"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message

Cuz it's easier decoupled with it's 1/4 wave radials, and is less
likely to have feedline radiation than the funky 5/8 antenna with 1/4
wave radials. In direct comparisons here, the 1/4 GP was a good bit
better than the 5/8 with 1/4 radials.

Interesting. You obviously have developed a far superior measurement
technique than most antenna engineering firms, and maybe even NIST.

Maybe so if using a simple antenna switch to A/B test is superior...

Your
results disagree with pretty much everyone who measures antenna gain
professionally, and the ARRL handbooks, but hey they must all be wrong then.

No, they do NOT disagree with most who have a clue. BTW, those
"results" I gave you with gain numbers were from modeling.

Though it's entirely done in the HF spectrum, a pretty detailed analysis is
presented he

HF? Thats the problem....You can't apply the performance shown on HF,
and expect it to pan out on 2m. The decoupling problem will rear it's
head on VHF.

http://www.cebik.com/58-3.html
A good ground, and cleaner near-field space, is easier to come by at VHF and
UHF, so I would expect results to be somewhat better than what was seen here
even at the high end of the HF spectrum.

A good ground is not the whole answer. Decoupling is more important at
those higher frequencies.

If you google a bit, you'll probably find some articles on converting a CB
antenna to a 5/8 2 meter antenna.

Why would I need to do that? I already done that before. I've built
enough 5/8 antennas to choke a horse. Maybe two or three. Thats why
I'm fairly comfortable with what I say.
I'd like to ask one question. Have you ever actually compared the two
types at the same time using a switch? MK