On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 02:13:43 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

It
isn't necessary to achieve 100% efficiency or to use a full wavelength
radiator in order to broadcast (or receive) a radio signal.

Hi Mike,

You are right, however, I suppose Art will walk away from this topic
as he had a month ago:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 some gomer wrote:

Following Maxwell's equations provides accountability of all forces
and NEC programs are very capable of showing this by divulging that
same 10% of missing energy.
By the addition of considerable textual chaff (not included here),
this last demand is saved from being embarrassingly close to:
How about supplying some facts to back up your claims so they can be
discussed?

Any NEC program (expressly allowed in the first statement's premise)
will show that a dipole:
1. In free space;
2. x coordinate -0.245714 wavelength;
3. x coordinate 0.245714 wavelength;
4. 11 segments;
5. 1mm diameter copper wire;
6. excited at first resonance

Result: 97.5%

So, clearly the first claim of 10% missing energy is a product of
misinformation and is easily accounted by the allowable method (NEC)
contained within the erroneous statement.

However, let's examine the source of that 2.5% loss. If I were to
simply use NEC's capacity to render the copper into perfect wire (no
other changes made to the parts 1. through 6 above); then

Result: 99.7%

Whoops!!!!! no copper, and still not perfect?

This, too, is accountable within NEC as accumulated math error of too
few samples (segments). So, we simple amend part 4. above to increase
the number of segments to 111; then

Result: 100.00%

*******************

I can fully expect the wheeze that the antenna is not in equilibrium
(sic). Without pointing out that what is already 100.00% efficiency
could not possibly be improved upon, I will instead increase the
frequency of excitation to put that structure into equilibrium (sic);
then

Result: 100.00%
or 0 improvement.

Having indulged the fantasies of equilibrium (sic), it is time to
press in the opposite direction, let's say to 1/10th equilibrium
(sic); then

Result: 100.00%
Howsaboutthat!?

*******************

So, using the allowable tools to investigate the claim of a missing
10% efficiency, it has been shown that this claim is wholly without
merit and lacks any demonstrable basis.

I don't expect any counter proof that will be expressed with the same
professional level of specification offered here, nor performable
within the 3 minutes it took me to do this (barring the time to type
this all out).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC