I noted that the recent ARRL book editor job requirements included a degree in journalism. I thought an electrical engineer, who knew how to write, might be a better choice. But as the following post on the TowerTalk reflector indicates, it looks like the QST and League publication tradition of sound technical verification of printed content might be a relic of the past. This is not something that leaves me filled with pride. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:06:04 -0700 From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical with 1 radial To: towertalk@contesting.com Message-ID: <4DCC3DAC.1000908@cis-broadband.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed For all practical purposes, a vertical with only one radial doesn't have "gain" in one direction ... it merely has more loss in all other directions. That may be useful if you need enough pattern to give you discrimination in directions away from the radial due to QRM or QRN, but it won't make you heard better than if you had radials in all directions. I assume, however, that one of the articles you read was the one by K7BKI in the latest issue of QST. That antenna really isn't as much a vertical antenna with radials as it is a vertically polarized V-antenna (which could theoretically offer some slight gain) since he has it mounted 13 feet off the ground. Even in that case, though, take a look at the max gain numbers in the EZNEC plots he included in the article ... 1.37 dbi is hardly what I would call "gain" over a traditional vertical antenna, and at the takeoff angle of maximum F/B it's only 0.9 dbi. Personally, I think it was misguided of him to attribute his newly improved ability to work DX to that antenna unless his previous yagi was defective ... 30m isn't even the same band he was operating before. But to answer your question, yes ... ARRL <is> pretty much publishing just anything now and several of their articles over the last few years have been technically misleading or even just plain flawed. I'd bet that their editorial review process consists solely of grammar and context. 73, Dave AB7E