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

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

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

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

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

Well,
It looks like Dave successfully excited some natural frequencies in the
group for some weekend entertainment. Congratulations.
73,
Glenn AC7ZN

Oh, and by the way, natural frequencies cannot exist without forward,
and reflected...
:-

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

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

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