I thought the loss at the parallel resonance frequency of the trap was not the issue.  I thought it was the loss at the lower bands where the trap just acts as loading.... loading = lower radiation resistance = higher resistive losses.  This applies more to trapped vertical antennas, not Yagis.

Wikipedia has a nice discussion of near field vs far field.

The 2D**2/lambda term is usually applied to aperture antennas, like horns and dishes.   It is generally accepted by antenna engineers as the minimum distance required to make accurate gain and pattern measurements.  

EMC/EMI engineers have a completely different rule of thumb for far field. I forget what it is right now and never thought it made much sense.

I understand the 2d**2/lambda term in relation to apertures, but not so well in relation to wire antennas.  Wire antennas commonly have an effective electrical aperture that is larger than the antenna's physical aperture.

I think the bottom line is that hams really don't need to worry about the definition of far field.  Just lay out your radial field in accordance with the recommendations given in the ham radio literature.  Far field vs near field vs reactive near field are important to those who work in antenna ranges, but accurate antenna measurements at HF are darn near impossible anyway.

The concept of a one-sided antenna causes me great consternation.  I have lost sleep trying to understand the end-fed Zepp.   Where do the electric field lines at the feed point of an end-fed 1/2 wave terminate?   

I too have used an end-fed wire as my primary antenna.  As others have said, in order to control the RF in the shack you need to provide a counterpoise at the tuner and then choke the coaxial cable really well between the tuner and operating position. RF is going to find the 'other side' of the antenna.  If you don't provide a counterpoise then the equipment in your shack and the AC wiring of your house will become the other side.  I have had lots of RF burns to prove it (the worst was when I get one on the lip from my microphone). 

I had good results up to 100 watts.  Above that the RFI issues became obnoxious.  I got by with a simple L network - a variable capacitor and an air coil tapped with an alligator clip.

Thanks Cecil and everyone.

My intent is to use the 43' antenna with a low-loss homebrew matching network at the base.   The coax line to the shack will be operated in a matched condition and will not have the extra losses caused by high VSWR.  I will not have the 4:1 torroid transformer at the base, another source of loss.  I will not use the "tuned" 150' feed line that some of the manufacturers recommend.  All these seem like band aids for someone who is unwilling to tune at the base.

I see 43 feet as about the upper limit for a freestanding vertical and also about my upper limit for the visual impact to my property.    Yes, the radiation resistance will be low on 80 and yes there will be high ground losses, but given my desire to be inconspicuous, it is what I can do. 

For operation on the high HF bands I can telescope the vertical down to a lower height to preserve the low takeoff angle.  I'm not too keen on the verticals with multiple elements (ugly) or on traps (lossy).

The idea of buying just the tubing is a good one.  I need to add up the cost of the tubing, base insulator and fold over mechanism and see how they compare to a packaged vertical.

I'm still reading through the old reviews and postings. 

Thanks & 73,
Jon

Thanks everyone.  I'll read the threads and product reviews a second time.  I skimmed them prior to my original post, and didn't find what I was looking for, but maybe I missed something. 

Rephrasing my original question, I'm about to pull the trigger on the DX Engineering 43' vertical. Before I do I'd be interested in knowing how it compares in mechanical quality to others such as the  Zero Five.  If anyone has experience with both the DX and another brand then I would very much appreciate hearing their opinion.   

I did not express my original question very well.  Sorry for the confusion.

Jon

I found that too.  And I found even more information with a Google search.  My question is simply, "which manufacturer produces the best hardware".  If that has already been addressed then I missed it.

Thanks

I'm getting back on the air after a 10 year hiatus.  My operating interests are 80-10 CW, both DX and local.  In my past operating I always used horizontal wire antennas.  I've compromised with my wife and agreed to a vertical this time, thus eliminating the ugly supports and feedline drop and the feedline slapping against the house siding in the wind.

It looks like the non-resonant 43 foot design is a reasonable place to start.  I don't mind using a matching network at the base, and I have seveal that should work in my collection already.  I would not be using a transformer/balun at the base.  I intend to put in a good radial system, at least 32 x 32'.   

It seems that lots of manufacturers make 43 foot verticals.  I'm looking at DX Engineering, MFJ, Zero Five and others.  I do require that the vertical be self supporting (no guys).   The manufacturers all seem to have great user ratings.  I would buy it without the balun/transformer.  The costs seem to be about the same - around $200. 

I'd appreciate any comments or feedback regarding which manufacturer has the best mechanical product.  If this is a beat-to-death topic already please forgive me.  I searched but did not find  much information.

I found this question so interesting that I joined eHam just to continue the discussion

Why not take advantage of the feed line as another radial?  I'm thinking of placing my choke  just outside my radial field.  I also wonder if this might be more effective at keeping RF out of my shack than putting the choke at the base of the vertical. With the choke at the base RF currents might couple back onto the feeder at close in distances where the fields are high.  By putting the choke outside the radial field where the fields are lower there will be less opportunity to couple back to the feed line.

With regard to snap-on chokes..  The inherent problem with them is that any gap between the two halves will reduce their effectiveness.  It is better to use solid cores and thread them onto the coax before the connector is installed.  Fair-Rite makes both snap-on and solids in all the materials.... 43, 61, etc.  DigiKey used to carry them - not sure if they still do.  The generic EMI suppression snap-ons that some suppliers carry may not be a suitable blend.  I'm not sure how many cores would be required to make an effective choke - perhaps a dozen or even more.  W2DU published some work on baluns with these cores years ago.

Edit:  found information on W2DU's choke    
http://vk1od.net/balun/W2DU/index.htm
He is recommending 50 cores using type 73 material for HF.