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

On Mon, 15 May 2006 18:18:43 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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

Context schmomtext, Nothing said is nothing said.

This is the problem that comes of a Xerox education.

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 18:18:43 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:


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


Context schmomtext, Nothing said is nothing said.

This is the problem that comes of a Xerox education.

Hi Richard,
all Cecil's information is in the schmomtext.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Based on my reading, it appears that Kraus did not say anything closely
resembling Cecil's comments. Cecil is "interpreting" a very simple
picture in Kraus. All of the math appears to arise from Cecil's
imagination.

Cecil is so good at quoting that he should have no problem with
providing the exact unedited words from Kraus that support the
arc-cosine analysis.


73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil is so good at quoting that he should have no problem with
providing the exact unedited words from Kraus that support the
arc-cosine analysis.

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

Simply look at Kraus' graph in Figure 14-2. A sinusoid with
current amplitude equal to 1.0 at the center and current
amplitude equal to zero at the end is obviously a cosine
wave. Since the magnitude varies from 1.0 at the center to
zero at the end, taking the arc-cosine of the magnitude
yields the distance from the center in degrees.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil is so good at quoting that he should have no problem with
providing the exact unedited words from Kraus that support the
arc-cosine analysis.


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

Simply look at Kraus' graph in Figure 14-2. A sinusoid with
current amplitude equal to 1.0 at the center and current
amplitude equal to zero at the end is obviously a cosine
wave. Since the magnitude varies from 1.0 at the center to
zero at the end, taking the arc-cosine of the magnitude
yields the distance from the center in degrees.

The key words are "infinitesimally thin," and "generally assumed."
With you, Cecil those words become just "thin," and "dead certain."
I'm glad you clarified that for us. I was beginning to wonder about
Kraus. Now I know it's just Kraus' message suffering from Cecil distortion.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
The key words are "infinitesimally thin," and "generally assumed."
With you, Cecil those words become just "thin," and "dead certain."

Kraus is using author-speak as most technical authors do to
avoid nit-picking from people like you. Balanis uses the words,
"very small" for the wire diameter.

I'm glad you clarified that for us. I was beginning to wonder about
Kraus. Now I know it's just Kraus' message suffering from Cecil distortion.

It is true for infinitesimally thin wire *AND* anything close
to that condition, i.e. also true for d lamda, according
to Balanis who 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."

The diameter of #18 wire is certainly very small compared to
a wavelength at 80m (0.003' 246') ensuring that the standing
wave current distribution on the real world dipole is sinusoidal
within a certain degree of real world accuracy.

If you want to see the sinusoidal current waveform for yourself,
observe the current distribution reported by EZNEC for a G5RV
used on 20m. Anyone with EZNEC, presumably including W7EL,
can observe that sinusoidal standing wave current pattern.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

The key words are "infinitesimally thin," and "generally assumed."
With you, Cecil those words become just "thin," and "dead certain."


Kraus is using author-speak as most technical authors do to
avoid nit-picking from people like you. Balanis uses the words,
"very small" for the wire diameter.

I'm glad you clarified that for us. I was beginning to wonder about
Kraus. Now I know it's just Kraus' message suffering from Cecil
distortion.


It is true for infinitesimally thin wire *AND* anything close
to that condition, i.e. also true for d lamda, according
to Balanis who 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."

The diameter of #18 wire is certainly very small compared to
a wavelength at 80m (0.003' 246') ensuring that the standing
wave current distribution on the real world dipole is sinusoidal
within a certain degree of real world accuracy.

If you want to see the sinusoidal current waveform for yourself,
observe the current distribution reported by EZNEC for a G5RV
used on 20m. Anyone with EZNEC, presumably including W7EL,
can observe that sinusoidal standing wave current pattern.

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.

73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil is so good at quoting that he should have no problem with
providing the exact unedited words from Kraus that support the
arc-cosine analysis.


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

Simply look at Kraus' graph in Figure 14-2. A sinusoid with
current amplitude equal to 1.0 at the center and current
amplitude equal to zero at the end is obviously a cosine
wave. Since the magnitude varies from 1.0 at the center to
zero at the end, taking the arc-cosine of the magnitude
yields the distance from the center in degrees.

Cecil,

Sorry, I missed the comments that Kraus made about the phase of a
standing wave. Is that the concept that is represented by the " ..." in
your quote above?

73,
Gene
W4SZ