Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Dish Network "500" dish with two LNBs | Homebrew | |||
Kenwood reflector | General | |||
Vet. with a reflector | Antenna | |||
Reflector for Hammarlund | Boatanchors | |||
Reflector for Hammarlund | Boatanchors |