Richard Harrison wrote:
. . .
I agree the voltage induced in 1/2-meter of wire properly placed within
a 1V/m uniform field is 0.5 volt, not 1 volt. The induced voltage in a
wire within a uniform field sweeping the wire rises uniformly along the
wire. It can be assumed to be the summation of tiny increments of
voltage all along the wire. The voltages of the too-short dipole halves
add just as two cells in some flashlights add. Their vectors are head to
tail. But, current will be limited by radiation and loss resistances of
the wires. It will also be limited by reactance in the wires.
Open-circuit, 0.5 V + 0.5 V = 1V.

There are two incorrect statements here.

First, the voltage induced in the wire doesn't rise uniformly along the
wire. It's sinusoidal, even for a very short wire. This is different
from the transmitting case but interestingly doesn't interfere with
reciprocity.

Secondly, the voltage at the center of an open-circuited 1 meter
(electrically short) dipole in and parallel a 1 volt/meter field is 0.5
volt as I said earlier, not 1 volt.

I'll be glad to provide a number of references. Both these statements
can also be verified by modeling.

The definition of field strength, incidentally, has nothing to do with
the voltage of a dipole immersed in that field.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL