Gene Fuller wrote:

Kraus absolutely does not use
component currents for any serious analysis; he uses only total current.
Likewise, it appears that Balanis is merely waving his hands as well.
The quote you provided comes from Chapter 10, on traveling wave
antennas, not from a chapter on simple dipole antennas. Does he actually
load these components into equations and carry out the analysis in detail?

Subcomponents of the current may be useful for handwaving explanations,
but they are not superior to the standard net current model.

True. Although it's worth noting that the traveling waves, or
subcomponenets as you call them, are actually the source of radiation.
The fields generated by forward and reverse waves of course superpose to
produce the net field. Obviously in practice it's considerably simpler
to just superpose the currents in order to obtain the net field, but the
result should be the same either way.

Any
modeling results must agree with the standard model (widely used for
more than 100 years) or else the simple handwaving model is likely to be
bogus.

Soooo, we are back to the beginning. There is minimal current phase
shift in a dipole or monopole antenna, certainly nothing like the the 30
to 60 degree "replacement" phase shift you have been claiming. There is
no mysterious "current drop". Any reduction in measured (or modeled)
current can (and must) be accounted by shunt currents.

What's left?

I have a question. If a loading coil only makes a physically short
antenna look like it's an electrical quarter wavelength reactively, why
does its position along the radiator make such an apparent difference in
performance?

73, Jim AC6XG