On Thu, 28 May 2009 22:30:20 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

What 'vanity' does a J-pole serve? It's a simple,

Simple compared to something even more elaborate (11 out of 10), I
suppose, which would be more vainglorious.

efficient,

More efficient than a rubber ducky was allowed (the need for that
efficiency has been skirted, however), so the claim of efficiency
appeals to vanity when the difference was already noted. More
efficient than a rubber ducky giving full quietening? What does that
matter if not to suit vanity?

endfed
halfwave (essentially a 'Zepp')

Now there's vanity in its full glory with the trappings of provenance
(the hushed heritage of the era of the romantic Zeppelins). I bet
tagging it with the name Zepp adds 5dBd gain alone!

, low angle radiation,

Any lower angle than a rubber ducky? It is vanity to sneer at the
ducky, especially when it gets the job done without all this pomp and
circumstance.

easy to construct,

I presume this the vain form of "simple."

tune up, and mount on the top of a pole.

You can mount a rubber ducky on the top of a pole too, but suffer the
humiliation. No vanity boost in doing that, of course; so guilt
demands a J-pole.

I see no 'vanity'.

I can't either - not here in the basement where I can hit my buddy's
repeater a dozen miles away with a 1/2W HT driving a 6" whip. Note I
say that I "can," but I don't for the shame of not having a J-pole
mounted on a 20 foot mast. I only kerchunk it knowing full well my
buddies won't talk to me on my whip through their own J-Poles. Of
course this is ironic where the repeater is using a quarterwave
because it is:
1. Much simpler,
2. Vastly more efficient;
3. Has an immensely lower angle of radiation;
4. Is superior to tune up;
5. and is mounted on a really, really tall tower (not a pole).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC