Thanks Bill. I was worried more about the (hopefully mild) attacks on the
propensity to nit pick on words or (what almost seems like intentional) mis
understanding due to the way terminology is used.

I haven't read all the other posts yet, but I made the decision to ignore
this detail (loaded ant feed Z) since it didn't help the naming problem. I
really try to address the OP's question without clouding it with other
probably true, but very possibly confusing details.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the loading coil actually does get you
to a zero reactance, thought we like to think we can do that -- and that
was my assumption. I think I said, or at least wanted to imply that we try
to get back to a zero reactance (a.k.a. resonance) and _that_ is "just like"
the "real" 1/4 wave....and therefore, perhaps, that is why some may want to
call it a 1/4 wave, but I am guessing what others think. I don't know who
wanted to call it a 1/4 wave in the previous posts.

--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.


"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:48:28 -0600, "Steve Nosko"
wrote:

...[ gobs'n gobs snipped]
__________________________________________________ _______

An excellent explanation, Steve, but needing one correction. When
adding a loading coil as above, the feed point resistance drops
significantly, so it no longer appears to be "just like a 1/4 wave
antenna".

Otherwise, great post.

For the benefit of the original poster, the word is "semantics".

--
73, Bill W6WRT