"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:06:42 -0600, "John Smith"
wrote:
C'mon, Richard. That's a cheap shot beneath even you, I thought.

Hi John,

Your exposure to cheap shots is clearly shallow. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Yes, Master.

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I hope most readers can tell the difference between an approximation or
simplification that we understand and that produces negligible and
unmeasurable errors, from one that's based on invalid premises and leads
to major errors.

It follows that if you choose not to make an effort to understand a
valid premise, according to you, it is still worthless.

Do standing wave antennas possess standing waves? (no answer) Kraus and
Balanis say "yes". Are those standing waves composed of forward and reflected
waves? (no answer) Kraus and Balanis say "yes". Why does Kraus say that, for
purposes of conceptual discussion, we can consider those waves to be equal?
(no answer) If it's good enough for Kraus, why isn't it good enough for you?
(no answer) Do you actually disagree with Kraus? (no answer) Why does Balanis
state that standing wave antennas can be conceptually analyzed by representing
the forward current as If and the backward current as Ib? (no answer) All I have
done is follow Kraus' and Balanis' suggestions. You finding fault with that is
amazing.

Conceptual solutions are very often not quantitized. "The sun is
the center of the solar system" is a conceptual solution and was
not quantitized for many, many years. What I have been saying is
based on what Kraus and Balanis wrote. There is no "major error"
because it is just a concept akin to lossless lines and ideal
inductors.

And just how do you explain the fact that your very own EZNEC agrees
with me when the loading is done by the helix method or the series stub
method? Sacred cows die hard, huh?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 10:25:30 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
"The sun is the center of the solar system" is a conceptual solution and was
not quantitized for many, many years.
And when it was, the "conceptual solution" was shown to be in error.
The center of the solar system is a point about which the mass of the
sun AND the planets all turn. The difference is miniscule but such
differences being ignored would result in navigational errors in
traversing the solar system - which is Roy's point about the
significance of error being ignored where it is important.

Bart Rowlett wrote:
The currents through two nodes connected in series, without branches, is
identical. I think that fact was established before Kirchoff but it's
certainly stipulated in circuit theory.

Let's deal with concrete examples. Assume a lossless, unterminated
transmission line. Because of the standing waves, the net current
in that series loop varies from point. It is zero every 1/2WL and
in between those zero points, it is at a maximum. That's all I was
trying to say - that the series current in a distributed network
with standing waves is not constant because it no longer can be
considered a "circuit". It must be considered a network as it is
an appreciable portion of a wavelength. The phases of the forward
current and reflected current are rotating in opposite directions
which causes their superposition magnitude to vary from minimum
to maximum. The magnitudes of the forward and reflected traveling
wave currents can be constant while their phasor sum varies as a
standing wave sinusoid.

Most of the stuff in this posting is a diversion away from the original
argument which is: Does the current through a 75m bugcatcher vary from
end to end? Since the net current is the standing wave current in a
standing wave antenna, it is mostly standing wave current, not traveling
wave current. Kraus even suggests that we can consider the forward
current equal to the reflected current in a standing wave antenna
for purposes of conceptual discussion which means the net current
is not moving at all, i.e. not flowing into the bottom of the
coil and out the top as assumed by W8JI on his web page. Balanis
clearly states that a standing wave antenna can be analyzed based
on the forward current and the backward current.

Simulations with EZNEC using the helix option indicates that the net
current is not the same at each end of a bugcatcher coil. Essentially
the same result occurs using a series inductive stub.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
"The sun is the center of the solar system" is a conceptual solution and was
not quantitized for many, many years.

And when it was, the "conceptual solution" was shown to be in error.
The center of the solar system is a point about which the mass of the
sun AND the planets all turn. The difference is miniscule but such
differences being ignored would result in navigational errors in
traversing the solar system - which is Roy's point about the
significance of error being ignored where it is important.

Being such a nickpicker, why don't you object to the gross errors
(50%) introduced by using the circuit theory math model on a distributed
network problem?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:07:47 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Being such a nickpicker, why don't you object to the gross errors
(50%) introduced by using the circuit theory math model on a distributed
network problem?
I Object to ALL of your raging inconsistencies. :-)

Richard Clark wrote:
I Object to ALL of your raging inconsistencies. :-)

But not to Roy's or Tom's. One wonders why.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:52:03 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I Object to ALL of your raging inconsistencies. :-)
But not to Roy's or Tom's. One wonders why.
Probably because you don't pay attention. Others certainly don't
wonder.

W5DXP wrote:
I'm chugging Franzia Merlot while cleaning my Colt Python .357 Magnum
and Winchester 30-30 Lever-Action Carbine. :-)

After shooting a rattler do you, Hollywood-fashion, put the weapon to
your
lips and blow the smoke out of the barrel? ;o)

I'm not that primitive, Reg. I use commercial ammo with smokeless
powder.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP
==========================================

Ah, I see, modern high-technology smokeless and odorless powders do not
betray your postion to the rattler if you miss him first time.

At night, have you tried infra-red telescopic sights?

But by now rattle snakes must be becoming, like Bengal tigers and red
indians, an endanged species. ;o)
----
Reg.

Balanis
clearly states that a standing wave antenna can be analyzed based
on the forward current and the backward current.

================================

Who the heck is "Balony" Never heard of him or her.
----
Reg