Yep Bob, we've talked about your idea before, several times, and to be accurate you are probably right technically, the real A99/Imax feed point is located up inside the mounting base and not at the SO239 where the feed line connects. And, Steve Yates reports that an EFHW without a counterpoise, as he describes in several shapes and designs, theoretically will not work either unless the matching is right and shows to be resonant and resistive. He says if this matching is not done correctly...then the system will find something for the return path for currents to respond to that won't work without issues. He further adds that it is similar to a counterpoise, but there will likely be some bad issues pop up.
I look as this issue this way. For years I've heard guys claim that the A99 uses the feed line as the counterpoise for this EFHW radiator and that is simply why we hear so many bad reports. The key word here is feed line, and herein lies a distinction that IMO is suggesting the idea about FL on the A99 has either been proclaimed as CB/Ham BS for years, or the Solarcon design works just like Yates talks about. IMO, if this is not the case then the story about the A99/Imax is probably misunderstood...so we hear a lot of complaining about the A99/Imax radiating from the feed line. According to Yates it is true that an EFHW can respond just like the stories we hear tends to suggest, but if the antenna system is done right...that is not the case. I believe the Solarcon's design is probably a good design that sometimes is not right on the money...due to bad construction techniques like I found...a bad solder job.
Bob, if we had argued before Steve Yates did his work on the EFHW, that the counterpoise in this case...only needs to be .05wl long in order for a resonant and resistive EFHW to work effectively, and thus not respond with any of the bad issues we hear talked about in the CB/Ham world...do you think anybody would have listened? Probably no one would pay us any attention, nor consider any other explanation.
IMO, many are still not giving this phenomenon its due consideration and therefore much misunderstanding still prevails. I've had several A99's over the years with two among them really acting badly...just like stories we here suggest, but I don't think for one minute the problem happens because the antenna needs to use the feed line inorder to make a good match and complete the other half of the antenna. To me the antenna using the feed line as a counterpoise is only a symptom of he problems, and not the cause.
Anybody that reads the Yates report might understand in the reading that if the matching is not pretty much right on the mark...then all the claims for years we've heard regarding how the feed line radiates and serves to provide this EFHW radiator with its necessary other half...suddenly comes into play.
I wasn't talking technical BS or even thinking about what Yates and you have come up with in these ideas. When I got the notion to see if testing an A99 without a feed line attached, really made a noticeable difference in the match, I had no clue what the result might show. But I figured most would have said, "...that will probably mess up the tune...," similar to what Yates tells us can happen... without the counterpoise attached.
Bob in my mind, then and now, I don't think of this except to say, Steve Yates gave me a heads up, that if an EFHW tuning setup is done correctly, then all the CB/Ham BS we've heard for years...just ain't true and won't likely happen.
When I reported my results testing with my VA1 analyzer connected right at the SO239 of my A99, I took some flak "...that this was not possible, because the A99 uses the feed line for it to work." I had no intentions of trying to get your point or the ideas that Yates reported across to anybody, but I thought such a test on video might be helpful. I rectum' I was wrong.:headbang
