now that you guys have had fun with Q... how about trying the practical
aspects of the originally stated problem? how would the described element
loading compare with, lets say, a 40-2cd element? bandwidth? coupling
between yagi elements?? losses?

"K7ITM" wrote in message
oups.com...
That (your afterthought) is much more like it. Thanks.

After all, this is NOT a thread about Q, it's a thread about the
effectiveness of different two-terminal devices for use in inductively
loading a linear radiator. In that case, the measured impedance, that
is, the measured X and R, of the two-terminal device is indeed what
matters. Given that we need a particular X, a high ratio of measured X
to measured R is advantageous, since the R term represents
dissipation. Maybe we should invent a new term and define it thus:

Xiddle = X(measured)/R(measured)

where Xiddle is to be pronounced "Ziddle," and rhymes with "piddle."
Or, we could just use the shorthand that W8JI elected to use AND DEFINE
in his posting: Q=X(meas)/R(meas).

Just as you say, Q is only an intermediate on the path to something
more interesting. It works for me if someone wants to offer a slightly
non-standard definition, so long as the definition is clear, as it was
to me from W8JI's post.

Thanks for mentioning the Black Country. It was an education for me to
look it up. Spring is trying to gain a toehold here, but it's a bit
tenuous. Got up to a couple feet of new snow in the hills over the
weekend.

Cheers,
Tom

(PS--where do you find gardens that grow "Q meters"? Or are they the
things that invade the garden to try to eat the qms?)