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!
 

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

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