I have already discussed the error contained in this article by Verma (Singh, 1974). It was pointed out in that discussion that the electromagnetic field of an infinite conducting cylinder excited by an infinite current-carrying line source has a significant contribution from the axially symmetric induced current in the cylinder giving rise to a secondary transverse magnetic field outside the n = 0 term in the scattered wave field (Singh, 1972a; 1972b; 1973). It was further pointed out that for a finite cylinder also, the n = 0 term is important as shown by Hill and Wait (1972) and Wait and Hill (1973). In his article, Verma had neglected the n = 0 term (like many earlier authors). In his reply (Verma, 1974) to my discussion, Verma accepts this error but, quoting a physical argument by Wait (1973), concludes that for a finite cylinder, except under certain extreme conditions, the contribution from n = 0 would be negligible (in a real problem, the cylinder as well as the line source must of course be finite). That this physical argument is not valid is borne out by Wait's own later works (Hill and Wait, 1972; Wait and Hill, 1973) which were cited in my discussion but, apparently, were not read by Verma before replying. (Also, see Wait, 1974.)

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview
You do not currently have access to this article.