On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:24:43 -0700, art wrote:

No, comparison would quickly reveal all this and thus I will leave you
with the last gasping denial. ;-)

Do you think I didn't realise what direction you was heading?
Look at mine not at his!

Hi Arthur,

Now, if you want us to look at yours, let's compare with something
real and not just your stale boasting that is short on technology:

First point - non planar (you can't beat this)
design fits within a box with a volume of 0.122 by 0.196 by 0.210
wavelength.

Second point - greatest length efficiency (you can't beat this either)

Third point - best TOA in comparison at 10 degrees (you certainly
can't beat that) and at less than 1/8th wave of the highest tip off
the ground!

Fourth point - more than 10dB F/B (you don't even come close)

Fifth point - a fractal! You don't know how to do it, do you?

Home Run!

And now for the full details:
http://www.qsl.net/kb7qhc/antenna/fr...r/k2/index.htm
(hint, this stuff is so old, it is going on 10 years). Even the EZNEC
file is found here.

Now, you are up to bat. Going to bunt for a sacrifice at first base?

Gasp out another denial and save us a comparison with your pale
designs retread from what Gauss forgot to do. Modern analysis wins
over your grave robbing through books every time. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC