Oh, Cecil, Cecil, Cecil!

I appreciate your inputs, and I really don't want to pull your chain.
But I gotta say you are quite the maestro of the biased comparison!
[ Have you considered working for a network news show? ;-) ]

1. The discussion was about a 30m monopole, I thought.

2. If trees are assumed to be available to support dipoles,
then trees could be used to support a monopole.
But not being clairvoyant, I didn't know about your trees.
So what I had in mind was a self-supporting monopole,
versus 2 or 3 self-supporting dipole masts.

3. As to the gain figure, you seem to assume that the
dipole is always operating at the peak of one of its
lobes, and never has to operate in one of its nulls.
If only specific directions are of interest to you,
and if the dipole is oriented for those directions,
and if the operating frequency is low enough to
avoid multi-multi-lobe fragmentation of the pattern,
then I guess that's a good assumption for your situation.
But one can't assume that this assumption would apply
to everyone.

Here's some good news, though... Just to show you I believe
in being fair all around, I am honor-bound to report that:
Danny came up with a lower gain than you did for the modeled
monopole, thus increasing the modeled dipole's average
advantage to 2.7 dB.

BTW, I'm also using and enjoying dipoles out here in the
land of fruits and nuts.

73! Ed

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Old Ed wrote:
I would say that's not a bad showing, considering the much smaller
footprint and greatly reduced support requirements.

Huh???? My 40m monopole was the most difficult antenna I have
ever attempted to erect. My dipole goes between two trees and
gives me 9 dBi gain toward AZ on 30m. It's no contest.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp