OK, Now that all the artwork critiquing is finished (I HOPE) - let's get back to the point.
On the left (coax shield) you have a negatively charged voltage-fed 1/2 wave,
on the right (coax center) you have (the opposing) positively charged voltage-fed 1/2 wave.
How are these opposing charges IN-phase?
NB
Look at current & voltage on any dipole from respected sources.
You will find your answer.
The charges that you are getting hung up on, in and of themselves, are not what is important, charge induces current, it is the flow of that current in a 3d space that matters. The charge, in and of itself is irrelevant. Because of this, I don't like the terms "positive" and "negative" as they are being used here, this idea that "charge" is the limit of what matters.
It is possible for two opposing charges to induce currents that travel in the same direction in space. In a radiating antenna, or a feed line that doesn't, it is the direction of current flow in space, not the charges that created it, that determines what happens. This is what you are failing to comprehend.
The DB
In this center-fed full-wave dipole or "doublet" as some prefer, if voltage leads current by 90°, then as the voltage to the left 1/2 wave leg is a half-wave from 90° at the feed point to 270° through 0° / 360° in the cycle, the right 1/2 wave leg will necessarily be from 90° to 270° through the 180° point in the cycle, which necessitates the current in each 1/2 wave leg to be the inverse, or "inverted" with relation to the other leg, current peaking at 0°/ 360° to the left, peaking at 180° to the right, or 180° out of phase.
This inverse-phase current per 1/2 wave side/leg, (relative to the opposite 1/2 wave side/leg) should produce cancellation, not gain.
Wrong.
You really want to believe as you do don't you. As long as you choose to hold yourself back I (we) cannot help you.
Wait, am I reading this right? Do you actually think that just because the change in voltage happens at a current peak on an antenna that the direction the current is flowing also changes at said current peak? That is what it sounds like you are saying. That is impossible for any number of reasons. You are the first person I have ever heard suggested anything like this. Out of phase current, like the voltage, changes polarity when it reaches its own null, not when the voltage reaches a null. I understand how you could make this mistake, out of phase voltage and currents isn't exactly electronics 101 material...
Let me explain this another way. Voltage will carry the same charge from one voltage null to the next voltage null. Likewise, current is flowing in the same direction from one current null to the next current null. The change in voltage does not immediately change the flow of current when it is out of phase with said voltage as you seem to think it does, current lagging voltage by 90° implies the effects of voltage aren't actually represented in current until 90° later. This 90° offset is very different than your assumed immediate change. You can't go half way with this, it is an all or nothing proposition.
Also, I never stated that the voltage leads the current, I just noted that on an antenna their peaks and nulls are 90 degrees out of phase, I didn't state which one leads and which one lags. However, you did correctly guess which one leads and which one lags in this case. This is true as long as we are working with antennas that don't loop back to themselves, like the quad that you mentioned in a previous post. In that case current leads voltage.
If you really want to have discussions at this level I do recommend one thing. Do some more research when it comes to the phase relationship between voltage and current.
Now on to the other part of what you implied in error...
We have the word dipole. The prefix "di" has a meaning. What does it mean? Get this... 2.
And the other word you used doublet, which starts with the word "double" which also means 2.
There is another word used to describe these antennas, bipole. The prefix "bi" also means 2. (I added this more for completeness sake.)
All three of these mean the same thing, and all three refer to the same thing, they are saying there are 2 poles. So why are you treating an antenna that has 2 poles like a monopole antenna in your description? Its right there in various names of the antenna, "2 poles" not "1 pole". Or do you really not know how this affects the antenna? I'm sorry if this came out the wrong way, I'm not trying to be insulting here, but this is something I really need to know before I continue this discussion with you.
The DB
NB
The 90 degree lag only applies at resonance.
Can you point us to the source of your "unconventional" ideas on current & voltage distribution.
All the respected sources i have looked at seem to say the opposite of what you claim.
You said its our opinion & you also posted links to a website that backs up your ideas. And some physics.
NO so far you have posted a link to an impossible current distribution on an antenna that was clearly not the electrical length it claimed to be,
and you talk some imaginary voltage & current physics ideas,
Center fed Dipoles of any length up to Full wave radiate without any out of phase currents,
Until you get that you are just wasting your grey matter imagining all sorts of nonesense when you could be learning the truth,
How anybody can be involved this deep in antenna threads for this long yet have voltage and current distribution in dipoles all wrong is truly amazing.
Understanding current distribution & phase & what causes coax to radiate or not radiate significant currents is vital to understanding models.
Unconventional = not how it is NB.
Its how you imagine it to be.
Current inside coax is ALWAYS equal magnitude & opposite phase.
Imaging current on one half cycle leaves the coax center conductor flows up the radiator,
Out of the radiator as displacement currents,
Along the shield leg
back down the coax.
Which direction relative to current on the radiator must current flow on the shield leg in order to satisfy the equal magnitude opposite phase rule inside the coax ?
If you want to make current on one leg be 180 degrees out of phase and cancel radiation you must fold the dipole
( reverse the direction of one leg in space relative to the other) so that the legs are parallel.
Anything other than parallel and closely spaced will have some radiation.
