Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Egad. Of course I reject the notion that there's "phase information in the standing wave current magnitude". I should have provided a reference in my earlier posting. Your above statement disagrees with Kraus. On page 464 of "Antennas for All Applications", 3rd edition, Kraus shows the relative current amplitude for a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole. He says on that page that the magnitude is a sinusoidal function. Would you care to explain how a sinusoidal magnitude function is NOT associated with phase? For everyone else: Roy had ploinked me so he never sees my references. Therefore, he disagrees with Kraus over and over and over. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#42
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote: Egad. Of course I reject the notion that there's "phase information in the standing wave current magnitude". I should have provided a reference in my earlier posting. Your above statement disagrees with Kraus. On page 464 of "Antennas for All Applications", 3rd edition, Kraus shows the relative current amplitude for a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole. He says on that page that the magnitude is a sinusoidal function. Would you care to explain how a sinusoidal magnitude function is NOT associated with phase? For everyone else: Roy had ploinked me so he never sees my references. Therefore, he disagrees with Kraus over and over and over. What is a "sinusoidal magnitude function," Cecil? I don't have Kraus, so I'll take your word for it that he wrote that the current on a 1/2 WL thin wire dipole can be represented as a sine function. Good. I can now throw away my EZNEC. I doubt very much if any of the people who disagree with you really write anything that contradicts Kraus or any of the other textbook writers. Selective quoting is another low trick you like to play, Cecil. You must have learned it in Bible class. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
#43
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom Donaly wrote:
What is a "sinusoidal magnitude function," Cecil? Y = sin(X) The magnitude 'Y' is equal to the sine of an angle, 'X', in degrees. Wouldn't you agree with me that it is ridiculously ignorant to assert that the magnitude 'Y' has nothing to do with the phase angle 'X', i.e. that there's no "phase information in the ... magnitude". -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#44
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: For everyone else: Roy had ploinked me so he never sees my references. Therefore, he disagrees with Kraus over and over and over. I don't recall ever having disagreed with anything I've read in Kraus. I do, however, frequently disagree with the misinterpretations and misquotations of Kraus and many other references which Cecil has made. His frequent claims of "If you disagree with me, you disagree with [Kraus, Maxwell, Balanis, Hecht, Heaviside, Terman, God, whoever] are total baloney (to use a much kinder term than it deserves). Yes, I plonked Cecil a couple of years ago. Seeing only the occasional text quoted by others of his bizarre ramblings is more than enough. Those which I do see reinforce my belief that I'm certainly not missing anything of technical or educational merit. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
#45
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roy Lewallen wrote:
I don't recall ever having disagreed with anything I've read in Kraus. Your posting below disagrees with the information on page 464 of "Antennas for all Applications", 3rd edition. Of course I reject the notion that there's "phase information in the standing wave current magnitude". The standing wave current magnitude is sinusoidal, according to Kraus. How can you possibly have a sinusoidal wave without an associated phase angle? For a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole: If the source current is 1.0 at 0 deg at t=0, the magnitude of the standing wave current is cos(X) where X is the number of degrees from the source. Your statement that there is no phase information in a cosine function is absolutely false. In fact, in the above example the arc-cosine of the standing wave magnitude is the phase angle of the reflected current. The negative of that angle is the phase angle of the forward current. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#46
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well,
It looks like Dave successfully excited some natural frequencies in the group for some weekend entertainment. Congratulations. 73, Glenn AC7ZN |
#47
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Oh, and by the way, natural frequencies cannot exist without forward,
and reflected... :- |
#48
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote: What is a "sinusoidal magnitude function," Cecil? Y = sin(X) The magnitude 'Y' is equal to the sine of an angle, 'X', in degrees. Wouldn't you agree with me that it is ridiculously ignorant to assert that the magnitude 'Y' has nothing to do with the phase angle 'X', i.e. that there's no "phase information in the ... magnitude". Actually, I don't think it's "ridiculously ignorant" at all. If all you have is the value of current at one point, you can't possibly tell anything about the phase. You need to compare it to something - itself even - somewhere or sometime else in order to have an idea of phase. Here's what I mean: suppose I have a piece of wire of unknown length, excited by an unknown frequency, and picking a random point on the wire I measure 1.73 amps. What is the phase? You're trying to square the circle and hear the sound of one hand clapping at one and the same time, Cecil. Of course, in your case, you know the length of the wire, the frequency of the wave and its wavelength, and you think you know the current distribution on the wire (a half wavelength dipole) so you don't need anything but a ruler to find what you're looking for. Of course, you have to decide what you mean by the term "phase." Try not to get a permanent headache thinking about it. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
#49
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message oups.com... Oh, and by the way, natural frequencies cannot exist without forward, and reflected... :- If there is reflector (impedance bump) in their way. If W8JI waves are not reflected or opposed, then they would propagate merrily into the ethernity and become the law of the RF jungle and other pagan believers would worship them and praise the radio guru. Waves have frequencies and sines/cosines, so this is related to antennas, unless, of course there are those who "know better" :-) Jus' stirring the pot... Yuri da BUm |
#50
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: For everyone else: Roy had ploinked me so he never sees my references. Therefore, he disagrees with Kraus over and over and over. I don't recall ever having disagreed with anything I've read in Kraus. I do, however, frequently disagree with the misinterpretations and misquotations of Kraus and many other references which Cecil has made. His frequent claims of "If you disagree with me, you disagree with [Kraus, Maxwell, Balanis, Hecht, Heaviside, Terman, God, whoever] are total baloney (to use a much kinder term than it deserves). Yes, I plonked Cecil a couple of years ago. Seeing only the occasional text quoted by others of his bizarre ramblings is more than enough. Those which I do see reinforce my belief that I'm certainly not missing anything of technical or educational merit. Roy Lewallen, W7EL For someone like me, Cecil can be (but usually isn't) a very useful crackpot. I can be pretty sure he's wrong, but the process of educating myself into turning that hunch into a dead certainty that I can prove to everyone (except him) can be enlightening. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Steveo Fight Checklist | CB | |||
Steveo/Race Worrier Fight Schedule so far | CB |