Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

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


I agree with you but W8JI and W7EL have rejected the concept that
there is any phase information in the standing wave current magnitude.
They have rejected any use of the arc-cosine function in calculating
that phase. The following graphs show the difference in the standing
wave current and the traveling wave current.
. . .

Egad. Of course I reject the notion that there's "phase information in
the standing wave current magnitude". Magnitude and phase are
orthogonal. There's no phase in the magnitude and no magnitude in the
phase. There's no real portion of the imaginary part and no imaginary
portion of the real part. I haven't a clue what you mean by "use of the
arc-cosine,function to calculate that phase", but I certainly reject any
method that assigns a phase value to a magnitude or vice versa. I get
the total voltage or current simply by adding the traveling waves. No
trig functions necessary, just simple vector addition.

Traveling waves have phase information. In a steady state system they
can be expressed as phasors, which consist of a magnitude, a time phase
reference value, and an implicit time varying time rotation. When you
add them to get the total (which Cecil likes to characterize as a
standing wave as though it's something different than just the total
voltage or current), you get the simple vector sum of the constituent
traveling waves. This sum is also a phasor, with magnitude, time phase
reference value, and the same implicit time varying phase rotation.

In summary, both traveling waves and the total voltage or current are
phasors, and both have phase.

What's so complicated about adding a couple of phasors? Cecil, you need
to go back and read, and understand, your freshman circuit analysis text.

What a bunch of irrational smoke and mirrors.

I don't care less what Cecil will make of this. But Gene, do you really
disagree with what I've just said?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Egad. Of course I reject the notion that there's "phase information in
the standing wave current magnitude".

And, of course, you are showing your ignorance. Let's say that
at the current maximum point, the forward current is 0.5 at 0 deg
and the reflected current is 0.5 at 0 deg. The standing wave
current at the current maximum point is 1.0 at 0 deg just like
a cosine function is 1.0 at 0 deg.

Now let's go 45 degrees away from that current maximum point. The
forward current is 0.5 at -45 deg and the reflected current is
0.5 at +45 deg so the standing wave current is 0.707 at 0 deg.

The magnitude of the standing wave current is 0.707. The arc-
cosine of 0.707 is 45 degrees. Do you really and truly believe
that is just a coincidence? Exactly as Gene Fuller said previously,
there is phase information in the standing wave current magnitude.

Here's a quote from Gene:

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

Your statement above is in direct contradiction to Gene's statement.

What's so complicated about adding a couple of phasors?

I suspect you know how to add phasors. I suspect you don't have
a clue what that answer means in reality. Please try to convince
us that the 0.707 result above for a 45 degree shift is sheer
coincidence.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Roy Lewallen wrote:

I don't care less what Cecil will make of this. But Gene, do you really
disagree with what I've just said?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy,

I do not disagree with anything you have said. Cecil is up to his
standard trick of selective quoting along with a subtle change of topic
to make it appear that there are conflicts when there are none.

I am sure Cecil will find some other quote to remove from context in
order to prove me wrong.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
I do not disagree with anything you have said.

Please answer this question. Does the amplitude of the
standing wave current contain any phase information?

You have previously asserted that it does. Roy says
it doesn't. Time to chose between technical fact
and agreeing with your friend (who is technically
incorrect).
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

I do not disagree with anything you have said.


Please answer this question. Does the amplitude of the
standing wave current contain any phase information?

You have previously asserted that it does. Roy says
it doesn't. Time to chose between technical fact
and agreeing with your friend (who is technically
incorrect).

Cecil,

You win!

You have now set the new world record in misquoting. You might want to
give a call to the fine folks at Guinness.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Please answer this question. Does the amplitude of the
standing wave current contain any phase information?

You have previously asserted that it does. Roy says
it doesn't. Time to chose between technical fact
and agreeing with your friend (who is technically
incorrect).

Cecil, You win!
You have now set the new world record in misquoting. You might want to
give a call to the fine folks at Guinness.

It was a simple yes/no question, Gene. That you refuse to
answer speaks volumes so I will ask it once again, copying
from a previous posting that you ignored.

Just insert an 'X' for the one you agree with. If you don't
respond, I will add this to a long list of questions that
I have asked that the "experts" are afraid to answer.

