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:
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.


Cecil,

I don't understand why you complain about Tom D. You do exactly the
same thing all through any discussion.

On the QRZ forum you have post after post edited by moderators, that's
something that almost never happens! It's all on QRZ for people to see.
The list moderator even made a very rare public appearance to directly
warn you about your style.

It's pretty tough to have a non-personal technical discussion with you
because you distort facts and resort to the very same ad hominem
attacks you dislike from others.

Why not set a good example rather than yelling about Tom D.?

73 Tom

Cecil Moore wrote:

When you lose the technical argument, Tom, you always respond
with ad hominem attacks devoid of any technical content.

Chuckle. A perfect example of an ad hominem attack devoid of any
technical content.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
When you lose the technical argument, Tom, you always respond
with ad hominem attacks devoid of any technical content.

Chuckle. A perfect example of an ad hominem attack devoid of any
technical content.

Chuckle. The truth is not an ad hominem attack. Incidentally, Tom
didn't lose the argument to me - he lost it to Balanis.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

wrote:
Why not set a good example rather than yelling about Tom D.?

I'm trying, Tom. Why don't you join me?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

I was just giving you some good advice, Cecil. If I wanted to give you
an ad hominem attack I'd just call you a rat and have done with it. No,
make that a dirty rat. But, for a blobberlipped quodlibetarian like
yourself, whose gothamist blatteration attaminates the pure newsgroup
aether with low defoedation of the worst kind, perhaps stronger words
are in order.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
I was just giving you some good advice, Cecil. If I wanted to give you
an ad hominem attack I'd just call you a rat and have done with it. No,
make that a dirty rat. But, for a blobberlipped quodlibetarian like
yourself, whose gothamist blatteration attaminates the pure newsgroup
aether with low defoedation of the worst kind, perhaps stronger words
are in order.

The technical content of your posting is, once again,
conspicuous by its absence. How about a reference for
the standing wave current not being a sinusoid?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp