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!