Roy Lewallen wrote:

So for starters, why don't you explain how your theory fits with the
existing model results? Why is the current drop the same with an antenna
and for a lumped circuit? Why does removing ground make the current drop
go away? Why is there no significant phase shift in current from bottom
to top? Conventional theory can explain this. Can yours?

As for your promise to write the article, I have to point out that
you've made this promise before without delivering. So I'm not exactly
holding my breath waiting for it. I'm sure it'll make interesting
reading, though, and it's a revolutionary enough theory that the IEEE,
or at the very least QEX, should be happy to publish it when it's
finally complete.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Sorry, I forgot to mention that they also don't appear to understand
math, or the fact that "complex numbers" are quite simple if you went to
engineering school and own an HP15 calculator. Mine still works fine.

If you had trouble with the previous statement, Cecil and Yuri, I meant
that your "phasor" math is trivial. At best 2nd year engineering. And
yes, we do understand it. A lot more than you do apparently.

tom
K0TAR

Gene Fuller wrote:
My question is why you feel there is anything of significance or
anything for the "gurus" to ponder.

Hopefully, I answered that question in my other posting. If one
wants to measure phase shift using a traveling wave current, one
measures the phase shift between two points.

If one wants to measure the phase shift using a standing wave
current, one measures the amplitudes at two points and subtracts
the arc-cosines of the normalized amplitude values.

You said essentially the same thing in your earlier posting -
that there is no phase information in the standing wave current
phase and all the phase information is in the amplitude values.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Tom Ring wrote:
They are not interested in reality. They are not interested in
engineering. They do not want to understand physics, or they are not
capable. It matters not.

You are, of course, talking about QEX.

Tom, maybe you can explain how to use standing wave current phase
to measure the phase shift through a wire? If you can, I would
really appreciate it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Tom Ring wrote:
If you had trouble with the previous statement, Cecil and Yuri, I meant
that your "phasor" math is trivial. At best 2nd year engineering. And
yes, we do understand it. A lot more than you do apparently.

Well then, please prove W8JI's assertion that "current is current",
i.e. that cos(kx+wt) = cos(kx)*cos(wt) at every point up and down
the wire. That should be "trivial" for you.

If you cannot prove that, please explain to us how and why
standing wave current is different from traveling wave current.
(That's what I have been doing.)

During your explanation of the difference, you will realize why
W7EL's standing wave phase measurements are meaningless - that
there is no phase information in standing wave current phase.
As Gene said, all the phase information is in the standing wave
current *amplitude*, not in the phase.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"David G. Nagel" wrote
I have completely lost track of what the object of the exercise is.

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

I gave up trying just after the thread began.

What put me off was "current across the coil" when everybody knows it
should be "current through the coil".

It is VOLTS which appear ACROSS coils.
----
Reg.

Tom Ring wrote:

Roy, I will make you a bet. Lunch, if you might be at Central States
this year.

Are you kidding? With odds about the same as winning the lottery?

Not Gonna Happen.

They are not interested in reality. They are not interested in
engineering. They do not want to understand physics, or they are not
capable. It matters not.

I have been watching, and reading, and would like to see you, and the
others, stop beating a very dead horse. Cecil and Yuri will never get it.

Oh, I know all that.

I'm not posting in an attempt to educate Cecil and Yuri or to change
their minds -- it became evident years ago that's a waste of time. The
only reason I bother is in the hopes that it'll play some part in
preventing some of the lurkers from getting sucked in by the flurry of
informed-sounding but demonstrably wrong arguments which continue to
come from those folks. It's hard to say if it's having any effect, but I
think it's important to present a point of view supported by established
theory, modeling, and measurement results which are all in agreement
rather than letting the pseudo-science stand alone as apparent fact.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Reg Edwards wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote

I have completely lost track of what the object of the exercise is.


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

I gave up trying just after the thread began.

What put me off was "current across the coil" when everybody knows it
should be "current through the coil".

It is VOLTS which appear ACROSS coils.
----
Reg.


evidently Cecil doesn't.

Dave

Cecil,

I thought you denounced and denied this "concept" earlier today.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Cecil Moore wrote:
If we had a coil installed
in that 30 degrees of the antenna instead of a wire, the same
concepts would apply.

Roy Lewallen wrote:
The
only reason I bother is in the hopes that it'll play some part in
preventing some of the lurkers from getting sucked in by the flurry of
informed-sounding but demonstrably wrong arguments which continue to
come from those folks.

Roy, it is demonstrably wrong to try to use standing wave current
phase to measure the delay through a coil. Anyone, including you,
who says it is a valid procedure is either ignorant or trying to
hoodwink the lurkers.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Gene Fuller wrote:
I thought you denounced and denied this "concept" earlier today.

Guess you misunderstood. A coil can replace 30 degrees of
an antenna but it won't use the same amount of wire as
30 degrees of wire. What I said is that an inductor is
more efficient than linear loading.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp