Now I understand where you are coming from !.
I've given a lot of info out about the antenna
and its attributes, many of which are unique.
Also why I am following this path
I do not consider these posts mention of the attributes such as
feed point height or details regarding F/B as meaningless
and certainly not points about which to argue.
I did ask on another posting if there was anything written on a particular
subject regarding a particular feature but there was no response so there is
not a lot of interest in some aspects
If I have declared something that is impossible I would be happy to debate
it
but at this point I am not ready to publish all details which I am sure that
you
understand
Art








"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 04:25:06 GMT, "
wrote:

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.
=
both designs exhibit BETTER gain figures at a TOA of 10 degrees than a
full
sized dipole held at a comparable height. However,
having said that, sans actual response levels or context, is having
said nothing.

If you neglect giving us response levels, or context (like height,
length, frequency, ground conditions) then telling us you have a great
10 degree TOA is meaningless.

More to the matter of the thread, it you cannot tell us antenna
location and that location of the intended DX, and the height of the
skip layer, then a great 10 degree TOA could easily be useless.

If this is simply about bragging rights that knowing the DX location
is inconsequential because you will hit somebody, that could as easily
be said about a great 20 degree TOA antenna which makes the great 10
degree TOA antenna another face in the crowd.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC