As we say in "Spanish" (Castilian language truly, in Spain they speak at least 6 languages) , --"se quemaron los papeles"--
"papers were burned"
Matching the impedances isn't particularly efficient:
it actually gives a 6dB loss in a ideal circuit. In a REAL WORLD is much more.
You have no evidence of this, and if this were true we would be very limited in the antennas that function well, especially with a limited 4 watts input. Essentially this would limit us to a center fed dipole and a quarter wavelength groundplane, and almost nothing else. All of those 5/8 wavelength base antennas would be useless. Yagi's would have to be huge to overcome the effects of the losses you are claiming here. Simply, if what you say is true, what would be available, and even useable, in the real world would be far different that what is available today.
CST whitepaper(CST "baton of shockwave")
https://www.google.com.ar/url?sa=t&...oK4y8UHWqP5NoFU7z5c47yw&bvm=bv.56988011,d.cWc
"
...A good im-pedance match is easily achieved by adding losses to the match-ing circuit but this naturally results in a poor efficiency of the
antenna.
This statement is taken out of context, so your again following that theme. This very principle has been proven time and time again even in the CB band, however, the losses in question are not part of any specific matching network. They can be achieved simply by using a a longer feedline. It doesn't matter where the losses come from, losses typically increase the appearance of a match. In essence they hide the true feedpoint impedance of the antenna itself. I don't know of any antenna design in use today that incorporates a matching network that uses pure losses as your quote here would require. How do I know that is what it is refedring to? I red the entire paragraph it was in to get the context of what was being said.
Read the entire paragraph you quoted that line from as well as the rest of the paper as a whole. Your not even in the ballpark of the actual goals and intents of the article when using it to refer to gamma matches.
...
This topology is very sensitive to the component variations and
therefore the performance could drop by 5 dB due to the compo-nent tolerances
This statement is absolutely correct, for a 2+ GHz antenna that fits inside of a bluetooth device. While the principles are the same, if you bother to do the calculations they used to come up with this data for commonly used matching networks, including the gamma match, at cb frequencies, you won't find anywhere near that loss level. Go ahead, do the math.
.......Put in another way,
as the obtainable bandwidth at 6 dB return loss level is more than
the required Bluetooth system bandwidth, a two-component
matching circuit can cover the Bluetooth system band with much
better return loss than 6 dB.........."
This doesn't come immediately after the above as you are implying with that "put another way" portion right at the top. It is on a completely separate page and is talking about something else entirely.
In SWR terms this is referring to a useable bandwidth range of 14:1 where anything under 14:1 SWR would be considered acceptable. This does have to do with matching networks, but is not referring to losses in the matching networks, it is referring to the bandwidth of the antenna when using such a matching network.
Your own linked article is clearly far beyond your own understanding of antenna theory. You lack the knowledge to even put it into context. Speaking of context, when talking about the frequencies the Vector 4000 is used at it is irrelevant, unless you plan on scaling the vector antenna to be 0.1125 meters long or smaller to use on these frequencies. That would be some scaling...
Taking an article that describes antennas that are not only nothing like the antenna in question, but in use on frequencies that are orders of magnitude higher (or lower for that matter) boils down to either being intentionally misleading, or incompetence. Still, I guess, following the form you have previously used, you will continue to push and claim no one disproved it. No one needs to disprove it as it is not in context of this discussion.
Now if we were talking about bluetooth devices or other devices that use a similar frequency range your linked article would be relevant.
The DB
