Cecil Moore wrote:
John Popelish wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

That is not what the formula says. Pick and X and you get a constant
phase angle with respect to the zero degree reference.

But that phase angle is not zero as it is for standing waves.
You seem to be talking in circles. How can the phase shift
between the traveling wave and the source reference ever be
zero at a point 90 degrees away from the source?

I said the phase was was fixed, not zero, at a given position.

If it cannot,
then you have evidence that the traveling wave is NOT identical
to the standing wave as evidenced by their different equations.

I agreed that the pattern of amplitude and phase is different along a
line for traveling and standing waves. But at any given point, there
is a very similar kind of phasor ( one with an amplitude value and a
phase value) that describes what is happening at that point. That
difference in amplitude distribution and phase shift with respect to
position is what the two functions describe.

You keep claiming that there is something fundamentally different
about the kind of phasor describing a single point (rotating versus
non rotating), depending on whether the phasor is describing a point
on a standing or traveling wave. That is where we disagree.

Let's cut to the bottom line. You seem to believe that standing wave
current is identical to traveling wave current.

At a point, it certainly can be. How current varies (amplitude and
phase) over length is what is different.

If that's your point, just say so.

I have said so as emphatically as I can, at least a half dozen times.
You keep saying I am wrong and refer to rotating phasors and non
rotating phasors. The only rotating phasor I know if is when a
different (from the reference frequency and phase) frequency is
described by phasor notation. That phasor rotates.

Otherwise, please tell us the difference between the
standing wave current and the traveling wave current which seems
obvious to me from the equations.

I have, already. But here goes once again. A current produced by a
traveling wave has a constant (RMS) amplitude along the line. The
phase of the current (relative to some arbitrary phase reference)
varies linearly along the line. If the line is a wavelength or more
long, you can find any relative phase you want, just by moving along
the line. There is energy moving along the line during this process,
but no net (averaged over a cycle) current moving along the line.
this is similar to how wave energy moves along the surface of water,
without the water traveling along with the wave. The water just moves
up and down as the wave passes along its surface. Likewise, charge
moves back and forth, locally, within a half wavelength of the line as
the wave passes, and the local current is a measure of the rate of
this charge movement.

In the case of a pure standing wave, you have the super position of
two equal and opposite traveling waves. The current (RMS) magnitude
can vary anywhere from zero to twice the (RMS) magnitude of that
produced by either of the two traveling waves. The RMS amplitude
envelope will vary in a [absolute value of sine] way along the line.
The relative phase of the current will have one of two values (the
actual angle depending on what phase is chosen as the reference) that
are 180 degrees apart. The phase switches between these two values
each time you pass through a node in the amplitude distribution.
There is no net energy movement, since the movement in one direction
is canceled by energy movement in the other direction. There is,
however, energy storage on the line.

Since the charge movement in a standing wave is the superposition of
the charge movement of two traveling waves, in a standing wave, charge
also moves back and forth only within a half wavelength interval of
the line. And the standing wave current is the measure of the rate of
change in this charge movement as it sloshes back and forth within
that half wavelength.

If you have any corrections to any of this, please quote enough of
what you what you are correcting for the context to be clear, and have
at it. I want to get this right.

Cecil Moore wrote:

EZNEC clearly recognizes the difference between standing wave current
and traveling wave current. Yet you tried to use standing wave current
with its unchanging phase to measure the phase shift through a coil.
Standing wave current doesn't even change phase through 45 degrees
of wire. Why would you expect it to change phase through 45 degrees
of coil?

Not to be a stickler, but didn't you just chastise me for bringing up
coils, and you said you had no interest in discussing them, because
that subject was closed for you?

Make up your mind, please.

John Popelish wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

EZNEC clearly recognizes the difference between standing wave current
and traveling wave current. Yet you tried to use standing wave current
with its unchanging phase to measure the phase shift through a coil.
Standing wave current doesn't even change phase through 45 degrees
of wire. Why would you expect it to change phase through 45 degrees
of coil?

Not to be a stickler, but didn't you just chastise me for bringing up
coils, and you said you had no interest in discussing them, because that
subject was closed for you?

Make up your mind, please.

And in any case, the statement about EZNEC is incorrect. As I explained
in a posting a short while ago, EZNEC has no awareness of nor does it
make any use of traveling wave currents or voltages. It calculates only
the total current from fundamental rules which don't involve traveling
waves.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

Grow up Cecil. Everyone sees what you are doing.


Everyone should see that I am trying to discuss technical
issues while the rest of you object to the 5% of my postings
that are bad humor or complaints about how I am being
unfairly treated.

Why do you refuse to discuss technical issues? For
instance, you have avoided responding to my black box
question. Are you afraid everyone will see just
how wrong you are?


No one likes a whiner Cecil. Especially when they appear to be ****ing
into the wind.

tom
K0TAR

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:18:53 -0400, John Popelish
wrote:

Make up your mind, please.
The triumph of experience over hope.

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:34:19 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Here is it again assuming a lossless transmission line:

Source-----------a-BB-b-------------c-BB-d-----------open

The current measured at 'a' is one amp.
The current measured at 'b' is zero amps.
The current measured at 'c' is zero amps.
The current measured at 'd' is one amp.

What are the possibilities for what could be in the
black boxes?

There is a zero length 4th dimensional coax connecting ad and bc
bridging the Casimir void between b and c.

Can you deny the 4th dimension exists?

John Popelish wrote:
I said the phase was was fixed, not zero, at a given position.

So the phase is NOT the same between the standing waves and the
traveling waves proving that standing waves are different from
traveling waves. Like I said, we seem to be going in circles.

I agreed that the pattern of amplitude and phase is different along a
line for traveling and standing waves.

Then why are you arguing with me about it. That's what I also
believe. Your argument seems to be with the people who say,
"current is current".

You keep claiming that there is something fundamentally different about
the kind of phasor describing a single point (rotating versus non
rotating), depending on whether the phasor is describing a point on a
standing or traveling wave. That is where we disagree.

Yes, 45 degrees is fundamentally different from zero, is it not?
Let's see, the percentage difference is (45-0)/0.

Let's cut to the bottom line. You seem to believe that standing wave
current is identical to traveling wave current.

At a point, it certainly can be.

No it isn't. It is the lack of knowledge that causes one to assume
that. More knowledge is all it takes to tell the difference. If
the current is everywhere in phase with the source current, it is
standing wave current. If the current is only in phase with the
source current every 360 degrees, it is traveling wave current.

If you have any corrections to any of this, please quote enough of what
you what you are correcting for the context to be clear, and have at
it. I want to get this right.

We seem to be in basic agreement that traveling wave current is not
identical to standing wave current so what are we arguing about?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

John Popelish wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

EZNEC clearly recognizes the difference between standing wave current
and traveling wave current. Yet you tried to use standing wave current
with its unchanging phase to measure the phase shift through a coil.
Standing wave current doesn't even change phase through 45 degrees
of wire. Why would you expect it to change phase through 45 degrees
of coil?

Not to be a stickler, but didn't you just chastise me for bringing up
coils, and you said you had no interest in discussing them, because that
subject was closed for you?

Make up your mind, please.

My comment above is primarily about standing wave current,
not about coils. Standing wave current phase cannot be used
to measure the phase shift through empty space, wires, or
anything else.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Roy Lewallen wrote:
And in any case, the statement about EZNEC is incorrect. As I explained
in a posting a short while ago, EZNEC has no awareness of nor does it
make any use of traveling wave currents or voltages. It calculates only
the total current from fundamental rules which don't involve traveling
waves.

EZNEC reports a different phase for traveling wave currents than
it does for standing wave currents. It does know the difference
although I don't know how it knows. It recognizes the difference
between a terminated line with no reflections and an unterminated
line with reflections.

The current reported by EZNEC for a terminated rhombic, for
instance, is clearly traveling wave current since the phase
changes with distance from the source.

The current reported by EZNEC for a 1/2WL dipole, for instance,
is clearly standing wave current since the phase doesn't
change with distance from the source.

The two kinds of currents are clearly not identical in either
EZNEC or in reality. They are only identical in some human
minds.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Tom Ring wrote:
No one likes a whiner Cecil.

Then please stop whining. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp