Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m1hemc$34d$2@dont-
email.me:
On 10/13/2014 4:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip
You didn't say "optimum". You said it was "crap". What part of "crap"
don't you understand?
I will not engage in a ****ing contest with you.
You're the one who said it, not me.
You think an NEC analysis is the slickest thing since snot on a
doorknob. But what about HAAT or ground conductivity, for instance?
What about it?
Both have effects on the radiation pattern of an antenna.
Feel free to include all the above in your analysis.
You have considered neither when telling me my antenna was "crap" -
which it provably was not.
Where is the data that proves that?
Easy. The QSL card from Alaska and Hawaii on 75 meters.
I'm out of my depth and maybe shouldn't be posting this one, but there is a
way that 'optimal' can be different in some system given a tiny modification,
by example some loudspeaker tuned so it rolls off at somewhere around 80 Hz
for efficiency aboive that point, then someone decides they can block the
port, reduce the total drive, and lose power but gain a low of 40Hz, enough
for a flat response for every string on a bass guitar. They're not the same
'optimal', but it can depend what you're after. The way I understand it, the
word 'optimal' usually involves some technical tradeoff, somewhere, and
there may be multiple cases that all make respectable use of calculated
values..