Wayne wrote:

"gareth" wrote in message ...

Forgiving their ignorant use of the wrong plural, "antennas", this is a
brilliant site, at first sight ...

http://antenna-theory.com/


In particular, the following sub-page may teach the Yank rednecks
who abuse this NG a thing or two ...


http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/shortdipole.php

Good references, but I see nothing new in the second reference with regard
to short dipoles.

If you can get 100 watts into a one foot long HF dipole, it will be just as
efficient as a half wave dipole that also has 100 watts into it.

Agreed. It is a good summary. It confirms what many of us have said,
that there is nothing special about a small antenna that makes it
inefficient except that it has an inconvenient reactive impedance and a
low radiation resistance. Given a theoretical lossless matching network
(which would be impossible to realise in practice) the one in the
example could be 99% efficient, as the loss resistance of the actual
antenna is only about 1% of the radiation restistance.

If Gareth now agrees with this analysis we are now in the happy position
of all agreeing.

--

Roger Hayter