Oops! Thanks for the quick response!
That should have read "I can't believe the shorter antenna has MORE
gain". I am not normally troubled by such small differences in db's
but for that small of a gain difference and that large of a physical
difference (104 feet!) I am certain I have missed more than a decimal
point.

The tone of the message was intended as apologetic. I really hate to
bring dumb questions here to the experts but other than my books and
the Internet I have no where else to go with them. I also hate to take
the dumb questions to Roy directly for fear I will wear out my welcome
with him.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:59:22 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:51:02 GMT, John Ferrell
wrote:

I am looking at the gain in dbi on the 2D plot. I see 1.39 dbi for the
full 1/4 wave and I see 1.52 dbi for the 28 foot version.

I don't believe the shorter antenna has less gain. Where am I going
wrong?

Hi John,

Well, at a minumum, your statements conflict from one paragraph to the
next. That is one indication of something wrong even before we
consider the numbers.

Unravelling that knot, and taking only the first paragraph, yes that
looks wrong (in comparison) too. On the third hand, even if it were
true 0.13dB is something you will never measure accurately in your
lifetime. Even more, you would never perceive it.

Your question should be more of the nature, "how did I misread the
results?" to which we could respond to the tenor of your opening
statement:
Showing my ignorance (or perhaps deteriorating intellect?) again

Perhaps if you were to explain how you got here instead (the problem)
of what you found (the symptom).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
John Ferrell W8CCW

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:28:33 GMT, John Ferrell
wrote:

Oops! Thanks for the quick response!
That should have read "I can't believe the shorter antenna has MORE
gain". I am not normally troubled by such small differences in db's
but for that small of a gain difference and that large of a physical
difference (104 feet!) I am certain I have missed more than a decimal
point.

Hi John,

Well, this still does not tell us how you got here, only that when you
did you immediately stumbled.

Could it be that you inverted the results too? You know, it would
make more sense as an explanation than anything else.

Besides, if you skip the losses, the two will have such similar gain
figures that no one would be surprised by the razor thin margin of
difference.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC