Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil, I won't try to educate you because it's a waste of time, but
for everyone else, consider that in an antenna, there is
energy going into, and being radiated out of, the antenna in the
form of an electromagnetic wave.

That's true, but compared to the standing waves, it is pretty
small. In fact, when Kraus talks about a 1/2WL thin-wire dipole,
he completely ignores the traveling wave and energy "lost" as
radiation and assumes the forward wave and reflected wave have
the same magnitude. If you want to argue that trivial point, take
it up with Kraus.

Here's what he says: "It is generally assumed that the current
distribution of an infinitesimally thin antenna is sinusoidal,
and that the phase is constaant over a 1/2WL interval, changing
abruptly by 180 degrees between intervals.

That would only be true if the reflected wave was equal in
magnitude to the forward wave, i.e. no loss due to radiation
or I^2*R losses. If Kraus gives us permission to ignore the
traveling wave for purposes of discussion, who are you to
argue?

I have calculated that there is only a 10% drop between forward
voltage or current and the reflected voltage or current arriving
back at the feedpoint for a 1/2WL dipole. For the sake of discussion
of standing waves in standing wave antennas, with an accuracy within
10%, the loss due to radiation can be ignored according to Kraus.
It's akin to ignoring the losses in a transmission line for the sake
of discussion.

Since Cecil says standing waves
can't transfer energy from one place to another ...
sthat means that the only way energy can be radiated is
through the traveling wave component of the electromagnetic wave.

Yes, that's true and since I have never said otherwise, this
seems to be just another straw man. With an accuracy of about
10%, Kraus gives us permission to ignore the traveling wave
in standing wave antennas for the purposes of discussion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp