On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:46:26 -0700, Richard Clark wrote:

You have a need, but you are not going to spend $300 to fill it. Again,
you say what is wrong, but not what is right. Will you spend $299?

I will investigate collecting together the parts from hither and yon and
building one myself, for less (sorry, can't define "less" but, like
pornography, I'll know it when I see it).

That was the objective behind whatever my original question was that had
to do with T2FDs. I'm pretty sure the original question had to do with
where I can buy suitable terminating resistors and bizarre-ratio baluns,
and which of the various and assorted configurations (390 ohm resistor
and 4:1 balun vs some higher resistance and ever more obscure
impedance-ratio baluns) is "best" (which is to say, least "bad"). But if
there was other stuff in my original question, please do me a favor and
don't toss it up in my face, OK? Answers to those questions (which I got,
both here and elsewhere) are sufficient for now.

The more specialized need requires higher power and a rotatable,
directional antenna, in the frequency range from something below 20
meters

Tell me that you want to spend less than $300 for this and we can all
have a chuckle.

Come on, Richard, can't you see the apples-to-oranges comparison?

I'm willing to spend $1000, if I have to, on a two element beam that
claims to work efficiently from 14 to 24 MHz (and beyond), IF it works as
advertised, because I have limited alternatives.

I'm not really willing to spend $300 on a radiating dummy load, because I
have LOTS of alternatives including building one myself for a lot less.

That can't be hard to understand, or differentiate between the two, can it?

Your questions tend toward seeking validation:
"Will X work for Y?"

To which some responses offer
"Um, yes, but why would you want to do that?"

"Because I don't what Z."

"OK, X for Y without Z can be found with model A."

"Model A will do, but it doesn't give me B."

"OK, X for Y without Z but with B."

This can go on for a long time.

I think it's called "doing some research" where questions beget answers
that then raise more questions that perhaps weren't thought of before,
until finally everything falls into place.

You want me to go away and come back with a full IEEE-STD-830-1998
requirements analysis before asking any questions. I've been doing that
kind of stuff for a living for a very long time and I'm pretty sure it
doesn't work that way... you ask questions, challenge the answers, come up
with more questions, and eventually you end up with what you need.

Is it the fact that I tend to challenge the answers ("Ah, yes, but what
about...?") that seems to bother you so much.

I'll tell you what, Richard, I appreciate the help you have provided so
far, I really do, but if it's all going to bug you so much may I suggest
that it's OK if you just stop responding to me? I'll miss your sage
advice but I guess I'll live with that...

Being meticulous about "efficient" would have you expressing what loss
is allowable.

2 db loss is unacceptable if it means I can't hear the stations I need to
hear, and they can't hear me.

18 db loss is fine if I can still hear them and they can hear me.

By inference to your tendency to select a T2FD (loss in the ballpark of
at least 3dB), then yes (and with proper design and construction), 0.07
wl spacing between elements is efficient

This is what I mean. Two completely different requirements, two completely
different solutions. Apples to oranges. And I have no "tendency to select
a T2FD". It's one of many options. But I think you knew that and you're
just having some fun at my expense, which is fine but it's over now. :-)