On Nov 21, 8:15*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 21, 5:47*pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

"In what way is it (an electrostatic field) not (stationary)?"

Terman was refering to an electromagnetic (radio) wave. It is a
peculiarity of "old-speak" to call an electric field an electrostatic
field.

As Cecil reminds us, radio waves are always in motion. But, their
superposition may produce a stationary wave called a standing wave.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

But Cecil has never said you can have current flow without a magnetic
field!
So now one must determine where the reflection occurs and science
puports that it is not at the end of the antenna!
Thus the term "standing wave" must be thougherly defined in line with
the newly disclosed facts so that all jive.
Also, Gauss never assumed the wave description over a particle
description, The answer regarding waves and particles
with respect to radiation has not yet been resolved by the scientific
community because of the Maxwell additive dillema.
And "Old speak" doesn't cut the mustard in present day debate. It is
completely wrong to call a static field an electrical field.
It is either a static or a dynamic field so guessing what Terman
really ment *or meant to say just does not have any standing.

In my readings I came across a chapter with the title
The electrical field established by charges at rest
this being strangely similar to what you were saying.!
Thus I may have been out of line in my response
so I apologize. Haven't read it yet!
Art