"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

I am really puzzled. I cannot see even one inconsistency in my
statements, including those you quote.

What is the problem?


You said there is phase remaining in the cos(kz) term which
is contained in the amplitude.

Then you said there is no phase information.

Those statements contradict each other.



Cecil,

My exact words, which you quoted, were,

The only "phase" remaining is the cos (kz) term, which is really
an amplitude description, not a phase.

If you interpreted that comment as supporting the existence of a phase in
this situation, then I cannot offer any help except to suggest you go back
and review the meaning of "not".

This has become sillier than I ever imagined possible. I am done with this
FIGHT!

you haven't been around this group long have you? if you think its silly
now, check back next week and see how its still going on!

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. com...
Richard Harrison wrote:
If a phasor represents an alternating current:
I = Io cos omega t,
then the sum of the two phasors representing forward and reflected
sinusoidal components is another sinusoid of the same frequency.

Point is the components are amenable to phasor representation. All the
old authors do it. This amenability is proof the standing wave is a
sinusoid too.

The absence of harmonic frequencies generated by the antenna
is also proof that the standing wave is a sinusoid. All
nonsinusoidal waveforms contain harmonics.
--
i found a way for just a piece of hardline to generate harmonics... and even
stranger, it generated sub-harmonics, dividing the frequency in half to be
exact... now have fun with that one!

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

We're talking about the envelope, Cecil, what are you talking about?
Since you've become so enamored of math all of a sudden, go ahead and
plot the current envelope on a length of very lossy transmission line
and tell me, with a straight face, that it follows a sine
function. On the other hand, don't bother. I know it's too hard
on your head, but it's an interesting exercise for everyone else.


The envelope of an unattenuated sine wave is a straight line, Tom.
Is a straight line sinusoidal? Give us an everloving break! You
can fool half the people half the time but please stop trying to
fool all the people all the time.

Here is an example that should put an end to your foolishness.

100W-----50 ohm coax------50 ohm load dissipating 50 watts

Please explain how the 3dB attenuation in the coax causes
nonsinusoidal signals in the system. Proof of nonsinusoidal
signals would be the generation of harmonics. We are all
awaiting your reinvention of the laws of physics.

Nice try, but you still keep conflating time with distance.
If any of the lurkers on this newsgroup want, they can
consider a dipole somewhat shorter than 1/2 wavelength. According to
one of Cecil's sources, Balanis, the current distribution on such
a wire resembles a triangle. Now, it's true you can do a Fourier
analysis on this triangle, but you won't come up with frequencies.
You will come up with an infinite group of sine and cosine waves
with units of cycles/meter (as opposed to cycles/second). What earthly
use are units of cycles/meter? Does Cecil have a radio that can tune in
cycles/meter? On the other hand, if you could measure the current and
turn it into a voltage so an oscilloscope could show it, you would see
a nice sine wave everywhere except at the ends of your antenna. And the
units would be in cycles per second. Cycles per meter, phaseless
phasors... you sure have a vivid imagination, Cecil.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:46:12 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Put a diode in a transmission line and it will definitely
generate a signal on a frequency that didn't exist before.

Third generation joke,
or
the Texas philospher's theory of a Free Lunch.

I'm really surprised that you don't know that fact of physics.

You have a limitless capacity for being surprised, certainly. What is
more amusing is your capacity to make unrelated correlations to it.

Antennas as non-linear transmission lines have already been covered
and have been part of the literature for quite some time. You simply
need to invest more effort in reading rather than more dimes for Xerox
toner.

On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:36:41 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
I note you do NOT say "in exactly the same manner," which is
unsupportable in the literature.

"Exactly" is one of the buzz words like "perfect", "always",
"never", "infinite", "lossless", etc. that invariably make
any statement using them false.

Another motto we can all live by, except maybe its author who in so
many words:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:35:14 GMT, in rec.radio.amateur.antenna you
wrote:
Exactly
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:42:12 GMT, in rec.radio.amateur.antenna you
wrote:
Exactly
exactly
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:13:52 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
Exactly
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:45:39 GMT, "Cecil Moore"
wrote:
Exactly
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:40:40 GMT, "Cecil Moore"
wrote:
always
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:34:51 GMT, "Cecil Moore"
wrote:
always
always
always
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:20:10 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
always
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:04:02 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
never
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:01:18 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
never
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:35:14 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
never
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:20:19 GMT, "Cecil Moore"
wrote:
never
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:28:35 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
never

and on and on and on (luckily I only pick up 1/4 of all the effluent)
so much that I'm not inspired to quote the rest of these 5 forbidden
words when 3 peg the irony meter.

Nobody, except some "experts"
on this newsgroup, is ignorant enough to use those words in
a supposedly technical valid sentence.

You know why cowboys wear their jeans inside their boots? [hint is
found above]

Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil,

I don't know why you go through all of these gyrations. The phase shown
by Kraus is durn close to zero. Everyone else who has joined in on this
thread agrees; there is no meaningful phase characteristic for a
standing wave. Your last sentence above says the same thing.

It seems you simply like to argue, even when there is no disagreement.
Perhaps you need a dog to go with your hog. 8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

That's why I don't pay any attention to anything Cecil posts. I do,
however, pay attention to the responses. Therein lies the gold.

tom
K0TAR

Tom Donaly wrote:
According to
one of Cecil's sources, Balanis, the current distribution on such
a wire resembles a triangle.

It only resembles a triangle. It is actually part of a
cosine waveform. From cos(80) to cos(90), the cosine
function is close to a straight line but it is *NOT*
a straight line. Assuming the current distribution is
a triangular is only an approximation with a known error.
The current distribution acutally remains a cosine function
but assuming a straight line simplifies the math and doesn't
cause an unacceptably large error.

It is akin to the approximation that A = sin(A) when
A is very small. It is *ONLY* an approximation with limited
accuracy.

cos(80)=0.17365, cos(85)=0.08716, cos(90)=0

0.17365/2 = 0.08682 which is an error of 0.4% when one assumes
a triangular function.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Dave wrote:

yeah, i know, you guys are so busy fighting with each other that you can't
see the forest for the trees. keep going, its still raining here and may be
for a few more days yet!


Dave

You obviously haven't figured out who is "fighting" and who is "amused".

I'll give you a clue, the ones fighting are "C" and "Y" hihi.

tom
K0TAR

Richard Clark wrote:
Antennas as non-linear transmission lines have already been covered
and have been part of the literature for quite some time.

Antennas are linear systems.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Thu, 18 May 2006 03:32:49 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Antennas are linear systems.
another list game, hmm?
Antennas are wires in the sky;
Antennas are fun;
Antennas are this,
....that,
....and,
....another.