Cecil, defining efficiency as from transmitter to receiver. Isn't
the proper term 'Path Loss' and it's a variable due to propagation
variations. So are we comparing my wet noodle to your wet noodle and we
wiggle it in the middle.

Conclusion: It is not valid to define efficiency based on unknowable and
uncontrollable variables..

Deacon Dave

Cecil Moore wrote:

Richard Harrison wrote:

Art, KB9MZ wrote:
"The dipole is a very inefficient radiator."

I seem to remember Kraus saying 95% efficiency was not unusual as a
dipole efficiency.


I don't think that's the efficiency that Art is talking about. Art's
efficiency seems to be defined as the power delivered to the receiver
divided by the power sourced by the transmitter.