1.) Voltage leads current by 90°. (Because it does whether or not you mention it.)
2.) Voltage is 180° out of phase between the left & right 1/2 wave halves of this full wavelength-long center-fed wire. (I refuse to call it an Antenna because an antenna should radiate.)
3.) An 1/2 wave current node is produced across two voltage points on each side or half of this center-fed full-wave length long wire.
4.) Each 1/2 wave of current is developed across two 180° out-of-phase voltage points.
5.) Each 1/2 wave of current is at a phase 90° behind the phase of it's voltage.
6.) The voltage on one side will flow from 90° to 270° through the 180° point in the sine wave,
- as
7.) The voltage on the other side flows from 270° to 90° through the 360° point in the sine wave.
8.) The current peaks at the voltage null, 1/2 way between the two voltage peaks.
9.) The current peak on one side will be at 180°
- as
10.) The current peak on the other side is at 360°.
11.) Therefore these two 1/2 waves of current are 180° out of phase.
12.) Out of phase currents cancel.
13.) The two 1/2 wave current nodes of this full-wave long center-fed wire should be out of phase and cancel each other, preventing efficient broadside radiation.
EEEEYEAAAH! A VERY merry Christmas, I believeOn this particular antenna design, yes, not on all of them.
Yes, voltage has two separate phases on each element, but that is irrelevant. It is the current that matters, not the voltage, and the current is in phase on the entire antenna. Your obsession of what voltage is doing is pointless, and leading you to the wrong answer.
A current node is in both halves of the antenna, yes, and in the case of the models above they are in phase. Truth. If they weren't, this antenna design that has been used by multiple times successfully would not have been.
Irrelevant, a current flow that is out of phase with voltage is not determined by local voltage that is out of phase with, but the voltage that leads it, so the current flow from voltage that it is leading is caused by 90 degrees is determined by the voltage 90 degrees away, not the voltage at that point. If it were, the almighty 5/8 wavelength antenna you so like would not, could not, work as it does. I think I stated above that it is possible that the voltage and the current can be 180 degrees out of phase with each other (I might have rewritten that part of the post), the reflected signal that is SWR is an example of this. With the way you think the phasing between voltage and current works this would be impossible.
You are right, but then you stated that in this post already, and I didn't disagree with.
No, it doesn't go all the way around, it goes half way around, and then it reverses course. If this were a monopole antenna rather than a full wavelength dipole you would be correct. You clearly don't understand the difference the feed point makes on this type of antenna, all you can see is one pole.
Yes, no argument from me.
Wrong, both sides are completely in phase. If it was as you claim, then not even the half wavelength dipole would work as by your definition they would be out of phase.
Wrong because feed point, the thing you don't seem to be able to comprehend. Both sides of the feed point are always in phase on a wire that runs straight out from either side of it.
Wrong, because the current isn't out of phase as you really want to believe. And even if it were the case, the antenna would still radiate, it would just not be broadside to the antenna, it would be more like an end fire design.
Wrong because feed point. You know, that thing that I wanted to make sure you knew the effects of on an antenna? You clearly don't. If things were as you claim, again, both sides would be out of phase for every center fed antenna design of one wavelength or less. Its an all or nothing thing, you cannot get by it, if that is what happens here, it is what happens on all of the antennas in this class.
In spite of the disagreement we are currently having, Merry Christmas.
The DB
One can gain insight to the current distribution by considering the case of a two-wire transmission line that is opened out, as shown in Figure 2.2. Without any flare, the open-circuit termination causes a standing-wave distribution of current, oppositely directed in the two conductors. Pairs of current elements, which are equal, opposite, and close together, radiare negligible, which is the behavior of a good transmission line.
With a flare of 45, as shown in the second panel of figure 2.2, the inductance and capacitance per unit length change with position along the flared segment, and thus so too does the characteristic impedance; however, to first order, the wave number is still constant at the free-space value k. For this reason, one can argue that the current distribution is little altered by the flare. This is still assumed to be the case in the third panel of Figure 2.2, where the current distribution is also shown as that of a standing wave with sinusoidal spatial distribution. Note that the pair of current elements, which had canceled each other's radiation tendencies in the first panel where they were oppositely directed and close, are more widely separated and reinforcing in the third panel, which serves to illuminate why a dipole radiates.
Figure 3.31 represents a very useful form of simple antenna which can be used over a range of frequencies of 2½ to 1. A different matching stub or other impedance-matching device can be used for each operating frequency within this range, if necessary. The merit of the system is that the radiation pattern maintains a constant direction normal to the antenna over the entire range, though the beamwidth of the pattern changes. Where one antenna must be used for day and night frequencies over a given fixed path, this antenna is useful.
It is dimensioned to have a length each side of the center of about 225 degrees at the highest desired working frequency which gives the current distribution and the pattern shown in Fig, 3.31C. At a slightly lower frequency the length each side of center will be one-half wavelength, and the system, as shown in Fig. 3.31B, is two collinear cophased dipoles. At a frequency one-half this last value, the system becomes a single center-fed half-wave dipole as shown in Fig. 3.31A. At a still lower frequency, the antenna would be electrically shorter than one-half wavelength, and its pattern would become a tangent circle.