Art,
There are several questions interspersed in your
quoted post below. These questions deal with assumptions
and/or assertions you have made.


Unfortunately Mark this is not going to happen.
Having lost so many talented people from this group
------
1. Please furnish a list of those 'talented people' who
are now missing from 'this' group. A list of present
members of the 'group' would also be appreciated.
------
the
tendency now for those that are left are to avoid the
hard questions, provide quotes from books that leave you
hanging afterwards or intentionaly or other wise confuse
and divert from the specific issue.
------
2. Please furnish a list of 'those hard questions' which
have been avoided. Also the 'quotes from books' that have
left you hanging.
------
I would like to make one point clear. I was refering to
efficiency per unit length which somehow people will not accept.
------
3. Please explain why people should accept this theory. Of
what use is it?
------
In the case of the amateurs losing the ends of the dipole and not
noticing the difference is purely because the difference is not
perceptable to the ear as your figures pointed out which is why
capacity hats are so usefull.
On the ARRL question and gaps between dipoles. In all my copies
the gain curves all stop at zero gap between dipole ends which is
absolutely absurd as the ends of a dipole has nothing to do with
the situation of gain.
------
4. Have you perhaps thought that without the 'ends' of the
dipoles
being discussed, a necessary 'part' of the antenna to produce
the
gain is missing, and that the gain is lessened or absent?
------
Gain is determined as a vector addition
in combination with phase.
I also agree that less loss would be a better term but if one
moves away from convention all hell breaks loose
------
5. Have you ever thought that if you would explain your
thought
process, and the non-conventional terms you use, that you
might
prevent that "all hell breaking loose"?
------
Best regards
Art


- 'Doc