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

Richard Clark wrote:
For the record:

____X____ Standing wave current magnitude contains NO phase
information.

Remember the context is the 1/2WL thin-wire dipole fed
by 1 amp at 0 degrees on page 464 in Kraus' "Antennas
For All Applications", 3rd Edition where the standing wave
current magnitude EQUALS cos(X) where X is the number of
degrees away from the feedpoint. The arc-cosine of the standing
wave current magnitude *IS* the phase.

One other point. At least one expert has said that nothing
is lost in the superposition process. We know that the
forward traveling wave has phase and the reverse traveling
wave has phase. If the superposed standing wave current
magnitude contains no phase information, then something was
lost in the superposition process because the standing wave
current phase certainly contains no phase information as
illustrated at:

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/travstnd.GIF
--
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?

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

Roy Lewallen wrote:
It looks like Cecil is trying to use "phase" as a function of position,

Referenced to the source current, the phase of the forward traveling
wave current *IS* directly proportional to position along the dipole.
Any competent engineer knows that. So is the phase of the rearward
traveling wave current. That is obvious from the equations for those
two currents. Those are simply facts of physics that you probably
should try to comprehend instead of dismissing them.

Inet = Io*cos(X)*cos(wt) = Ifor*cos(-X+wt) + Iref*cos(X-wt)

Inet is the standing wave current. X is the distance in degrees from
the feedpoint. If the source current is 1.0 amps at 0 degrees, e.g.
from EZNEC, at t=0 Inet = Io*cos(X) = Ifor*cos(-X) + Iref*cos(X)

As I pointed out some time ago, the envelope of a standing wave isn't in
general sinusoidally shaped.

Balanis says: "If the diameter of each wire is very small (d lamda)
the ideal standing wave pattern of the current along the arms of
the dipole is sinusoidal with a null at the end."

Kraus says: "It is generally assumed that the current distribution
of an infinitesimally thin antenna is sinusoidal,..."

d lamda for an 80m dipole made out of #18 wire. I'm sorry to hear
that you disagree with both Balanis and Kraus.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp