Trevor Day wrote:

Roy,

I think you got as far as my first paragraph and didn't read any further.

I am not attempting to justify this antenna or the way it works, just
trying to get an explanation for one aspect of it. If you had read what
I had written you would have seen the answer to your questions above.

Is it possible to 'mismatch', for want of a better expression, a loop to
achieve an equivalent bandwidth?

Yes. Put a resistor in series or parallel with it, or put a pad
(attenuator) between it and your rig. When you find the value that gets
you the bandwidth of the CFA, you'll also have about the same
efficiency. The power will be going into the resistor instead of into
the "phasing" and/or matching networks.

I have constructed many short
verticals for portable and mobile use over the years, but have always
experienced narrow bandwidth. It is this aspect of the 'EH' that I
would like to understand.

It's loss, plain and simple.

btw, starting your answer with "Sigh" might be justified if I appeared
to be ignoring your continued advice but surely not at first meeting?

Sort of. You apparently didn't check groups.google.com to see the great
mass of postings I and others have made about those antennas, many times
before. A tremendous amount has been written and posted about the CFA
and EH antennas. But like astrology, homeopathy, and other hoaxes, no
amount of objective evidence keeps people from wanting to believe.
Either they don't search it out, they're not able to evaluate it when
they find it, or they choose to ignore it when it threatens their
beliefs. It's resigning myself to that sad certainty and the Sisyphusian
(Sisyphusan?) task of combatting it which makes me sigh.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL