A Comparison of Two Methods for Solving Electromagnetic Field Integral Equation

<table>Current distribution for a <svg height="12.4375" id="M80" style="vertical-align:-0.1638pt" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 29.700001 12.4375" width="29.700001" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,.062,12.162)"><path d="M384 0h-275v27q67 5 81.5 18.5t14.5 68.5v385q0 38 -7.5 47.5t-40.5 10.5l-48 2v24q85 15 178 52v-521q0 -55 14.5 -68.5t82.5 -18.5v-27z" id="x31"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,8.222,12.162)"><path d="M113 -12q-24 0 -39.5 16t-15.5 42q0 24 16 40.5t40 16.5t40 -16.5t16 -40.5q0 -26 -16 -42t-41 -16z" id="x2E"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,12.098,12.162)"><path d="M412 140l28 -9q0 -2 -35 -131h-373v23q112 112 161 170q59 70 92 127t33 115q0 63 -31 98t-86 35q-75 0 -137 -93l-22 20l57 81q55 59 135 59q69 0 118.5 -46.5t49.5 -122.5q0 -62 -29.5 -114t-102.5 -130l-141 -149h186q42 0 58.5 10.5t38.5 56.5z" id="x32"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,20.257,12.162)"><path d="M529 97q-70 -109 -136 -109q-41 0 -56 94q-23 144 -37 284q-38 -88 -99 -202.5t-93 -156.5q-26 -8 -76 -19l-9 21q71 78 145.5 193t124.5 232q-5 84 -15 128q-12 55 -29.5 75.5t-42.5 20.5q-21 0 -45 -13l-8 24q16 17 46 30t55 13q43 0 70 -46.5t40 -169.5
q27 -249 51 -392q7 -46 23 -46q24 0 70 60z" id="x1D706"></path></g>
</svg> length dipole antenna, comparison of results for the MoM, CGM current, and sinusoidal current.</table>

International Journal of Differential Equations

fig2

Figure 2

Figure 2: A Comparison of Two Methods for Solving Electromagnetic Field Integral Equation 