tom wrote:

Thanks Roy. I was rushed at the time and also didn't care too much,
since it was obvious that even though the elements weren't parallel or
on quite the same centerline, they were very close to it. He picks at
nits when he says his antennas are different. I could get similar
results from a good windstorm.

tom
K0TAR


Ok, revisiting things now that I have time, I discovered something,
which The Art may (ok, will) get off into an incomprehensible rant about.

I did a simple normalization. I calculated the lengths of the elements
and the location of their centerpoints. I then calculated the distance
between the centerpoints. I then put it all in a nice level and square
2 element array. I left the diameters alone.

New endpoints -

-37.455 -219.135 707 -37.455 219.135 707 1
37.455 -195.45 707 37.455 195.45 707 1.25


Results at 14.175 using EZNEC+ 5

Gain F/B
Original 9.87 dBi 7.84
Normalized 10.29 dBi 8.58

The impedance curves were not different enough to be of note and were
matchable to 50 ohms with good efficiency.

I'll take the one with better gain and F/B that's also nice looking with
elements that are easier to mount because they're at 90 degree angles,
thank you. Yes, run-on sentence.

tom
K0TAR