I really do not understand what you are getting at.
Your antennas are very small but are outside my interests.

I am looking for as long a hop that I can get on 20 meters
and ofcourse it must accept power.Beyond a 80 foot boom I am
constricted , thus I work backwards and start off with a smaller
antenna to which I apply changes in design to obtain the equivalent
of a 60 foot antenna based on the contour of the main lobe bottom.
( this includes changing the structure so that the gain and
front to back maximises at the same frequency
which is where the f/b is really meaningfull )

This is a long, long way from what you are describing and I might add that
my antenna design must be multi banded when I have attained the 60 foot boom
equivalency. Armed with this achievement I can now proceed to attacking
the
problem of exceeding the 60 foot boom yagi performance by using the now
freed
up land space

Can you re phrase your posting, possibly from a different direction, exacty
what
you are trying to add to this thread especially where it affects what I have
posted.
Regards
Art

ard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:34:11 GMT, "
wrote:

Thus TOA becomes
the most important thing for me as well as the "thickness" of the lobe.
That is the sense that your response questioned regarding my maximisation
of
antenna
performance for which I use TOA.

Hi Art,

Back when fractal antennas ruled the sky - at least on paper - the
bragging rights were carefully tailored to fit the design.

Some of this was arguably targeted to a user population that would
have enjoyed the advantage. Anyway, such an example is shown at:
http://www.qsl.net/kb7qhc/antenna/fr...r/k2/index.htm

The fractal flyer, and its superior, simpler cousin the H Flyer showed
a real, improved, DX response at 10 degrees. This was not their best
response angle which you call TOA. In fact, both designers studiously
ignored what you call TOA because it was not particularly notable.

So, as a bald statement, both designs constitute very small antennas
that exhibit BETTER gain figures at a TOA of 10 degrees than a full
sized dipole held at a comparable height. Also, these antennas show a
F/B that is very much better than a full sized antenna. Further, both
designs, but notably the H Flyer, show full band matching. However,
having said that, sans actual response levels or context, is having
said nothing.

However, let's look at the full characteristics, not simply the
claims:

Best Response:
Std Dipole 0 dBi @ 90°
fractal flyer -0.81 dBi @ 39°
H Flyer -0.6 dBi @ 45°

10 Deg. Response:
Std Dipole -7.51 dBi
fractal flyer -4.85 dBi
H Flyer -4.75 dBi

2:1 Match Range:
Std Dipole 0.85 MHz
fractal flyer 0.5 MHz
H Flyer 1.0 MHz

As can be seen, the H Flyer was the best design across the board, IF
you accepted the limitations originally imposed (very low, very small,
and scrutinized at 10 degree take off). Does this qualify it as a
good antenna? Depends on if you are space and height limited.

One last point, as poor as a valuation of -5dBi is, there are very few
designs (barring the two shown here) that can perform better and still
fit in the box.

So, let's return to claims, especially for the H Flyer:
Smallest resonant antenna;
Highest DX Gain;
Widest Bandwidth:
Best F/B;
Not a Fractal.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC