Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gene Fuller wrote:
Do you have a reference that explains this "net standing wave current that does not flow"? No, this is one of those topics that is supposed to be "obvious to the most casual observer" and not worthy of further comment. Why it is not obvious to you and others is beyond belief. Some- thing terrible has happened to the educational system since 1957 when I learned all these principles at Texas A&M. I assume that this is just a part of the "dumbing down" of the educational system that I keep hearing so much about. Incidentally, these concepts are obvious to Walter Maxwell. Does this magical current have any other interesting properties besides the lack of charge flow? It's not magical but yes, it's phasor value (if it has one) doesn't rotate which is prima facie evidence that it doesn't flow. Any flowing phasor has a rotation of omega (2*pi*f). The fact that standing waves don't have a rotation is proof that they don't flow. To tell the truth, standing waves are a product of the human mind. The forward and reflected waves couldn't care less about standing waves. Last time I talked to them, they didn't even know that each other existed except for the points in the transmission line where their constructive interference causes the wire to heat up. :-) Surely you understand that standing waves in a transmission line don't flow - they just stand there, which is why they are called "standing waves". Exactly the same principle applies to standing wave antennas. Do ordinary properties such as inductance and capacitance cease to function when dealing with "net standing wave current"? No, but one has to exercise caution and invoke the superposition principle to ascertain what is happening. The two traveling waves have to be analyzed separately and then superposed to obtain valid results. If you analyze net current without superposition, you are doing the same thing as superposing powers, which is a known no-no. Do you really think it is a good idea to base detailed numerical analysis on these "conceptual constructs" as you call them? All human thought is based on conceptual constructs. That's what makes us different from the rest of the animals. If you don't like "conceptual constructs", then go swim in a zoo pool with the alligators. :-) Do you have a convenient listing of your "conceptual contructs" so that we can avoid these battles in the future? Only dealing with one at the moment, Gene. The lumped circuit model falls apart unless you first apply it to the component currents and then superpose. The distributed network analysis was developed to avoid that very problem. So the only valid choices are to either use the lumped circuit analysis on the component currents and then superpose or use the distributed network analysis which, in the end, boil down to the same thing. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Current in Loading Coils | Antenna | |||
FCC: Broadband Power Line Systems | Policy | |||
FS: sma-to-bnc custom fit rubber covered antenna adapter | Scanner | |||
Current in antenna loading coils controversy (*sigh*) | Antenna | |||
Current in antenna loading coils controversy | Antenna |