RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)
-   -   FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/94364-fight-fight-fight.html)

[email protected] May 16th 06 07:44 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Give it up, Cecil. You don't even have a coherent notion of the
meaning of the term "phase." Selectively quoting, and re-interpreting
Bibles in order to make it seem as if the Gods agree with you won't cut
it, either. All the simple-minded rural sophistry in the world won't
make you right, or the rest of us wrong.


When you lose the technical argument, Tom, you always respond
with ad hominem attacks devoid of any technical content.


Cecil,

I don't understand why you complain about Tom D. You do exactly the
same thing all through any discussion.

On the QRZ forum you have post after post edited by moderators, that's
something that almost never happens! It's all on QRZ for people to see.
The list moderator even made a very rare public appearance to directly
warn you about your style.

It's pretty tough to have a non-personal technical discussion with you
because you distort facts and resort to the very same ad hominem
attacks you dislike from others.

Why not set a good example rather than yelling about Tom D.?

73 Tom


Gene Fuller May 16th 06 09:01 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

Sorry, I missed the comments that Kraus made about the phase of a
standing wave.



Quoting: "Figure 14-2 Relative current amplitude AND
PHASE along a center-fed 1/2WL cylindrical antenna."
Emphasis mine so you can't miss it this time.

I thought you were knowledgable enough to convert
Kraus's independent variable of wavelength to degrees in
his graph on page 464 of the 3rd edition of "Antennas For
All Applications". Allow me to assist you in that task.

The 'X' axis is "Distance from center of antenna in WL"

X in X in
wavelength degrees
0.00 0
0.05 18
0.10 36
0.15 54
0.20 72
0.25 90

Hope that helps you to understand Kraus's graph better.
Using the degree column, the standing wave current,
Itot, on that graph equals cos(X). The standing wave
current also equals Ifor*cos(-X) + Iref*cos(X) where
'X' is the phase angle of the forward traveling current
wave and the rearward traveling current wave. A phasor
diagram at 0.02WL = 72 degrees would look something
like this:

/ Iref
/
/
+----- Itot = Ifor*cos(-X) + Iref*cos(X)
\
\
\ Ifor

Incidentally, from the above phasor diagram, it is easy
to see why the phase angle of the standing wave current
is always zero (or 180 deg) since Ifor and Iref are
rotating in opposite directions at the same phase
velocity.



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

Roy Lewallen May 16th 06 09:25 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Cecil Moore wrote:

When you lose the technical argument, Tom, you always respond
with ad hominem attacks devoid of any technical content.


Chuckle. A perfect example of an ad hominem attack devoid of any
technical content.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Dave May 16th 06 09:25 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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!

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Dave wrote:
you guys are just fighting over your own statements since there was no
initial technical question or statement that started this thread...


Doesn't have to be. This is a continuation of earlier threads.
And I'm not fighting - I'm simply stating the laws of physics
as asserted by Balanis, Kraus, and Hecht.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp




Tom Donaly May 17th 06 12:15 AM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Give it up, Cecil. You don't even have a coherent notion of the
meaning of the term "phase." Selectively quoting, and re-interpreting
Bibles in order to make it seem as if the Gods agree with you won't
cut it, either. All the simple-minded rural sophistry in the world won't
make you right, or the rest of us wrong.



When you lose the technical argument, Tom, you always respond
with ad hominem attacks devoid of any technical content.

Fact is, the phase of the forward traveling current referenced
to the source current is equal to the distance from the source
expressed in degrees. The laws of physics will not stand for
anything else. That same number of degrees *IS* the phase
angle of the traveling wave(s). Every competent engineer knows
that as it is obvious from the equations in any good textbook.


I was just giving you some good advice, Cecil. If I wanted to give you
an ad hominem attack I'd just call you a rat and have done with it. No,
make that a dirty rat. But, for a blobberlipped quodlibetarian like
yourself, whose gothamist blatteration attaminates the pure newsgroup
aether with low defoedation of the worst kind, perhaps stronger words
are in order.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 04:27 AM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
wrote:
Why not set a good example rather than yelling about Tom D.?


I'm trying, Tom. Why don't you join me?
--
73, Cecil
http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 04:33 AM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Gene Fuller wrote:
I don't know why you go through all of these gyrations. The phase shown
by Kraus is durn close to zero.


That's the phase of the standing wave current which W7EL used
to make meaningless measurements.

Everyone else who has joined in on this
thread agrees; there is no meaningful phase characteristic for a
standing wave.


Are you retracting your earlier statement just because its
technical accuracy disagrees with your friend's misconceptions?

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


If you retract your statement then you contradict his other statement
that nothing is lost during superposition. You guys simply cannot
have it both ways. Why not stick with technical accuracy?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 04:35 AM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
When you lose the technical argument, Tom, you always respond
with ad hominem attacks devoid of any technical content.


Chuckle. A perfect example of an ad hominem attack devoid of any
technical content.


Chuckle. The truth is not an ad hominem attack. Incidentally, Tom
didn't lose the argument to me - he lost it to Balanis.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 04:39 AM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Tom Donaly wrote:
I was just giving you some good advice, Cecil. If I wanted to give you
an ad hominem attack I'd just call you a rat and have done with it. No,
make that a dirty rat. But, for a blobberlipped quodlibetarian like
yourself, whose gothamist blatteration attaminates the pure newsgroup
aether with low defoedation of the worst kind, perhaps stronger words
are in order.


The technical content of your posting is, once again,
conspicuous by its absence. How about a reference for
the standing wave current not being a sinusoid?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Gene Fuller May 17th 06 03:00 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

I don't know why you go through all of these gyrations. The phase
shown by Kraus is durn close to zero.



That's the phase of the standing wave current which W7EL used
to make meaningless measurements.

Everyone else who has joined in on this thread agrees; there is no
meaningful phase characteristic for a standing wave.



Are you retracting your earlier statement just because its
technical accuracy disagrees with your friend's misconceptions?

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


If you retract your statement then you contradict his other statement
that nothing is lost during superposition. You guys simply cannot
have it both ways. Why not stick with technical accuracy?



Cecil,

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

What is the problem?

What is there to "retract"?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 03:03 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Roy Lewallen wrote:
As I pointed out some time ago, the envelope of a standing wave isn't in
general sinusoidally shaped.


Assuming the source signal is sinusoidal, your above assertion
would require non-linearity in the antenna. Since antennas are
generally considered to be linear systems, would you please
explain where the nonlinearity is coming from?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 03:13 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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.

In any case, the graph at

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/travstnd.GIF

proves that there is phase information contained in the
standing wave current magnitude. The arc-cosine of the
standing wave current magnitude is identical to the phase
of the traveling wave referenced to the source current.

Please note that the "experts" have been strangely silent
on the contents of that graph.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 03:34 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
As I pointed out some time ago, the envelope of a standing wave isn't
in general sinusoidally shaped.


Assuming the source signal is sinusoidal, your above assertion
would require non-linearity in the antenna. Since antennas are
generally considered to be linear systems, would you please
explain where the nonlinearity is coming from?


Additional thought: Assuming the source signal is a pure sine
wave, if the standing wave current "isn't in general sinusoidally
shaped", then the antenna would have to be introducing harmonic
radiation that doesn't exist in the source signal. That fact is
easily proved with a Fourier analysis.

I wasn't aware that standing wave antennas cause radiation on
harmonic frequencies. Any standing wave current waveform that
deviates very far from a sinusoid would be illegal.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Gene Fuller May 17th 06 04:57 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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!

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Tom Donaly May 17th 06 05:19 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

As I pointed out some time ago, the envelope of a standing wave isn't
in general sinusoidally shaped.



Assuming the source signal is sinusoidal, your above assertion
would require non-linearity in the antenna. Since antennas are
generally considered to be linear systems, would you please
explain where the nonlinearity is coming from?


No it wouldn't, Cecil. Even you know better than that. For those who
believe Cecil, consider a lossy transmission line terminated in a short,
or open. The signal is attenuated as it goes down the line, and also
attenuated as it comes back up the line, in an exponential fashion.
The envelope is thus not sinusoidal. The signal may be sinusoidal,
but the envelope can't possibly be. Cecil's antennas may be lossless,
but most of us want our antennas to radiate energy, hopefully, as
efficiently as possible, so we have to put up with current distributions
that aren't easy either to envision or to calculate. That's why even
Cecil uses EZNEC.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Richard Harrison May 17th 06 05:54 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"Assuming the source signal is a pure sine wave, if the standing wave
current "isn`t in general sinusoidally shaped (as Roy said)", then the
antenna would have to be introducing harmonic radiation that doesn`t
exist in the source signal."

Standing waves are produced by forward and reflected traveling
soinusoidal waves produced by the same generator. Coherent signals on a
transmission line and antenna of the same frequency are correctly
represented by phasors.

The term phasor is preferred over vector for an arrow which indicates
phase separation and magnitude of an electrical unit. Phasors are used
to represent sinusoidal voltages and currents. They are also used to
represent reactances and impedances.

Like vectors, phasors can be "added" by the head-to-tail method or by
the component method.

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.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Cecil Moore May 17th 06 06:12 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Gene Fuller wrote:
The only "phase" remaining is the cos (kz) term, which is really
an amplitude description, not a phase.


Yes, there it is again, you said there is phase information
in the amplitude description and you were right.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Richard Clark May 17th 06 06:22 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:19:17 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

Cecil's antennas may be lossless,


Hi Tom,

Even more amazing is that they are linear transmission lines.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 06:30 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Assuming the source signal is sinusoidal, your above assertion
would require non-linearity in the antenna. Since antennas are
generally considered to be linear systems, would you please
explain where the nonlinearity is coming from?


No it wouldn't, Cecil. Even you know better than that. For those who
believe Cecil, consider a lossy transmission line terminated in a short,
or open. The signal is attenuated as it goes down the line, and also
attenuated as it comes back up the line, in an exponential fashion.
The envelope is thus not sinusoidal.


An attenuated (damped) sinusoidal signal is still sinusoidal, Tom.
The fact that such a signal doesn't generate harmonics proves
that it is sinusoidal. If it were not sinusoidal, it would
by definition, be generating harmonics. Are you really asserting
that a damped sinusoidal signal generates harmonics? That's the
only way to prove it has gone nonsinusoidal.

All non-sinusoidal waveforms contain harmonics of the fundamental
frequency. Every competent engineer in the world is aware of that
technical fact. If the source signal to an antenna is a pure single-
frequency sine wave, and if the standing wave current is non-
sinusoidal, then the antenna has necessarily introduced harmonics,
i.e. the antenna is non-linear.

W7EL is simply mistaken when he says the standing wave current
waveform is not sinusoidal. If the standing wave current waveform
ever was nonsinusoidal, the antenna would, by definition, be
non-linear and be generating harmonics not present in the source
waveform.

Seems you guys need to review your Math 202 course covering Fourier
transforms.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 06:35 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 06:45 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
Cecil's antennas may be lossless,


Even more amazing is that they are linear transmission lines.


In spite of W7EL's assertions that antennas generate
nonsinusoidal waveforms, they indeed are linear and bear a
striking resemblence to a lossy transmission line. Why do
you think they are called standing wave antennas?

Take a look at page 18 of Balanis' "Antenna Theory", 2nd
edition, Figure 1.15. He shows how to turn a transmission
line into an dipole with exactly the same standing wave
current distribution before and after.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Richard Clark May 17th 06 06:52 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:45:08 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Even more amazing is that they are linear transmission lines.

they indeed are linear


What is distinctly NOT amazing, is to see foolishness repeated.

Richard Harrison May 17th 06 07:04 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Richard Clark, KB7QHC wrote:
"Even morte amazing is that they (antennas) are linear transmission
lines."

Antennas and transmission lines are linear, passive, and carry incident
and reflected waves in much the same manner.

Look at "Current Distribution in Wire Antennas" on page 866 of Terman`s
1955 edition of "Electronic and Radio Engineering":
"A wire antenna is a circuit with distributed constants; hence the
current distribution in a wire antenna that results from the application
of a localized voltage follows the principles discussed in Chapt. 4---."
Chapt.4 is entitled "Transmission Lines".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Richard Clark May 17th 06 07:26 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
On Wed, 17 May 2006 13:04:51 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Richard Clark, KB7QHC wrote:
"Even morte amazing is that they (antennas) are linear transmission
lines."


morte indeed.

Antennas and transmission lines are linear, passive, and carry incident
and reflected waves in much the same manner.


Hi Richard,

I note you do NOT say "in exactly the same manner," which is
unsupportable in the literature. So, when you abstract from antennas
to
Chapt.4 is entitled "Transmission Lines".

it is apparent that to a first approximation, and for the purposes of
illustration (not engineering, except for amateur purposes) that it
may seem to be so.

Of course, all things are possible when the limits of Cecil's error
band encompass ±59%. Even White can be darn dark.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Tom Donaly May 17th 06 08:37 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Assuming the source signal is sinusoidal, your above assertion
would require non-linearity in the antenna. Since antennas are
generally considered to be linear systems, would you please
explain where the nonlinearity is coming from?



No it wouldn't, Cecil. Even you know better than that. For those who
believe Cecil, consider a lossy transmission line terminated in a
short, or open. The signal is attenuated as it goes down the line, and
also
attenuated as it comes back up the line, in an exponential fashion.
The envelope is thus not sinusoidal.



An attenuated (damped) sinusoidal signal is still sinusoidal, Tom.
The fact that such a signal doesn't generate harmonics proves
that it is sinusoidal. If it were not sinusoidal, it would
by definition, be generating harmonics. Are you really asserting
that a damped sinusoidal signal generates harmonics? That's the
only way to prove it has gone nonsinusoidal.

All non-sinusoidal waveforms contain harmonics of the fundamental
frequency. Every competent engineer in the world is aware of that
technical fact. If the source signal to an antenna is a pure single-
frequency sine wave, and if the standing wave current is non-
sinusoidal, then the antenna has necessarily introduced harmonics,
i.e. the antenna is non-linear.

W7EL is simply mistaken when he says the standing wave current
waveform is not sinusoidal. If the standing wave current waveform
ever was nonsinusoidal, the antenna would, by definition, be
non-linear and be generating harmonics not present in the source
waveform.

Seems you guys need to review your Math 202 course covering Fourier
transforms.


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.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 09:11 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Even more amazing is that they are linear transmission lines.


they indeed are linear


What is distinctly NOT amazing, is to see foolishness repeated.


Either transmission lines are linear or they are not linear.
The only way for them to generate nonsinusoidal signals is
for them to be nonlinear. The same goes for antennas.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Richard Clark May 17th 06 09:17 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:11:55 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Even more amazing is that they are linear transmission lines.

they indeed are linear


What is distinctly NOT amazing, is to see foolishness repeated.


Either transmission lines are linear or they are not linear.


Now there's a motto to live by.

The only way for them to generate nonsinusoidal signals is


Oh this is going to be good...

for them to be nonlinear.


Transmission lines generate signals? What a guffaw!

The same goes for antennas.


Double chuckle.

Talk about linear thinking
woops
Binary thinking, nothing linear from you this round.

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 09:36 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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. Nobody, except some "experts"
on this newsgroup, is ignorant enough to use those words in
a supposedly technical valid sentence.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 09:43 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore May 17th 06 09:46 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
Richard Clark wrote:
Transmission lines generate signals? What a guffaw!


Put a diode in a transmission line and it will definitely
generate a signal on a frequency that didn't exist before.
I'm really surprised that you don't know that fact of physics.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Dave May 17th 06 10:22 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 

"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!



Dave May 17th 06 10:24 PM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 

"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!



Tom Donaly May 18th 06 12:33 AM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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

Richard Clark May 18th 06 01:33 AM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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.

Richard Clark May 18th 06 02:03 AM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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]

Tom Ring May 18th 06 04:24 AM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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

Cecil Moore May 18th 06 04:28 AM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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

Tom Ring May 18th 06 04:28 AM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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


Cecil Moore May 18th 06 04:32 AM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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

Richard Clark May 18th 06 06:32 AM

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 
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.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com