Cecil Moore wrote:

It just
shows that Hecht was right when he said standing waves probably
don't deserve to be called waves. Maybe you should try to understand
why Hecht would say such a thing.

I think he might have said it because he's not particularly good with
words. If anything, he probably should have said that standing waves
should just be called interference patterns.

From Websters:

wave - a shape or outline having successive curves; an undulating line
or streak or a pattern created by such lines; something that swells
and dies away

There is no need to sketch or calculate anything. A diagram showing
the relationship of the E-field vector and the H-field vector is in
every E&M and optics book I have ever seen.


Yes, and that diagram is for a *TRAVELING WAVE*, not for a standing
wave. Please find a reference with the E-fields and H-fields diagrammed
for a standing wave and get back to us. Better yet, consider there is
a need to sketch the fields if for no other reason, just to prove me
wrong.

I could be wrong, but don't E-fields and H-fields from traveling waves
superpose to form net E-fields and H-fields? Wouldn't the net fields
have vectors whose direction and magnitude are determined by the
vectors which correspond to the traveling wave fields? Wouldn't the
net field generated by a radiator having these waves traveling on it
look like a standing wave? Is there any reason to consider standing
waves on an antenna other than as a simple way to analyze its
radiation pattern?

ac6xg