Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil, You still don't get it.

I get what you said. Here it is again.

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

So you alluded to phase information in the standing wave
current amplitude.

When I said the phase information was gone, I meant it.

But you also said:

Gene Fuller wrote:
However, there is not one bit of additional physical information
in the traveling waves that is not in the standing wave.

We know that there is phase information in the traveling waves.
So for your statement to be true, there has to be phase information
in the standing wave.

Both of your statements cannot be true. Which one are you
willing to stick with and which one are you going to retract?

If you look at: http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/travstnd.GIF
you will see that the standing wave amplitude is indeed
a cosine function of the phase. Taking the arc-cosine
of the normalized amplitude yields the phase angle.

I'm sorry, but you have contradicted yourself a couple of times
so I don't know which assertion you want to go with.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil, You still don't get it.


I get what you said. Here it is again.

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

So you alluded to phase information in the standing wave
current amplitude.

When I said the phase information was gone, I meant it.


But you also said:

Gene Fuller wrote:

However, there is not one bit of additional physical information

in the traveling waves that is not in the standing wave.

We know that there is phase information in the traveling waves.
So for your statement to be true, there has to be phase information
in the standing wave.

Both of your statements cannot be true. Which one are you
willing to stick with and which one are you going to retract?

If you look at: http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/travstnd.GIF
you will see that the standing wave amplitude is indeed
a cosine function of the phase. Taking the arc-cosine
of the normalized amplitude yields the phase angle.

I'm sorry, but you have contradicted yourself a couple of times
so I don't know which assertion you want to go with.


Cecil,

I have not contradicted myself, and I have nothing to retract. Only in
your imagination is there any useful phase information in the traveling
waves that make up a standing wave. There can be other waves that don't
exactly balance out into a standing wave, but that is another topic.

I am not sure to whom the "we" refers in your statement, "We know that
there is phase information in the traveling waves." Perhaps that is the
Royal We, because it certainly does not include me. The phase
information you might find is of no use, and it is simply an artifact of
the mathematical analysis.

If the standing wave adequately and completely describes the
electromagnetic situation, then there is no additional available from an
arbitrary decomposition in traveling waves. If you try to look at the
traveling waves one at a time, then you are no longer considering a
standing wave.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil, You still don't get it.
I get what you said. Here it is again.
So you alluded
I meant it.
But you also said:
there is not one bit of additional physical information
So for your statement to be true, there has to be Both of your statements
cannot be true. Which one are you
willing to stick with and which one are you going to retract?
If you look at
I'm sorry, but you have contradicted yourself a couple of times
so I don't know which assertion you want to go with.
I have not contradicted myself, and I have nothing to retract. but that is
another topic.
I am not sure to whom the "we" refers in your statement,
Perhaps that is the Royal We, because it certainly does not include me.
there is no additional available from

COME ON! KEEP IT GOING!! this rainy wet weekend is almost over and I could
use one more good round of laughter!! Perhaps we cut straight to the
conclusion and have something that is completely a personal attack devoid of
any possible technical statements, that would do nicely! DON'T STOP NOW!

Gene Fuller wrote:
I have not contradicted myself, ...

Either the standing wave current magnitude contains phase
information, as you previously asserted, or it doesn't.
I'll make it easy for you. Just insert an 'X' for the one
you agree with.

_____ Standing wave current magnitude contains some phase
information.

_____ Standing wave current magnitude contains zero phase
information.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp