Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

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.


I'll buy that, Jim. I believe that Hecht left out the adjective,
"EM". If he meant standing waves don't deserve to be called EM waves,
I agree 100%. However, standing waves seem to meet the broad definition
of "wave".

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?


Of course. Now try to convince Gene of that fact of physics. In
spite of his earlier assertions about the differences between
traveling waves and standing waves that agreed with my side of
the argument, he seems to have switched sides. (For political
reasons)?

In the case of a radiator, the emanating energy is a result of the
superposition of fields radiated by the currents traveling on the
antenna. I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that superposition
should yield the same result by either approach. If so, then for a
single element radiator, the field pattern would appear as though a
standing wave on the antenna had created the field.

ac6xg