Tom Donaly wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Not sure why you don't like gradients, Tom. I'm sure Mr. Cheng is
undoubtedly correct, but I'm just as sure he didn't intend that
sentence as any sort of definition of the term "gradient".


Actually, he did. It's the accepted definition of the term in
electromagnetics. You and Cecil are using the term in a more
general fashion which you've made up for the purpose. It doesn't
make much sense in an elecromagnetic setting. Similarly, Yuri,
Richard and Cecil made up a very loose term "current drop" for
a change in current at two ends of a coil. That was misleading
and wrong if they were trying to convey something about the
electromagnetics of a coil, which they were. I've seen you fellows
pick each other to death over trivia time and again. It's time
you paid attention to what you write.

That's something you

have apparently read into it. The gradient in our case (since you
proposed the question) would be expressed as the superposition of
forward and reverse currents, with magnitude and phase (or direction
if you prefer) written as a function of either position or angle
*along* the radiator. It's nothing fancy. Honest. It's simply the
rate of change of current as a function of position. The gradient
across the radiator at any given point along the radiator could then
be determined using some additional parameters - if someone were
really that interested in it (which I'm not).

73, ac6xg


How could the gradient be in your case if I proposed the
question?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Are you trying to make some point? If so, I'd sure like to know what it
is. It appears you're trying to pretend that the gradient (a
mathematical term) in the standing wave current along the length of a
radiator doesn't exist. Why? It's a very simple and straightforward
notion.

73, Jim AC6XG