This will be my last hurrah in this sub-thread, and
then I'll go into bandwidth conservation mode....

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Old Ed wrote:
So instead of a "T" between the trees where the top is a
dipole and the vertical element is the feedline, why not
a "T" between the trees where the top is a support rope
and the vertical element is a monopole?

Given that, I've gone to all the trouble of putting up a
dipole. Why would I choose to put up something inferior
to a dipole? Plus, with a vertical, I would have to lay
in a ground plane only to make my noise level 2 S-units
worse than with the dipole. Where's the ROI?

I will interpret your subject change here as conceding
the point I was trying to make.

Do you think
a couple of trees 65+ feet away from said monopole
would suck up all its radiated energy? And if so, why
wouldn't they clobber the much closer, high-impedance
ends of the dipole?

Because the trees then act as part of the end-hat circuit
which is a good thing.

This is somewhere between incoherent and grasping at
straws, so again, I will consider the point made.

I never operate my antenna in a null.

This is quite a remarkable feat! Do you only talk to a list
of favored stations that are known to lie in your lobes?

Yes, that's why I placed the lobes where they are.

Or do you refuse to answer a list of stations that lie in your
nulls?

I don't QSO with weak signals. Life is too short for QRP.

Great, this is progress... we now know your ground rules!

But I assume you will acknowledge that there are quite a
few other amateur stations that want to be unrestricted in
azimuth.

I also don't drive my
pickup one mile per hour even if I only average driving it
one hour per day. Seems by your logic, I should always walk
since I can walk faster than the average speed of my pickup
over any 24 hour period. :-)

I'm afraid this analogy is so strained and inapplicable that
it doesn't really need a response.

It's the same logic. You are arguing that the average radiation
pattern is what is important and not the directional gain while
it is performing useful work.

So to be consistent, you must also argue, that it is the average
speed of my pickup that is important and not the speed while it
is performing useful work.

Sorry, this didn't get any better. It's still nonsense, as an analogy.

Since the average gain of a beam is about equal to a vertical,
do you advocate getting rid of all the beams? :-)

No, not all of them... only the ones that need to cover 360 degrees
azimuth, and don't rotate. 8-)

73 es QRT, Ed

--
73, Cecil, W5DXP