"art" wrote
Actually John my beef is that the rule for the most efficient
radiation is that "if a radiating element is resonant and in
equilibrium it can be of any shape, size or elevation".
Yet that is ignored by the so called experts of the
amateur ranks.
___________

So, art, you are quoting yourself as an authority, whose beliefs are
ignored by others having academic credentials/experience in the
field of professional antenna engineering -- in which you have admitted
you have NO credentials?

How many would admit that :for a given polarization the best results
are NOT at right angles or parallel to earth" ? And as somebody said
"If it was really true it would have been invented a long time ago"

Which somebody are you quoting? I suspect you are referring to me
in one of my direct email responses to you, which I paste below
(my text only). Note that your "quote" above is a great stretch from
what I wrote in that email.

\\ Enthusiasm is always good, but if it was possible to do what you outline
using the radiation possible on 160 m solely from a structure in the shape
of a 4 ft cube, IMO it would have been done long ago.

Some very experienced antenna engineers including George Brown of RCA,
Carl E. Smith, John Kraus, C. Balanis and many others have investigated this
subject over the last 60-70 years, and have concluded that nothing smaller
is as effective on MW as a linear, vertical monopole at least 1/4-wave high,
using a good r-f ground.

I'd suggest that you conduct very good pattern and gain tests for whatever
you build. This is not a simple project. If you decide to proceed I
suggest that your tests be done and documented very carefully with
calibrated instruments, and in an acceptable, scientific manner that can be
endorsed and repeated by qualified investigators.

If you do that, history suggests that you will find that the performance of
your design does not meet your expectations. But better to know that early
on, so that you won't publish information that discredits you. //

RF