![]() |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
|
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com