On Jan 23, 2:21*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
I am having great difficulty finding any difference
between my writing:

* So it is your contention that "far from the antennas
* it is "interference" that causes the variation in field
* strength, but that on the line drawn between the two
* antennas some other mechanism is responsible".

and your paraphrase.

The difference is that your example contained elements
that are not zero dimensions. My assertions covered only
antenna elements of zero dimensions. I repeat:

On a line drawn between two coherent isotropic radiators,
in the absence of any reflections, interference along
that line is impossible because the average total
power density all along that line is constant.
There is no interference in standing waves given
"interference" as defined by Eugene Hecht in "Optics".

So then, for "two coherent isotropic radiator",
it is your contention that "far from the antennas
it is "interference" that causes the variation in field
strength, but that on the line drawn between the two
antennas some other mechanism is responsible".

...Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
So then, for "two coherent isotropic radiator",
it is your contention that "far from the antennas
it is "interference" that causes the variation in field
strength, but that on the line drawn between the two
antennas some other mechanism is responsible".

Please define "field strength". The total average
power density along a line drawn between the two
point sources is constant, i.e. the average sum
of the energy in the E-field and H-field is
constant. If you are defining "field strength"
as only the E-field, of course standing waves
are the cause, not interference, as defined by
Hecht in "Optics".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com