Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

For everyone else: Roy had ploinked me so he never sees my
references. Therefore, he disagrees with Kraus over and over
and over.

I don't recall ever having disagreed with anything I've read in Kraus. I
do, however, frequently disagree with the misinterpretations and
misquotations of Kraus and many other references which Cecil has made.

His frequent claims of "If you disagree with me, you disagree with
[Kraus, Maxwell, Balanis, Hecht, Heaviside, Terman, God, whoever] are
total baloney (to use a much kinder term than it deserves).

Yes, I plonked Cecil a couple of years ago. Seeing only the occasional
text quoted by others of his bizarre ramblings is more than enough.
Those which I do see reinforce my belief that I'm certainly not missing
anything of technical or educational merit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I don't recall ever having disagreed with anything I've read in Kraus.

Your posting below disagrees with the information on page 464
of "Antennas for all Applications", 3rd edition.

Of course I reject the notion that there's "phase information in the
standing wave current magnitude".

The standing wave current magnitude is sinusoidal, according
to Kraus. How can you possibly have a sinusoidal wave without
an associated phase angle?

For a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole:
If the source current is 1.0 at 0 deg at t=0, the magnitude
of the standing wave current is cos(X) where X is the number
of degrees from the source. Your statement that there is no
phase information in a cosine function is absolutely false.

In fact, in the above example the arc-cosine of the standing
wave magnitude is the phase angle of the reflected current.
The negative of that angle is the phase angle of the forward
current.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:


For everyone else: Roy had ploinked me so he never sees my
references. Therefore, he disagrees with Kraus over and over
and over.


I don't recall ever having disagreed with anything I've read in Kraus. I
do, however, frequently disagree with the misinterpretations and
misquotations of Kraus and many other references which Cecil has made.

His frequent claims of "If you disagree with me, you disagree with
[Kraus, Maxwell, Balanis, Hecht, Heaviside, Terman, God, whoever] are
total baloney (to use a much kinder term than it deserves).

Yes, I plonked Cecil a couple of years ago. Seeing only the occasional
text quoted by others of his bizarre ramblings is more than enough.
Those which I do see reinforce my belief that I'm certainly not missing
anything of technical or educational merit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

For someone like me, Cecil can be (but usually isn't) a very useful
crackpot. I can be pretty sure he's wrong, but the process of educating
myself into turning that hunch into a dead certainty that I can prove
to everyone (except him) can be enlightening.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
For someone like me, Cecil can be (but usually isn't) a very useful
crackpot. I can be pretty sure he's wrong, but the process of educating
myself into turning that hunch into a dead certainty that I can prove
to everyone (except him) can be enlightening.

Now's your chance to enlighten us, Tom. Please explain again
how the standing wave current magnitude on a 1/2WL thin-wire
dipole doesn't depend upon how many degrees it is away from
the feed point, i.e. doesn't contain any phase information.

While you are at it, please explain exactly how Kraus is mistaken
about this antenna when he plots the standing wave current as
I = cos(X) where X is the number of degrees away from the
feedpoint and feedpoint current equals 1 amp at 0 degrees.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:

For someone like me, Cecil can be (but usually isn't) a very useful
crackpot. I can be pretty sure he's wrong, but the process of educating
myself into turning that hunch into a dead certainty that I can prove
to everyone (except him) can be enlightening.


Now's your chance to enlighten us, Tom. Please explain again
how the standing wave current magnitude on a 1/2WL thin-wire
dipole doesn't depend upon how many degrees it is away from
the feed point, i.e. doesn't contain any phase information.

While you are at it, please explain exactly how Kraus is mistaken
about this antenna when he plots the standing wave current as
I = cos(X) where X is the number of degrees away from the
feedpoint and feedpoint current equals 1 amp at 0 degrees.

I didn't say that the value of the standing wave current on a
1/2 wavelength dipole doesn't vary with length. I did say that
just measuring the value at some point doesn't give you all the
information you need to calculate the phase. Of course, you already
know the phase, because you defined the antenna as 1/2
wavelength, so finding any kl is trivial. Secondly, even if you're
right about the current in your antenna being a sine function, in order
to use that information, you have to measure the current input at the
current maximum - which you've already defined to be the center of the
antenna - in order to compare it with the current at the point of
interest in order to get your result. In short, you still have to
know the current at two points in order to get an answer. The
information isn't contained in just one measurement. So let me turn it
around and ask you to tell me again why you think you can get some
"phase" information from measuring a single point on an antenna
without knowing anything else about it.

