```Hello Dick / Group. ```I have read through Dick's analysis, of the counterpoise / earth comparison and have a little trouble trying to realise the antennas described. It's quite late and I'll probably see the obvious tomorrow.......but after I've sent this mail. ```In essence, my problem is "when is a counterpoise not a radial" ```1) The antenna has a loading coil to resonate it......with a length of wire running under the main span of the antenna called a "counterpoise". If the "counterpoise" is not resonant, should it not simply be considered an earth radial which works due to its capacitance / proximity to ground? Or I guess that for the purposes of analysis the two coils could be combined and fed at a tap. 2) Mike has (this weekend's report) experimented with a resonant wire instead of his earth system without success, but I understand the idea here, as a series resonant circuit ( or one quarter wavelength wire) will present a low impedance at its point of connection.......Or, if you like, a signal is returned after travelling a total of 0.5 wavelengths and therefore arrives back at the feedpoint 180 degrees out of phase producing a cancelling effect. Unfortunately, the losses associated with a coil are usually high and using this technique to resonate a short counterpoise would probably introduce substantial losses. Similarly, if a full 0.25 wavelength wire were used, I imagine its proximity to ground would also introduce losses. How high above ground are the popular 160m "elevated radials"? One other possibility to achieve a low impedance "earth" is to use a drum of transmission line cut for resonance. ( a quarterwave stub) .....OK, it's about 300m for normal coax with a 0.667 V.F. but the losses at 136k would be low. 3) Finally. If a short vertical is resonated with a coil and then, with the system isolated from ground, a counterpoise wire is added - and resonated. Isn't this just a loaded dipole with one leg close to the ground and the other vertical? If so, then the highest radiation resistance of this configuration should be achieved when the two sections are in line i.e. an improvement of about 50%. It seems that everyone is looking at antennas worked against ground and not exploring self-resonance within the antenna. (loop owners excepted..) I wonder where the "equilibrium" is in the comparison of a short vertical operated against a poor earth and a loaded "dipole type" antenna operated close to the ground? ```No wonder there are so many antenna books around and then there's the CFA.......Whoops Sri. Goodnight es 73 David ```