The "Method of Moments" (MOM) makes no assumptions about
current distribution on a radiator; it computes the current distribution.
The radiated field is then calculated based on the current distribution.

Frank

Yes it does but as always one must review the basis on which formula
is formed and conditions expressed
One of these conditions is that current flow is sinusoidal which
cannot be true because of leakage ( radiation)
per unit length of the radiator. If on compares the current flow of a
full wave radiatior to a fractional wave
current flow this becomes very obvious especially when either of them
is compared to a true sino soidal curve
Cheers Frank

None of the conditions assume current (distribution) on a radiator is
sinusoidal. It can be anything, not even remotely sinusoidal, and
frequently has discontinuities (such as a "unit step function" in the
case of a shunt fed, gamma matched, grounded tower, for example).

The theory behind the "Moment method", in the case of NEC 2,
is in the public domain, and available he

http://www.nec2.org/other/nec2prt1.pdf

Frank

On Dec 28, 11:06*am, "Frank" wrote:
The "Method of Moments" (MOM) makes no assumptions about
current distribution on a radiator; it computes the current distribution.
The radiated field is then calculated based on the current distribution.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Using just one example radiation
at present is presumed to provide many waves along a conductor purely
on the bases that current is reflected from the antenna end and
progresses along the same path that it arrived. This error alone has
allowed many assumptions and erronious theories to be expanded.

oh no! now he doesn't believe in reflections! how could we ever survive on
here without endless discussions of reflections and waves?

oh no! *now he doesn't believe in reflections! *how could we ever survive on
here without endless discussions of reflections and waves?

He believes that anything that trashes his delusions of how an antenna
works has to be wrong.

Jimmie

On Dec 29, 2:27*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
oh no! *now he doesn't believe in reflections! *how could we ever survive on
here without endless discussions of reflections and waves?

He believes that anything that trashes his delusions of how an antenna
works has to be wrong.

Jimmie

Enough of the talking Jimmie and prove the Gaussian equation
transformation is wrong.
You missed your chance when it was shown on the net. My earlier
posting pointed you
to a place so you can handle the CGS units and trash it if you can.
All those posts you
have wasted would not have been necessary if you had educated yourself
in the mean time
instead of becoming just a talking head
Art