I haven't read Kraus, but I expect he was talking about an idealized,
infinitely thin antenna. Add thickness to the wire, and a feedpoint gap,
and you may come up with something slightly more complicated.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
I didn't say that the value of the standing wave current on a
1/2 wavelength dipole doesn't vary with length. I did say that
just measuring the value at some point doesn't give you all the
information you need to calculate the phase.

The subject is a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole with a feedpoint current
of 1 amp at 0 degrees as illustrated by Kraus on page 464 of
"Antennas for All Applications", 3rd Edition. That's about the sixth
time I have stated those boundary conditions.

The information isn't contained in just one measurement.

For a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole with a feedpoint current of 1 amp
at 0 degrees, as illustrated by Kraus, all the phase information
one needs to know is indeed "contained in just one measurement".

I haven't read Kraus, but I expect he was talking about an idealized,
infinitely thin antenna.

I have been very careful about specifying Kraus' 1/2WL thin-wire
dipole as the subject of this discussion. It is easiest to
understand because it has the least number of variables.

What is the agenda in trying to divert the subject away from
something easy to understand to something that is difficult
to understand?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. com...
Tom Donaly wrote:
I didn't say that the value of the standing wave current on a
1/2 wavelength dipole doesn't vary with length. I did say that
just measuring the value at some point doesn't give you all the
information you need to calculate the phase.

The subject is a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole with a feedpoint current
of 1 amp at 0 degrees as illustrated by Kraus on page 464 of
"Antennas for All Applications", 3rd Edition. That's about the sixth
time I have stated those boundary conditions.

The information isn't contained in just one measurement.

For a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole with a feedpoint current of 1 amp
at 0 degrees, as illustrated by Kraus, all the phase information
one needs to know is indeed "contained in just one measurement".

I haven't read Kraus, but I expect he was talking about an idealized,
infinitely thin antenna.

I have been very careful about specifying Kraus' 1/2WL thin-wire
dipole as the subject of this discussion. It is easiest to
understand because it has the least number of variables.

What is the agenda in trying to divert the subject away from
something easy to understand to something that is difficult
to understand?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

The AGENDA is to get you guys fighting! boy, sure didn't take much, even in
a thread that was obviously a troll with no technical question to start it
of! you guys are just fighting over your own statements since there was no
initial technical question or statement that started this thread... i love
it, kept me amused through a whole rainy weekend and now on a rainy
monday... supposed to rain more this week, think you guys can keep going a
bit longer??

Dave wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. com...

Tom Donaly wrote:

I didn't say that the value of the standing wave current on a
1/2 wavelength dipole doesn't vary with length. I did say that
just measuring the value at some point doesn't give you all the
information you need to calculate the phase.

The subject is a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole with a feedpoint current
of 1 amp at 0 degrees as illustrated by Kraus on page 464 of
"Antennas for All Applications", 3rd Edition. That's about the sixth
time I have stated those boundary conditions.


The information isn't contained in just one measurement.

For a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole with a feedpoint current of 1 amp
at 0 degrees, as illustrated by Kraus, all the phase information
one needs to know is indeed "contained in just one measurement".


I haven't read Kraus, but I expect he was talking about an idealized,
infinitely thin antenna.

I have been very careful about specifying Kraus' 1/2WL thin-wire
dipole as the subject of this discussion. It is easiest to
understand because it has the least number of variables.

What is the agenda in trying to divert the subject away from
something easy to understand to something that is difficult
to understand?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


The AGENDA is to get you guys fighting! boy, sure didn't take much, even in
a thread that was obviously a troll with no technical question to start it
of! you guys are just fighting over your own statements since there was no
initial technical question or statement that started this thread... i love
it, kept me amused through a whole rainy weekend and now on a rainy
monday... supposed to rain more this week, think you guys can keep going a
bit longer??



You're welcome, Dave. Glad to oblige.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

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