Art, KB9MZ wrote:
"What is going on between the real world and what is written in books?
He He!"

Often, execution of what`s written is done poorly. If antenna
performance on the band for which an antenna is designed improves when
part of the antenna is removed, it`s likely due to poor design or poor
implementation, or both.

Books are usually carefully done because a mistake is very exposed and
is likely to be around on view for a very long time.

Art`s quixotic quest is now for high performance in a miniature antenna.
I think he wants someone to describe it for him to patent. Such hopes
may derive from the observation that gain from parasitic elements in an
antenna is optimum with close spacing. Driven arrays such as the W8JK
also get gain from close spacing. A price is paid for close spacing.
Mutual impedance between elements (coupling) goes up. This reduces
radiation resistance and drivepoint resistance. A low radiation
resistance is less significant as a part of an antenna`s total
resistance. It hurts efficiency. A low drivepoint resistance often
requires lossy coils to match to a power source.

If shorter elements are used to try to shrink an antenna, they may have
low radiation and drivepoint resistances which cause the same
inefficiencies as closely coupled elements.

Stack elements vertically and more space is required. Place elements end
to end and they require a longer space. Put elemants in a plane for an
end-fire array and even with close spacing, more space is required.

It`s not unusual to yearn for the unattainable but it may be unrealistic
to expect an antenna which is tiny, efficient, made of ordinary
materials, and uses ordinary construction techniques.

Let`s see, if we could only replace the less effective parts of an
antenna with parts like the more effective parts---hummmm!

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI