On Thursday, November 13, 2014 2:38:40 PM UTC-6, FBMboomer wrote:
On 11/12/2014 1:50 PM, gareth wrote:
It is a truism that short antennae are poor inefficient radiators, and no
amount of infantile bluster by Americanoramuses will change that.

The truth does not need the violence of abuse to force its way down
people's throats.



A perfect example is a G5RV on 75 meters. They suck. When someone joins
our group rag chew on 75, and they have a poor signal, The first thing I
ask is "Are you using a G5RV". We all have a chuckle when they answer
yes and then ask how we knew. :-)

Trying to prove with math that short antennae work as well as say a 1/2
wave dipole may give someone great sport. However, in the real world,
short antennae suck big time. I have been an American for most of my
life. Please do not paint us all with the same brush.

But again, as everyone has pointed out, it's not the radiator, it's
the feed system that provides the losses.
The *usual* G5RV is generally lousy compared to a coax fed 1/2 dipole
because of the funky poorly designed feed system, not the radiator.
IE: coax to a choke balun to twin lead to the radiator. That's a joke..

The feed system is the culprit, not the slightly shortened radiator.
Which BTW, is not really all that short, as far as short antennas go.
It's more like a reduced size radiator, rather than actually short like
say a short mobile antenna, or a very small dipole.

If you can feed a 102 ft dipole with nothing but twin lead, the
antenna system is quite efficient. Say if you use Cecil Moore's
method of feeding a G5RV with ladder line.

You are blaming the wrong culprit, same as Gareth continues to do.
You have to consider the whole antenna *system*, not just the radiator.
Only the *very* short radiators suffer from ohmic losses. The 102 ft
dipole used with a G5RV does not qualify in that regard. Most all
the loss is in the feed system, not the radiator itself. And that can
be corrected to be pretty much a non issue.