# SWR Question.

Discussion in 'General Technical Questions and Answers' started by KD8GFC, Jul 17, 2008.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### AB0WRHam MemberQRZ Page

Like I said, Cecil. You are lost in the math. You are back to only traveling on the Real axis and you can't see the rest of the world.

You are back to being nothing but a troll.

tim ab0wr

2. ### AB0WRHam MemberQRZ Page

You know, my statement is wrong. Even on the real axis you have a phase as (wt-BX) which has both a space *AND* a position term.

I can't figure out what you are trying to say even from the viewpoint of the real axis.

As I said, you are lost.

tim ab0wr

3. ### W5DXPHam MemberQRZ Page

Unfortunately, you didn't define anything but instead, implied plenty of unreal things.

Can we assume that you are ready to prove a reversal of the laws of cause and effect by defining phi as the independent variable and x as the dependent variable? Are you also prepared to be carried away by the strong men in white coats?

Good Grief! You make a big deal out of your earth-shaking discovery and then we find that it is trivially true for almost every function in the universe. It's like making a big deal out of discovering that fire burns.

Nobody said it wasn't true - just that it is simple-minded.

I have something equally earth-shaking to share: Given y = sin(x), if delta-y is held constant, delta-x won't be constant. So you are going to have to share your Nobel Prize with me.

4. ### W5DXPHam MemberQRZ Page

d(phi)/dx is certainly defined at the minimum point. It is equal to zero just as it is at every other point on the transmission line when Vmin=0. d(phi) is always zero. dx is a constant. Zero divided by a constant is zero. Your statement that it is not defined is obviously false since nothing is divided by zero.

You take something that is trivially true and then make a false statement about it. Exactly what is your agenda? What's the bottom line?

Last edited: Jul 31, 2008
5. ### K5MCHam MemberQRZ Page

Tim, if the value of 0.1lambda equals 10 mm at one point on a transmission line, then its value is 10 mm everywhere on the line! If you don't agree with that statement, then you and I are simply at an impasse.

There are no "distortions" or "variations" or "built-in errors" in applying the results obtained from the Smith chart/slotted line. You (and Jim) are taking an interesting mathematical "curiosity" (the fact that the phase velocity of the total instantaneous voltage wave is not constant when there are reflections on a transmission line) and coming up with conclusions that are simply not valid.

As I mentioned earlier, I think you should write up your ideas here and submit them to a professional journal for review. You will probably find it very difficult to find a reputable journal to publish your ideas, however.

73, K5MC

Math department, operator Jay...

Cortland
KA5S

7. ### W5DXPHam MemberQRZ Page

Well, I just got a copy of the books that you have been quoting by Moore and Kraus and it seems you have neglected to tell us what they actually said.

Here are some graphics from their publications:

I seriously doubted that Kraus or Moore ever supported your position but I couldn't prove it until I received a copy of those books today. Why couldn't you have been a good-willed person and simply told us that Kraus called it the "standing wave envelope" instead of me having to buy the book to prove you wrong? Why couldn't you have told us that Moore never called the total voltage the "standing wave" unless Vmin=0?

Last edited: Aug 4, 2008
8. ### G0GQKHam MemberQRZ Page

Ye gods and odds bodikins ! Two hundred comments about SWAR !

G0GQK