers the dovetail to Art's when he isn't here complaining about the nails in his hands. I would give this, maybe, 3 yuks. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Dish reflector
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:11:56 -0500, 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. Sounds like "one" Cecil is shy of experimental horsepower. And for "energy" yet. Another gejoken experiment where the energy of current (known) and the energy of voltage (known) has the requirement of finding the gejoken energy (unknown to Cecil, except as an abstraction spread out over time and phaseless) squared? Some"one" isn't trying very hard. The question wasn't about energy squared. It wasn't about RMS (who cares? Isn't there a scope sitting nearby?). It wasn't about a dummy load resistor. But these objections do make a nice list of excuses. I can well imagine that list will only get longer as the list of experimental options shrinks into a cerebral vacuum. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Dish reflector
Richard Clark wrote:
With a roll-off of 3dB per octave (another concept that is foreign to digital engineers, such is Cecil's legacy), phase measurement errors begin to run away. Oh yeah, I almost forgot your earlier postings. Only you are capable of measurements. Everyone else in the world sucks. This from the person who asserts that the reflections from non-reflective glass are brighter than the surface of the sun. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:18:17 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: With a roll-off of 3dB per octave (another concept that is foreign to digital engineers, such is Cecil's legacy), phase measurement errors begin to run away. Oh yeah, I almost forgot your earlier postings. Almost remembering is equally handicapped. Only you are capable of measurements. Hardly, more the point is noting those who are not capable and clearly demonstrate their ineptitude. I've ushered you through more than a few of these to then hear your excuses of age, infirmity, poor reading, and so on. You have the unfortunate circumstance of having inhabited a binary world where there are only two answers - both resolvable only to one place in the absence of noise. Ours is an analog world that copes with noise and error, and what counts in life is how much error. I enumerated several sources, you respond to none (a binary choice). You allude to my capability for measurement as I have measured the error of such scopes as yours and fixed them. You are simply hoping your scope is within its range of capability and we have yet to hear any reports of readings that would either confirm or deny your claim. Well, if you don't provide the data, no one can call you on a failure, right? Another binary choice that struggles for breath in an analog world. Let's look at the -3dB roll-off point and I ask you, how many degrees of slippage does it represent? 0 and 1 are not competent answers. Everyone else in the world sucks. A typical binary perspective and you are glad to force the choice. The analog equivalent is some"one" else in the world sucks. It could be parts-per-billion/million/thousand/hundred - but we can both agree that rhetorically you've scored your point. This from the person who asserts that the reflections from non-reflective glass are brighter than the surface of the sun. From your data, from your math, and from your argument. You couldn't account for the missing energy, so you swept it under the prayer rug with a mystical chant and abridged readings from your Psalter. Choose another topic for the same outcome, you've suffered many such technical comparisons. |
Dish reflector
Richard Clark wrote:
You are simply hoping your scope is within its range of capability ... Measuring the delay of a 4 MHz RF signal through a device is hardly any different from measuring the delay of a 4 MHz digital square wave. Measuring the time from one zero-crossing to another is virtually a no-brainer. It doesn't take much of a setup to detect the difference between 25nS for the traveling wave current and w8ji's measured 3 nS or w7el's measured undetectabe (faster than light?) phase difference using the total current in a standing wave antenna which is 90% standing wave current. Please design and run your own perfect experiment for determining the delay of a traveling wave through a 75m bugcatcher coil. I guarantee, if you perform it in a valid manner, it will agree qualitatively with my experiment. What is it about the phase shift in 90 degrees of monopole that you don't understand? ************************************************** ** EZNEC+ ver. 4.0 thin-wire 1/4WL vertical 4/16/2009 6:33:09 AM --------------- CURRENT DATA --------------- Frequency = 7.29 MHz Wire No. 1: Segment Conn Magnitude (A.) Phase (Deg.) 1 Ground 1 0.00 2 .97651 -0.42 3 .93005 -0.83 4 .86159 -1.19 5 .77258 -1.50 6 .66485 -1.78 7 .54059 -2.04 8 .40213 -2.28 9 .25161 -2.50 10 Open .08883 -2.71 ************************************************** * From your data, from your math, and from your argument. There was no missing energy. Your superposition of power was the problem. A three watt wave does not destructively interfere with a two watt wave to obtain a one watt result. That was explained to you years ago when you first made that conceptual error. The correct power merging equation must contain an interference term unless the two interfering waves are 90 degrees out of phase. Hint: 3w + 2w - 2*SQRT(3w*2w) = 0.101 watts There's no missing energy! -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
On Apr 15, 5:11*pm, 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. When one is measuring delay, one is measuring instantaneous traveling wave phase in real time. 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. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil I don't understand what all this sniping is all about but it does bring up a question from me that you may be able to shed some light upon. I modeled a helix antenna and because of this thread I went back to look at the phasing aspect that I had not paid atention to before now. The phase change goes from 86 degrees upto 106 degrees. It then abruptly chamges to -106 degress and slowly returnes to -086 degrees and then turns about again to 86 degrees again e.t.c. Does this have a relationship to slow wave? What is your take on my modeling? Many thanks for what time you may give to this Best rergards Art |
Dish reflector
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 06:40:33 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: You are simply hoping your scope is within its range of capability ... Measuring the delay of a 4 MHz RF signal through a device This is all the naive hope of absolute faith (a binary choice) in an instrument where you cannot distinguish between capability and desire. Let's face it. The enumeration of readings, the descriptions of all elements in full is very trivial and within the grasp of any ordinary bench tech. That it is so wholly missing from your discussion means that its revelation would expose a major error of design, or would reveal you are not practiced in the art of analog engineering. You've had time enough to back-fill your virtual notebook with these details of normal procedure. Their sudden arrival in successive discussion won't have much authenticity. What is it about the phase shift in 90 degrees of monopole that you don't understand? You are more flummoxed by the simpler problem of your own instrument's introduction of phase error at the -3dB point. If you cannot reconcile that at the bench, then this navel gazing problem of yours is sterile and pointless. From your data, from your math, and from your argument. There was no missing energy. More faith and hoping which culminates in the absurd: A three watt wave This arrives from your fog of memory, a poor device I warned you about in the last post. As I pointed out, same outcome. Is your apology of age, infirmity, or sloughing accuracy for speed next? |
Dish reflector
On Apr 16, 12:29*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 06:40:33 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote: Richard Clark wrote: You are simply hoping your scope is within its range of capability ... Measuring the delay of a 4 MHz RF signal through a device This is all the naive hope of absolute faith (a binary choice) in an instrument where you cannot distinguish between capability and desire. Let's face it. *The enumeration of readings, the descriptions of all elements in full is very trivial and within the grasp of any ordinary bench tech. *That it is so wholly missing from your discussion means that its revelation would expose a major error of design, or would reveal you are not practiced in the art of analog engineering. You've had time enough to back-fill your virtual notebook with these details of normal procedure. *Their sudden arrival in successive discussion won't have much authenticity. What is it about the phase shift in 90 degrees of monopole that you don't understand? You are more flummoxed by the simpler problem of your own instrument's introduction of phase error at the -3dB point. *If you cannot reconcile that at the bench, then this navel gazing problem of yours is sterile and pointless. From your data, from your math, and from your argument. There was no missing energy. More faith and hoping which culminates in the absurd: A three watt wave This arrives from your fog of memory, a poor device I warned you about in the last post. *As I pointed out, same outcome. Is your apology of age, infirmity, or sloughing accuracy for speed next? 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. Obviously a lot of work and fraustration which is nothing compared to the disapointment of finally realising the content of the work under study. Line after line of unrelating words with no connections between the lines which is obviously that of a child that faking an adult posture. Put yourself into the bottle you just finished and hurl yourself out to sea for the ages. |
Dish reflector
Art Unwin wrote:
It (the phase) then abruptly chamges ... Many thanks for what time you may give to this Standing wave current creates some strange illusions like zero current points accompanied by an abrupt large phase shift on each side of the current node. If you deal with the underlying traveling waves instead of the total component wave, things become a lot clearer. The abrupt phase change happens every so often in a standing wave antenna. It is presented for an EDZ in graph form on page 465, Figure 14-4 of "Antennas" by Kraus, 3rd edition available for a few bucks at: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Sear...nnas&x=55&y=10 -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
Richard Clark wrote:
More faith and hoping which culminates in the absurd: Sorry Richard, I am not responsible for your ignorance which is considerable. Exactly where did you get your engineering degree? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
Dish reflector
Art Unwin wrote:
... which is obviously that of a child that faking an adult posture. Put yourself into the bottle you just finished and hurl yourself out to sea for the ages. I used to have a fuzz-phrase generator card. It had three columns of ten words each. One could think up any three digit number and then read the three word fuzz-phrase off the card. 123 might result in: flummoxed simpler problem 343 might be: navel gazing problem Richard has obviously written a similar computer program except it seems to have ten columns of 100 words each. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
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 10:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com