Art Unwin wrote:
The problem in this debate is that others are concentrating on
resonance
where as you are thinking in terms of anti resonance which portends to
a higher impedance and also the condition of equilibrium.

I apologize if I gave you that idea, Art. I am talking
about a physically short (38 degrees), electrically 1/4WL
(90 degrees) *resonant* antenna over mininec ground. The
feedpoint impedance is low and resistive.

In the example given, the stinger supplies 19 degrees
of phase shift, the base-loading coil supplies 19 degrees
of phase shift, and the impedance discontinuity between
the coil and the stinger provides a point phase shift that
makes up the difference between 38 degrees and 90 degrees.

As I hammer away at this concept, I am wondering if a
loaded mobile antenna can be optimized if only the correct
model is adopted. Is a high-Q loading-coil always better
than a loading-coil with a lower Q? Are fat/short loading-
coils always better than skinny/long loading-coils? Some
field measurements have cast doubt on some long-held
concepts.

But obviously the question cannot be answered as long as
some people insist on using the lumped circuit model for
the loading coil, e.g. virtually zero delay through the
coil.

I have measured the delay through a 75m bugcatcher coil.
It was approximately 25 nS, a magnitude greater than
w8ji's "measurements". It doesn't matter if my measurements
were off by 20%. The magnitude difference between my
measurements and w8ji's "measurements" is too significant
to be ignored.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com