Let's see..............An antennas bent so that the tip is parallel to
the ground?.............That represents an antenna that is now midway
between horizontal and vertical polarization.


Wrong. That represents an antenna with -both- horizontal and vertical
polarization.

Are you trying to misrepresent my statement? My statement is not
wrong. A antenna bent in the above fashion is now midway between
horizontal and vertical polarization. Such an antenna always has
fields in both polarizations. I never stated it didn't

The theoretical gain of that antenna should be equal between
polarizations. When such a scenario is in place the field strength
should drop to .707 of it's original. That represents a 3db loss
just from this antenna being bent.


Wrong. The theoretical gain of the antenna for a given polarity is a
function equal to the sum of the gains of equally spaced tangents
along the curve of the antenna.

Not wrong at all. A diagonal antennas field strength drops to .707 of
its original when the receiving antenna stays vertical.

Yet you stated....................................

"vertically polarized field strength dropped by a hair."


As measured by my FSM.


When testing mobile antennas a 3db loss is huge.
Most all well designed efficient non bent antennas
will easily beat your -3db antenna.


I did not say that it dropped by 3dB. The phrase "by a hair" is not my
words but the words of my spotter, and both of us generally use that
phrase to describe a meter shift approximately equal to the width of
the needle. And since the FSM used was only a 'relative' FSM (as
opposed to a CISPR quasi-peak detector), there is no way to quantify
"by a hair", nor did I attempt to do so.

Ok..........so your test is quantified by "hairs". Now I get it.
My tests which were performed with much more detail were
chastised by you. Yet your test (the hair method) gets
validity.

I see how this works now.