On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:19:13 -0400, Roger D Johnson
wrote:
Richard is wrong too! There are electrostatic meter movements.

********** W R O N G !! *************

Ah! Fresh Meat.

Explain how that movement moves with a charge moving (current!).

Ta Dah!

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 22:53:39 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

movement requires current - true but completely irrelevant.

Ta Dah!

the myth of zero (0) current is busted.

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 15:30:12 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 10:21:08 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

As usual, the question is nonsense when the picture reveals the
answer. Cecil rarely sees the irony - except to brush it off as
1. Rhetoric (no answer needed, an admission of wasting time);
2. Our error for not knowing he made a squinty-eyed mistake
(playing the pity card);
3. A joke (having forgotten one of a bajillion happy faces);
4. His poor choice of words (playing the pity card - 3 of Hearts);
5. true but completely irrelevant (the stupid card);

Always room for one more excuse (to be continued).

The challenge continues without upset or serious contest:

The current is flowing in the SWR meter. DUH!

I would, of course, task any/everyone to find any point along the line
where the SWR meter does not exhibit current flow for this
configuration. :-)

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:19:13 -0400, Roger D Johnson
wrote:

Richard is wrong too! There are electrostatic meter movements.


********** W R O N G !! *************

Ah! Fresh Meat.

Explain how that movement moves with a charge moving (current!).

Perpetual motion? ;^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Roger D Johnson wrote:
Richard is wrong too! There are electrostatic meter movements.

73, Roger


Roger is wrong too, and Richard is not.

Electrostatic indicators don't measure current or charge movement, they
measure voltage or charge displacement.

But what I really want to know is how Cecil can have current flowing
both directions at the same instant of time in a single point of single
conductor, can dismiss displacement currents as trivial things that can
be ignored when they are required to define the most important aspects
of transmission or antenna behavior, and say the very thing that is
used to measure current suddenly doesn't measure his imaginary two-way
reflected and forward current's vector sum.

That's what is really important, especially in light of the fact Cecil
is quick to play superior.

Anyone who is really superior should be able to walk us through the
physics of two-way current and tell us why dosplacement currents don't
matter, and explain his magical transmission lines and antennas without
displacement current in a way that we all understand.

73 Tom

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 21:32:20 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:19:13 -0400, Roger D Johnson
wrote:

Richard is wrong too! There are electrostatic meter movements.


********** W R O N G !! *************

Ah! Fresh Meat.

Explain how that movement moves with a charge moving (current!).

Perpetual motion? ;^)

It only takes a moment, and a millimeter - Only Cecil could make that
perpetual.

wrote:

Answer the question Cecil, how can we have charge movement over a small
length of conductor (in terms of the wavelength) in two directions at
the same time, or a drift velocity in two directions at once?

73 Tom


Tom

Cecil and Co. are not interested in real physics, math, or engineering.
They have made up their own. As I said to Roy, you may as well give up.

Tom
K0TAR

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:19:13 -0400, Roger D Johnson
wrote:
Richard is wrong too! There are electrostatic meter movements.

********** W R O N G !! *************

Ah! Fresh Meat.

Explain how that movement moves with a charge moving (current!).

Ta Dah!

I don't understand your statement. Explanation he

http://www.tpub.com/neets/book3/7k.htm

73, Roger

--
Remove tilde (~) to reply

Remember the USS Liberty (AGTR-5)
http://ussliberty.org/

wrote:
Roger D Johnson wrote:

Richard is wrong too! There are electrostatic meter movements.

73, Roger



Roger is wrong too, and Richard is not.

Electrostatic indicators don't measure current or charge movement, they
measure voltage or charge displacement.

But what I really want to know is how Cecil can have current flowing
both directions at the same instant of time in a single point of single
conductor, can dismiss displacement currents as trivial things that can
be ignored when they are required to define the most important aspects
of transmission or antenna behavior, and say the very thing that is
used to measure current suddenly doesn't measure his imaginary two-way
reflected and forward current's vector sum.

That's what is really important, especially in light of the fact Cecil
is quick to play superior.

Anyone who is really superior should be able to walk us through the
physics of two-way current and tell us why dosplacement currents don't
matter, and explain his magical transmission lines and antennas without
displacement current in a way that we all understand.

73 Tom


Cecil can't prove that charge can move in two opposite directions
at once. No one can. It's impossible. He's always had problems with
superposition, believing the constituents of a standing wave have
more reality than the wave itself.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

wrote:
Current is by definition is the flow of charge.

And two equal EM waves flowing in opposite directions
in the same wire use the same charge carriers.

By definition and by physics, we cannot have charges flowing two
directions at once at one point.

A charge carrier cannot be moving in two directions at
the same time. Two currents can certainly exist in opposite
directions at the same time. That's what forward current
and reflected current is. If you want to deny the existence
of forward and reflected current, be my guest.

This is precisely the current we would measure with a current meter
sampling the magnetic field, it is the current we would measure
sampling radiation, and it is the current that would determine phase of
the radiation or induction field.

Yes, but if it's phase is unchanging, which direction is
it flowing? When the forward current and reflected current
are of equal magnitudes, which direction is the phasor sum
of those two currents flowing?

So please expain to use, even if we allow a conductor to have TWO
voltage gradients of opposite polarity over the same linear area of
conductor, why Cecil's Current is important.

I have told you and W7EL about a dozen times before. One
cannot use standing wave current phase to measure the phase
shift through a wire or through a coil. Any such attempt
will fail. Yet, that is what W7EL has reported as technical
fact for about a year now.

Also, tell us how we can measure and prove in a repeatable test, the
two-way charge movement exists.

Please stop implying something that isn't true. There is no
two-way movement of single charge carriers. The current is NOT
the same thing as the charge carriers.

Either you are creating diversionary conundrums, or you should be able
to explain how we can have charges moving past a point in a single
conductor that are moving both directions at one instant of time.

Please cut the BS, Tom. Individual charge carriers don't move in
both directions at the same time. The forward and reflected current
waves move in both directions at the same time, unaware of each
other's presence until they encounter an impedance discontinuity.

It is obvious that you don't understand forward and reflected EM
waves that can exist on a wire or even in free space. Please crack
open a textbook on such. Ramo and Whinnery is a good reference.

The almost universal measurement method of current is magnetic.
Suddenly Cecil's Theory of Current renders universal measurement
methods obsolete!

This is technical discussion and has absolutely nothing to do
with you or me.

NEC uses current and voltage, not wave theory. You attempt to use an
engine that uses what you say we can use to prove we are wrong in using
current when there are standing waves!

How do you explain EZNEC getting the same answer as the distributed
network model at: http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/travstnd.GIF? And while
you are looking at that graph, please explain how the flat phase
of the standing wave current can be used to measure phase through
a wire or a coil.

Don't you think you should have understood the NEC engine used in the
program before using it to prove we cannot use current without
reflections?

No. EZNEC agrees with the distributed network model. That's all
I need to know about it.

Yes, absolutely. If you don't understand that, you'd better review
basic transmission lines and quit wasting everyone else's time giving
assignments.

Exactly how does the displacement current to ground get outside
of a coax line with no common-mode currents?

If we stopped that third path, the current would not change.

Assume one amp of forward current and one amp of reflected current
inside a piece of coax with no common-mode current. There's no
third path to ground, yet the standing wave still exists, with
current nodes and current loops. No third path to ground is
required.

Answer the question Cecil, how can we have charge movement over a small
length of conductor (in terms of the wavelength) in two directions at
the same time, or a drift velocity in two directions at once?

Your straw man is noted for all the world to see. A single charge
carrier cannot move in two directions at the same time. But if
you are denying that two EM waves can move in opposite directions
at the same time, please just come right out and assert such.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp