On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 18:34:05 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote:
A dipole is the most efficient antenna.

Well I know that is your position but what are you comparing it with and
what parameters are you focussing on to form an efficiency term ?

They are the common factors of efficiency
Power Radiated / (Power Radiated - Power lost to heat)

If the radiated power doesn't go where you want, that is inconvenient
not inefficient.

The parallel circuit offers loss to an already most efficient
antenna..

Well looking at them separately rather than adding one to another.
What losses are you refering to in a parallel circuit assuming that the
circuit is resonant?. Is it of magnitude that one gets when adding an
impedance matching unit say on a 160 metre style shortened dipole or similar
antenna?

Impedance does not lose power, resistance does. Additional components
add resistance where there was no resistance before.

The parallel circuit is difficult to load and always requires
matching.

No........ The parallel circuit need not require any external matching
system which is a huge plus.

The parallel circuit ALWAYS requires matching BY DEFINITION. There is
no alternative. ALL halfwave verticals and ALL fullwave dipoles
demand matching. There are no commercial sources (transmitters) or
lines that drive this kind of load directly, matching is the ONLY
choice.

A dipole offers a standard of gain.

Anything can be adopted as a standard to compare to so this is a non runner.

This attitude is self-serving. The dipole is the de-facto standard
barring the isotropic specification. Choose one or the other, there
is no honest third choice.

The parallel circuit offers no change in gain except the prospect of
reducing it through making the antenna smaller to become a resonant
system.

As a dipole moves away from its resonant point gain losses occur,

I have shown this to be false.

A parallel circuit double that danger by offering hazardous potentials
at both its tips and its drive point.

Should be zero change in drive point at the antenna input port
and should provide less voltage hazards as it would tend to lower voltages
and increase current which is the prime requirement for radiation. This
point is one of the main points I fail to understand
why the group will not embrace.

Because it is not true. A parallel resonant circuit BY DEFINITION has
a high Z characteristic. A constant power (which is to say the same
power you would put into a low Z characteristic, series resonant
antenna) drives the voltage to hazardous levels. There is no other
outcome.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC