snip
wrote:
"According to current
theory, you have to give up one of the three-size, efficiency, or
bandwidth-to achieve any one of the other two."

snip
Is the above statement correct ?

Hi Art,

In a crude and shorthand way, yes. This is why your small 160M
vertical dipole is up to 15 to 17dB below performance in comparison to
a full size one. All common legacy for CFAs, EHs, fractals, and the
rest of this ilk that come down the pike.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hmm I don't know where you are coming from but I ouldn't put my
antenna
in the CFA group that you state above. I know in the past that your
antenna is better than mine which is O.K. but the fact is that many
amateurs like to experiment and also pursue the "holy grail" Each
attempt provide knowledge
which is why antennas are pursued so much .I wager that the patent
pending
aproach discussed will provide welcome reading for everybody on this
newsgroup.
As for my particular antenna pursuit I am still not ready to throw it
into the dustbin as every change provides new insights on antennas (
the sinosoidal current wave for one)
I use my present antenna in the rotatable form on the top of the tower
for convenience but I modelled it after reading your comments and they
are as follows

Top band....vertical orientation
Impedance 349 +j41 ohms ( 186-j13 ohms when horizontally oriented
on the tower)
Load losses 2.88 db
Efficiency 51.5%
Radiation peak 23 degrees elevation -1.53dbi

The above has bandwidth of around 5 Khz which is O.K. for audio,
and frequency of use is selectable across the band.
Since the feed point is at the center I don't have to tear up the lawn
for those rotten radial wires.
Efficiency jumps to over 90% on 80 meters and other bands with the
typical figure eight form pattern, but my primary pursuit is on top
band.
Yes, the antenna can be beaten when following conventional design but
the hunt
using unconventional designs is part of the excitement, where slight
change of inductance value moves you along the band /bands with out
restriction with respect to power , the requirement of high voltage
capacitors or large areas of grounding systems.
My antenna may be regarded as 'useless' by many but, unlike the CFA
and other antennas you placed me with, my antenna is in use and the
impedances provided seem to match those given by modelling using a PRO
antenna program and using maximum segments because of the
UNCONVENTIONAL close coupled cluster design.
Unconventional design provides insights to antennas like the
oscillations that I refered to earlier, which is not to be seen on
conventional designs and for which I seek further understanding and
explanation.
The new unconventional design from R.I. which is 'patent pending' no
less may well provide further insights that we are unaware of.
Unfortunately his efforts WILL be ridiculed by those who know that
'every thing about antennas is known' and by sharing he has shown his
personal foolishnes to his peers.
When will the amateur learn that it is a waste of time to experiment
where the failures are heralded and the minutia of new facts are
ignored ???
Please forgive me for writing this extra post which has strayed from
my original post.
Regards to all
Art