On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 07:10:55 -0500, "C. J. Clegg"
wrote:

I was hoping to mitigate all of that by restricting the frequency range.
I'm not asking for 1.8-30 or even 4-30, but 4-9.

Hi OM,

That has been evident from the beginning. Still and all:
The 50 percent efficiency floor is somewhat arbitrary
Exactly. It is just such arbitrariness along with competing,
conflicting restrictions that leads to self-defined failure tacitly
accepted with:
If it can't be done, then it can't be done.
However, it has been done, and without the unnecessary complications
of forcing ANY design to span an octave without a tuner. Hoping that
a resistor will solve this is dope-slapped with the expectation of
efficiency.

some of the users of this antenna are going to be using power
levels as low as 5 watts
So what is all this angst about efficiency? Pour 100W into any hank
of wire and you will achieve at least that. Or do you mean that the
design you are looking for will be used as a model for others? If
that is the case, more the pity that the requirement of having a $25
tuner is an unreasonable expectation of Amateur radio operators. I
cannot imagine they will spend less on those resistors....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC