On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:43:05 -0800, Jim Kelley wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Reg, we have a clear example of where the high voltage part of the
antenna is not allowed to radiate (much). That would be a balanced
top hat. Not allowing the high voltage part of the antenna to radiate
leaves the high current part to do most of the radiating.

Cecil,

Reg makes a good point. We know that the same amplitude (less ohmic
losses) of current travels the entire length of the antenna in both
directions. The relative phase of forward and reverse currents simply
makes the superposition of the two currents greater at one end than
another. We might measure the standing wave current with an ammeter,
but it is the traveling wave currents which radiate.

73, Jim AC6XG

============================

Jim, are you one of the crackpots who think that it's the voltage parts of
the antenna which do the radiating which is proved by replacing the top
portion of the antenna with a top hat which has a large capacitance so that
the voltage has a greater effect. ;o)
---
Reg, G4FGQ

Hi Reg,

Were it not for this group, I would never have known the full extent of
my crackpottedness! My colleagues and associates have been keeping it a
secret from me all these years evidently. With that in mind, yes.
Nevermind Farady. The size of the hat should indeed determine the size
of the effect. I wear a 7 3/4.

73, Jim AC6XG

Have you guys ever considered that since the infinitesimally short dipole
radiates only 4 percent less than a resonant dipole, the only reason for having
any longer length than infinitesimally short is to make it resonant? So what do
you think the relation between voltage and current is in the short dipole? Does
that bring to mind whether the max radiation occurs at the max voltage or max
current portion of the dipole?

Walt, W2DU