On 23 Jun, 07:44, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

Well, it appears to me, the shortened 10 meter 1/2 is superior to a 1/4
(both mounted mobile) and the shortened 1/2 is VERY close in performance
to a full ~17 ft. (vs. ~5.3 ft. shortened--with the top hat and spacings
optimized, the difference is less than the width of a meter needle.)

This silly combination of know "tricks" is certainly doing something
which common place formulas/equations don't account for ...

However, if you already naysay on the navy data, I won't be able to
present any proof which even comes close--my equipment budget doesn't
even begin to match that of the navys' to begin with ...

JS, I would say that your results are significant assuming you used
the same ground plane. Given the tolerances involved and knowing
that the human ear would not be able to discern the difference
I think you have provided enough even for the poorest naysayer
to cogitate upon. They could say I misunderstood I suppose
To bring down the antenna length as much as
you have without a discernable difference will certainly gain
attention from mobilers. After all I doubt that any of them
considered competing with a testing station with respect to
a ground plane. Well done
Art






Too bad a bunch of different people don't use a standard test jig, apply
their own modifications and generate a ton of data/results ...

Regards,
JS