In article ,
Eric F. Richards wrote:

Telamon wrote:

Sorry, Telemon, but I disagree with you here. A stopped clock is
right twice a day, and so it is with Dave here.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there as I used to read David's
posts and he was lucky to be right twice a month.

True enough, but it's the same idea, different scale.

I have high regard for Joe Carr and if anyone has a need they should buy
one of his books.

I'm not surprised your experience is good with a T2FD, it's a good
design.

There is a purpose behind the T2FD design and it is for transmit and
receive. For people wanting to use it only for receive the additions to
a basic folded dipole design so it will load well on transmit over a
range of frequencies are not needed and will not help on receive.

I'm not so sure I'm convinced by that, simply because of the amount of
material I've read on the T2FD. Yes, it was designed as a transmit
antenna, and yes, the resistor is vital to that role, but like in a
rhombic or Beverage, it still plays an important role in reception.


For receive only you are much better off using a BALUN of the right
transformation depending on the basic shape of the folded dipole you
construct.

Unfortunately, I've no experience modelling the antenna, or I would do
so to see if that's correct. Do you have a model to back up this
assertion? I'm interested in seeing this result.

I don't model antennas because as don't see the need. A folded dipole is
well understood.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California