Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"Well, it sure makes a change from quoting or mis-quoting Terman."

Yes, it may be fun to condemn flawed information. There is not much
amiss or paradoxical in Terman`s encyclopedic 1955 "Electronic and Radio
Engineering". I found a typo, I think, on page 817:

"It is apparent from these considerations that the lower frequencies
(535 to 1605 Mc), the highest antennas that it is practical to use at
the transmitter and receiver are such that the direct propagation of
vertically polarized energy between the transmitting and receiving
antennas (i.e. not including ionospheric propagation) is necessarily by
the ground wave."

Frequencies of 535 to 1605 MHz do not propagate by ground wave.
Frequencies of 535 to 16o5 KHz do. Therefore I think the "Mc" was a
typo. I am a lousy proofreader, but I`ve read Terman for decades and
found only a single error.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
My friend says that a double bazooka is 98% efficiant
and that a dipole is only about 70% efficiant.

===============================

Well, it sure makes a change from quoting or mis-quoting Terman.



LOL

The converse is true. The dipole would be more efficient.
Your friend is incorrect.


"Ken Bessler" wrote in message
news:fXh4e.129$Jt.53@okepread04...
My friend says that a double bazooka is 98% efficiant
and that a dipole is only about 70% efficiant.

Is he right? Will a double bazooka outperform a dipole
enough to notice a difference on 40m?

--
73's es gd dx de Ken KGØWX
Grid EM17ip, Flying Pigs #1055,
Digital On Six #350,
List Owner, Yahoo! E-groups:
VX-2R & FT-857