Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Here's a quote from "Antennas Theory" by Balanis: "The current
and voltage distributions on open-ended wire antennas are similar
to the standing wave patterns on open-ended transmission lines.
... Standing wave antennas, such as the dipole, can be analyzed
as traveling wave antennas with waves propagating in opposite
directions (forward and backward) and represented by traveling
wave currents If and Ib ..."

So you haven't verified it experimentally, and don't know how
to do so. Thanks for the answer.

Do you distrust the theory of relatively because you
haven't verified it experimentally and don't know
how to do so?

I have simulated the configuration using EZNEC.

Tom, like you, I trust the great engineers and physicists
who came before me. I do not develop every concept from
first principles. If an analysis suggested by Balanis is
not good enough for you, that's your choice. Incidentally,
Kraus says essentially the same thing as Balanis about
analyzing standing-wave antennas.

I actually do know how to verify Einstein's predictions because the
fellows who did it wrote detailed articles on how they did it.

Thinking of antennas as transmission lines is an old practice. It
doesn't mean it's very practical, or that it hasn't been superseded
by a better analogy. For that matter, a vibrating guitar string can
be analyzed as a transmission line, as can any woodwind instrument.
That doesn't mean it's worth doing, but it can be done. The problem is
when a gentleman, such as the late, lamented Reg Edwards, or the still
kicking, unlamented you, write that an antenna, or a clarinet _is_ a
transmission line.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH