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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Apr 16, 9:48*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
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

I don't worry about it Cecil but I am concerned at the number of
people who consider themselves engineers. Remember that nobody on this
group has a true understanding of Maxwells equations! Nobody has
proved Maxwell's laws can be proved by adding a time varing field to
the Gaussian law of Statics. In fact, it is denied by ALL on this
group, Engineers?
That to even try is illegal as well as not being correct! Real
qualified engineers?
And you want this group to understand phase change and travelling
waves without the group coming to a consensus on Maxwell's laws?
Especially when they demand
a definition of equilibrium?
Maxwell;'s laws do not include lumped loads in his equations for
maximum radiation efficiency, so why do hams use lumped loads with
their antennas?
Maxwell;'s laws demand that for maximum efficiency equilibrium must be
kept, yet hams continue to place verticals at right angles to the
earth's surface. And it goes on and on. And engineers continue to
misuse what is known as Maxwell's equations.
However, despite that I do have a honest question Does the TOA of a
dish antenna (CP) change with height similar to other polarisations?
Regards
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Apr 16, 9:48 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

I don't worry about it Cecil but I am concerned at the number of
people who consider themselves engineers. Remember that nobody on this
group has a true understanding of Maxwells equations! Nobody has
proved Maxwell's laws can be proved by adding a time varing field to
the Gaussian law of Statics. In fact, it is denied by ALL on this
group, Engineers?

yes art, electrical engineers, like me, do understand maxwell's equations.
and any of them worth their salt will explain, like i have done many times,
that it is unecessary to add an explicit time variable to the equations
because they are valid at every instant of time... so you end up with
f(t)=f(t) which is redundant and doesn't help with the solution of the
fields and waves. you have admitted that you don't know fields and waves
and that you are not an ee, yet you continue to try to put down those who
show a true understanding of the equations and their underlying assumptions.
you further demonstrate this by talking about lumped impedances in reference
to maxwell's equations and antennas. maxwell's equations describe fields
and waves, not the conductors and elements that generate them. they
reference the currents and fields, not the wires, capacitors, and inductors.
you can derive the properties of inductors and capacitors from maxwell's
equations, but you have to look deep inside them and apply the basic laws
that make up maxwell's equation to describe the lumped elements.

you have yet to explain where equilibrium is required in maxwell's
equations. by definition they rely on non-equilibrium conditions to set up
waves. you can't have a wave while you are in equilibrium, something has to
be putting energy into the system and something has to be moving, that
sounds like non-equilibrium to me.

On Apr 17, 7:07*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Apr 16, 9:48 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

I don't worry about it Cecil but I am concerned at the number of
people who consider themselves engineers. Remember that nobody on this
group has a true understanding of Maxwells equations! Nobody has
proved Maxwell's laws can be proved by adding a time varing field to
the Gaussian law of Statics. In fact, it is denied by ALL on this
group, Engineers?

yes art, electrical engineers, like me, do understand maxwell's equations..
and any of them worth their salt will explain, like i have done many times,
that it is unecessary to add an explicit time variable to the equations
because they are valid at every instant of time... so you end up with
f(t)=f(t) which is redundant and doesn't help with the solution of the
fields and waves. *you have admitted that you don't know fields and waves
and that you are not an ee, yet you continue to try to put down those who
show a true understanding of the equations and their underlying assumptions.
Hello David
I am comfortable that the addition of a time varying field to the laws
of statics is a proof of Maxwell. In fact there are many proofs of
Maxwsells equations if you read your field and waves books Chapter 2
if I recall as well as the appendix. Dr Davis also stated so and
nobody was able to prove him wrong either. So as I have always said I
am comfortable with the proof.




you further demonstrate this by talking about lumped impedances in reference
to maxwell's equations and antennas. *maxwell's equations describe fields
and waves, not the conductors and elements that generate them. *they
reference the currents and fields, not the wires, capacitors, and inductors.
you can derive the properties of inductors and capacitors from maxwell's
equations, but you have to look deep inside them and apply the basic laws
that make up maxwell's equation to describe the lumped elements.

Well again I disagree with you. Maxwells laws as far as we are
concerned deals with radiation and maximum efficiency with the basic
of equilibrium. As Newton used the term it was a cosmic law as is all
his laws thus equilibrium or balance is based on the cosmic which
includes outside Earths sphere, a basic for every action and reaction
statement. When you introduce a lumped load into radiation without the
equal and opposite you have violated Maxwell and Newtons laws, very
simple. This is why Maxwell does not include a metric for lumped loads
when calculating maximum efficiency via the boundary method.
Now as far as waves are concerned science recognises that radiation
presents observations that suggest waves but none of these are proven
and I believe that particles dominate which if you go along with
statics laws is also another proof.





you have yet to explain where equilibrium is required in maxwell's
equations. *by definition they rely on non-equilibrium conditions to set up
waves. *you can't have a wave while you are in equilibrium, something has to
be putting energy into the system and something has to be moving, that
sounds like non-equilibrium to me.

Not so, review the gyroscope action and the sedgewick vehicle all of
which rely on balanced circulating rotation within the cosmos.
But disregard all the things above that you cannot digest. Use a
computer program on antennas that has the option to change human input
so that the laws of Maxwell
are fiollowed implicity. You put in a vertical design and request
maximum gain using the parameters supplied by Maxwell which requires
cosmic balance or equilibrium.
Antenna computer programs will always put aside the planar design as
it lacks equilibrium and will replace it with a tipped vertical
antenna.
So David you have now put your feet into another puzzle by your falure
to digest science. Science and the patent office accept antenna
computer programs output
which is opposite to your thinking so now you are surrounded by a
morass because you denied the good Doctors knowledge of physics.
I accept that that you and others do not have a good understanding of
equilibrium which generates faults in all associated science problems
so our minds will never meet. If you delve into books on Maxwell you
will eventually fall upon the use of Gauss. Since there are so many
proofs available authors shun from showing the Gaussian connection
because of the different metrics involved not because it is not a
viable proof. You have a simple option to prove what is correct, use a
antenna program with an optimiser and determine what a vertical
antenna looks like when seeking maximum efficiency, believe me the
radiator will be tipped. So forget every thing else and show the World
why computer programs produce faulty results when using your logic.
With the use of my logic I have produced a antenna for top band that
is rotatable and directional so something I have done is correct and
computer programs based on Maxwell produce the same results. Go
figure.
Now with respect to a dish antenna with CP. Can the dish supply a
lower TOA than a planar design at the same height?
Regards
Art.
Ps Mechanical engineering requires adherence to equilibrium, it is not
just a electrical thing.I also know little regarding fields and waves
but I am profficient in the application
of fields operating at the speed of light and their impact on
particles for communication
and where impact requires mass.