_____ Standing wave current magnitude contains some phase
information.

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

Cecil Moore wrote:

Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Please answer this question. Does the amplitude of the
standing wave current contain any phase information?

You have previously asserted that it does. Roy says
it doesn't. Time to chose between technical fact
and agreeing with your friend (who is technically
incorrect).


Cecil, You win!
You have now set the new world record in misquoting. You might want to
give a call to the fine folks at Guinness.


It was a simple yes/no question, Gene. That you refuse to
answer speaks volumes so I will ask it once again, copying
from a previous posting that you ignored.

Just insert an 'X' for the one you agree with. If you don't
respond, I will add this to a long list of questions that
I have asked that the "experts" are afraid to answer.

_____ Standing wave current magnitude contains some phase
information.

_____ Standing wave current magnitude contains zero phase
information.

If a magnitude can, by itself, contain phase information, why
do we have to specify the angle in a phasor?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:12:58 GMT, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

_____ Standing wave current magnitude contains some phase
information.

_____ Standing wave current magnitude contains zero phase
information.

If a magnitude can, by itself, contain phase information, why
do we have to specify the angle in a phasor?


Hi Tom,

Cecil probably doesn't understand that both options give both current
magnitude AND phase as choices. Rather makes the "question"
pointless, but nothing new in the correspondence from our Xerox
philosopher.

For the record:

____X____ Standing wave current magnitude contains NO phase
information.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Tom Donaly wrote:
If a magnitude can, by itself, contain phase information, why
do we have to specify the angle in a phasor?

The subject is the standing wave current phasor on a
1/2WL thin-wire dipole, not phasors in general.

The point is that we do *NOT* have to specify the angle
for the standing wave current phasor on a 1/2WL thin-wire
dipole. The standing wave current phase angle at any point
up and down the antenna is already known to be EXACTLY the
same as the angle of the source current at any particular
time. That's why W7EL's phase measurements were meaningless
and his conclusions false. Note he has refused to discuss
the subject with me here or over private email.

If the source current is 1 amp at 0 degrees, the standing
wave current magnitude equals cos(X) and the standing wave
current phase equals zero degrees. That you guys disagree
indicates ignorance of the assertions of Kraus, Balanis,
and others.

This is what the argument is all about. The phase angle
for the standing wave current is known to be zero degrees
and unchanging with respect to the source current phasor.
The standing wave magnitude is known to be the cosine of
the number of degrees away from the feedpoint. That same
number of degrees is the absolute value of the phase angle
of the forward current and reflected current phasors.

The magnitude of the standing wave current on a 1/2WL
thin-wire dipole, fed with 1 amp at 0 degrees as
illustrated by Kraus, indeed does contain all the phase
information that anyone could ever need or want.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Tom Donaly wrote:

If a magnitude can, by itself, contain phase information, why
do we have to specify the angle in a phasor?

It looks like Cecil is trying to use "phase" as a function of position,
of the envelope of a standing wave rather than the time phase of the
total voltage or current which brings about the standing wave. This
makes it possible to keep the simple topic suitably muddled and enhances
the opportunity to misquote.

As I pointed out some time ago, the envelope of a standing wave isn't in
general sinusoidally shaped. At the one extreme of a matched load, the
total current or voltage vs position function is a straight line, and
there is no standing wave. At the other extreme where there's a complete
reflection, the function is sinusoidally shaped. The current on an
antenna falls into neither category, although the distribution on a thin
antenna is nearly sinusoidal. In between the two extremes, the shape of
the total current or voltage vs position function (that is, the envelope
of the standing wave) is neither straight nor sinusoidal, but can be
described with hyperbolic trig functions.

You can of course divide the period of any periodic function into 360
degrees or two pi radians and call the point along it a "phase" relative
to some arbitrary reference. In the case of a standing wave's envelope,
doing so doesn't generally accomplish anything useful. But it seems to
be providing fodder for imagining great and wonderful insights about
physics. And it certainly is useful in keeping a meaningless argument
going by interpreting "phase" to mean either time phase or the
positional "phase" of a standing wave envelope as necessary to keep the
discussion from proceeding on a linear and logical track.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL