Gene Fuller wrote:
Sorry, I missed the comments that Kraus made about the phase of a
standing wave.

Quoting: "Figure 14-2 Relative current amplitude AND
PHASE along a center-fed 1/2WL cylindrical antenna."
Emphasis mine so you can't miss it this time.

I thought you were knowledgable enough to convert
Kraus's independent variable of wavelength to degrees in
his graph on page 464 of the 3rd edition of "Antennas For
All Applications". Allow me to assist you in that task.

The 'X' axis is "Distance from center of antenna in WL"

X in X in
wavelength degrees
0.00 0
0.05 18
0.10 36
0.15 54
0.20 72
0.25 90

Hope that helps you to understand Kraus's graph better.
Using the degree column, the standing wave current,
Itot, on that graph equals cos(X). The standing wave
current also equals Ifor*cos(-X) + Iref*cos(X) where
'X' is the phase angle of the forward traveling current
wave and the rearward traveling current wave. A phasor
diagram at 0.02WL = 72 degrees would look something
like this:

/ Iref
/
/
+----- Itot = Ifor*cos(-X) + Iref*cos(X)
\
\
\ Ifor

Incidentally, from the above phasor diagram, it is easy
to see why the phase angle of the standing wave current
is always zero (or 180 deg) since Ifor and Iref are
rotating in opposite directions at the same phase
velocity.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

Sorry, I missed the comments that Kraus made about the phase of a
standing wave.


Quoting: "Figure 14-2 Relative current amplitude AND
PHASE along a center-fed 1/2WL cylindrical antenna."
Emphasis mine so you can't miss it this time.

I thought you were knowledgable enough to convert
Kraus's independent variable of wavelength to degrees in
his graph on page 464 of the 3rd edition of "Antennas For
All Applications". Allow me to assist you in that task.

The 'X' axis is "Distance from center of antenna in WL"

X in X in
wavelength degrees
0.00 0
0.05 18
0.10 36
0.15 54
0.20 72
0.25 90

Hope that helps you to understand Kraus's graph better.
Using the degree column, the standing wave current,
Itot, on that graph equals cos(X). The standing wave
current also equals Ifor*cos(-X) + Iref*cos(X) where
'X' is the phase angle of the forward traveling current
wave and the rearward traveling current wave. A phasor
diagram at 0.02WL = 72 degrees would look something
like this:

/ Iref
/
/
+----- Itot = Ifor*cos(-X) + Iref*cos(X)
\
\
\ Ifor

Incidentally, from the above phasor diagram, it is easy
to see why the phase angle of the standing wave current
is always zero (or 180 deg) since Ifor and Iref are
rotating in opposite directions at the same phase
velocity.


Cecil,

I don't know why you go through all of these gyrations. The phase shown
by Kraus is durn close to zero. Everyone else who has joined in on this
thread agrees; there is no meaningful phase characteristic for a
standing wave. Your last sentence above says the same thing.

It seems you simply like to argue, even when there is no disagreement.
Perhaps you need a dog to go with your hog. 8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
I don't know why you go through all of these gyrations. The phase shown
by Kraus is durn close to zero.

That's the phase of the standing wave current which W7EL used
to make meaningless measurements.

Everyone else who has joined in on this
thread agrees; there is no meaningful phase characteristic for a
standing wave.

Are you retracting your earlier statement just because its
technical accuracy disagrees with your friend's misconceptions?

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

If you retract your statement then you contradict his other statement
that nothing is lost during superposition. You guys simply cannot
have it both ways. Why not stick with technical accuracy?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

I don't know why you go through all of these gyrations. The phase
shown by Kraus is durn close to zero.


That's the phase of the standing wave current which W7EL used
to make meaningless measurements.

Everyone else who has joined in on this thread agrees; there is no
meaningful phase characteristic for a standing wave.


Are you retracting your earlier statement just because its
technical accuracy disagrees with your friend's misconceptions?

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

If you retract your statement then you contradict his other statement
that nothing is lost during superposition. You guys simply cannot
have it both ways. Why not stick with technical accuracy?


Cecil,

I am really puzzled. I cannot see even one inconsistency in my
statements, including those you quote.

What is the problem?

What is there to "retract"?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
I am really puzzled. I cannot see even one inconsistency in my
statements, including those you quote.

What is the problem?

You said there is phase remaining in the cos(kz) term which
is contained in the amplitude.

Then you said there is no phase information.

Those statements contradict each other.

In any case, the graph at

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

proves that there is phase information contained in the
standing wave current magnitude. The arc-cosine of the
standing wave current magnitude is identical to the phase
of the traveling wave referenced to the source current.

Please note that the "experts" have been strangely silent
on the contents of that graph.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

I am really puzzled. I cannot see even one inconsistency in my
statements, including those you quote.

What is the problem?


You said there is phase remaining in the cos(kz) term which
is contained in the amplitude.

Then you said there is no phase information.

Those statements contradict each other.



Cecil,

My exact words, which you quoted, were,

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

If you interpreted that comment as supporting the existence of a phase
in this situation, then I cannot offer any help except to suggest you go
back and review the meaning of "not".

This has become sillier than I ever imagined possible. I am done with
this FIGHT!

73,
Gene
W4SZ

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

Yes, there it is again, you said there is phase information
in the amplitude description and you were right.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

I am really puzzled. I cannot see even one inconsistency in my
statements, including those you quote.

What is the problem?


You said there is phase remaining in the cos(kz) term which
is contained in the amplitude.

Then you said there is no phase information.

Those statements contradict each other.



Cecil,

My exact words, which you quoted, were,

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

If you interpreted that comment as supporting the existence of a phase in
this situation, then I cannot offer any help except to suggest you go back
and review the meaning of "not".

This has become sillier than I ever imagined possible. I am done with this
FIGHT!

you haven't been around this group long have you? if you think its silly
now, check back next week and see how its still going on!

Gene Fuller wrote:

Cecil,

I don't know why you go through all of these gyrations. The phase shown
by Kraus is durn close to zero. Everyone else who has joined in on this
thread agrees; there is no meaningful phase characteristic for a
standing wave. Your last sentence above says the same thing.

It seems you simply like to argue, even when there is no disagreement.
Perhaps you need a dog to go with your hog. 8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

That's why I don't pay any attention to anything Cecil posts. I do,
however, pay attention to the responses. Therein lies the gold.

tom
K0TAR