Cecil Moore wrote:
John Popelish wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Please give us the equation for "ordinary AC voltage or current".


The simplest (without a reference phase) would be cos(wt). The
standing wave function contains this term, with a modifier to tell you
how amplitude varies with position. But at any point, cos(wt) times
some amplitude describes the ordinary AC voltage or current swing.


But please notice that cos(kx+wt) is different from that term.
The only time they are the same is if 'x' = 0. Is 'x' always
equal zero? No. All your equation tells us is that whatever
current it represents, it is always in phase with the reference
source at 'x' = 0. So your equation is too simple to be useful.
Please try again.

Thanks for agreeing with me. I said every bit of this in words added
as modifiers to cos(wt).

EZNEC must take those within a cycle currents and voltages into
account to come up with the amplitude values.


"Must" or "does". I have no idea.

At a given point the traveling wave phasor doesn't rotate, either.


On the contrary - at any given point 'x', the traveling wave
phasor is rotating with respect to the source phasor.

That is not what the formula says. Pick and X and you get a constant
phase angle with respect to the zero degree reference. Pick a point
on a standing wave, and you get a constant phase angle (one of two,
180 degrees apart). If one rotates, so does the other. of one does
not rotate, neither does the other, at that point.

That's what makes it different from a standing wave phasor
which doesn't rotate with respect to the source phasor.

I disagree. There are differences, but that is not one of them.

Phasor rotation only applies to the phase change over length for a
traveling wave.

No, that's wrong. Take another look at cos(kx+wt). Holding 'x'
at a constant value, the phase keeps on changing.

No. the kx term is the phase term. Pick and X and the phase (with
respect to the zero phase reference freezes. The wave continues to
unfold in time, but with that fixed phase relationship to the phasor
reference.

The traveling
wave phasor is rotating with respect to the source.

Not at a point. at any point, there is a fixed phase relationship
withe the phasor zero degree reference.

The standing
wave phasor is not rotating with respect to the source, just
as Hecht says speaking of standing waves: "The resultant
phasor is E1 + E2 = E ... Keeping the two [traveling wave]
phasors tip-to-tail and having E1 rotate counterclockwise as
E2 rotates (at the same rate) clockwise, generates E [total] as a
function of 't'. ... It doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant
wave it represents doesn't progress through space - it's a
standing wave."

The standing wave is a mathematical concept that represents the super
position of a pair of waves that are going someplace. It represents a
case where two equal energys are being delivered in two opposite
directions, so no net energy moves. But waves continue to travel.

You really need to get you a copy of Hecht's "Optics". It the
best treatment of standing waves that I have ever seen - also
best at superposition and interference explanations.

I don't need this reference. I have a form grasp of traveling waves
and their superposition.

You don't add superposed RMS values to get the resultant RMS value.

Sure you do. Current #1 is an RMS value at angle 1. Current #2
is an RMS value at angle 2. The superposition is:

RMS#1*cos(A1) + RMS#2*cos(A2) = RMS(total)

That is not adding, that is scaled adding (with a possibility that one
or both scaling factors are negative). Do you get negative total RMS
current, if both cos(A) terms are negative?

There is no discussion of RMS envelope values.


Where have you been? The currents displayed by EZNEC are RMS
envelope values. The antenna currents plotted in Kraus and
Terman are RMS envelope values. The currents measured at the
top and bottom of the coils by W8JI and W7EK are RMS envelope
values.

I didn't mean that no one is dealing with RMS values, I meant that no
one disagrees (is discussing) RMS values. It is not a point of
contention.

I am waiting for you to realize that you can measure the phase shift
of each of the traveling waves that superpose in a standing wave
process that includes a coil (or any other network) by using only the
RMS amplitude envelope, with no reference to phase, in an EZNEC
simulation or a real experiment. That was the whole point that began
this discussion, wasn't it?


Yes, I said that months ago but nobody would buy the argument.
Over those months, I have given countless examples proving that
to be true. Everyone just ignored those technical facts as they
have ignored 95% of the technical content of my postings only
to concentrate on the 5% containing feelings or bad humor.

Now, measure the phase shift of that coil ...


Sorry, the coil is obviously not the problem. Everyone understands
how a coil works.

When did everyone agree on that? Last time I looked, you were
claiming that one could use the self resonant frequency as a way to
predict the phase shift through a coil at other frequencies (to some
rather open tolerance) with the assumption of constant time delay.
And then you tested (with EZNEC) a coil in a one way wave situation
and demonstrated a 5 to 1 change in time delay over a rather small
frequency range, then you dropped the subject of coils and claim we
are all talking about some mystery of standing waves. It is hard to
keep up.

What everyone doesn't understand is how standing
waves in a wire work.

That is a pretty broad claim, unless you are really speaking for yourself.

That will be my topic of discussion from now
on. But feel free to continue the coil topic with anyone else.

Okay. I won't mention "bug catchers" any more in posts responding to
you. Glad that's over. ;-)