tnom wrote;

I really don't know. I would suggest it does a better job at

3. Thicker antennas perform marginally better than thinner.

4. More conductive antenna stock makes a marginal difference
over less conductive antenna stock.


These are part of those 'misconception's I was talking
about. That "marginally better" ought to read 'no practical
difference', and that "marginal difference" ought to read
'absolutely no difference at HF'.
The 'thickness'/diameter of conductors can and ~is~
described
scientifically (repeatable or reproducable results). At the
frequency you are talking about, that difference in
'thickness'
would have to be on the order of several inches. Not
fractions
of an inch.
The conductivity of the material used for the antennas has
so little bearing on their radiation efficiency at HF that
it's
absolutely rediculous to worry about. Even at UHF / SHF it
isn't a problem.


But it really doesn't matter.

Just about the only thing that you've said that is
'right'.
'Doc