Hi Richard,
I thank you for posting such revealing evaluation of my deficient,
misleading knowledge.
Yes, my web site is full of old no good stuff. Even my C6AYB picture is too
many pounds old.
Anyone with spec of antenna knowledge can see that "G5RV" is operated as
dipole, judging by the standing wave current distribution, and it is not
cardinal sin to call it G5RV dipole or vice versa.
If I can get away from deflecting mumbo-jumbo and over holidays, I will
start working on the project. Looks like audience here is looking for
sticking needles rather than providing answers and suggestions to questions.
The main thrust of question posted here was, should he stay with loading
stubs or do something better. I described what was done, and stubs suck,
coils are MUCH better and that current distribution is what it is and
illustrated in that "butchered" drawing by W5DXP.
I humbly bow in view of your much better, educational posting. I am sure the
questioner is fully satisfied with your answers and solutions.

Happy Easter from bankrupt designer

73 Yuri, K3BU

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:06:45 -0400, "Yuri Blanarovich"
wrote:

it is similar to loading coil, but worse performer in
the loaded Yagi situation. Have look at the end of my article
http://www.k3bu.us/loadingcoils.htm

Hi Yuri,

As usual, your statement has nothing to do with your link. What is
worse, this EZNEC model is from a third party who is not available to
comment as to the accuracy of your statements about performance.

Even more is the compounding of error at the link:
"G5RV antenna using inductors in the form of loading stubs"
Clearly, then, it is NOT a G5RV.

When we continue with the commentary we find:
"When simple inductance in Eznec is inserted in place of the
stubs, the current erroneously is shown as the same at the both
ends of the inductor."
Clearly, then, the model designer who expected something other does
not know how to design the model. It would seem after several years
of corrections to this error you continue to publish, that you would
have updated your page by now.

It is easy to offer broken solutions. This group sees many of them
that are then used to discredit either the tool or the theory. What
these broken models reveals are the bankrupt designer.

Perhaps you should vet the material from your contributors more
closely.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC