Topband: Elevated Linear Counterpoise vs. Elevated Folded Counterpoise (FCP)

[Richard Fry]

A certain Topband poster apparently originated and supports driving a 160m 
vertical monopole against an elevated, folded counterpoise ("FCP") in 
situations where dense and uniform buried radials are deemed 
impractical/undesirable/unnecessary.

Recently this same proponent posted this exchange in a Topband thread:

>> (B) What is the "ideal" number of elevated radials that one should 
>> use...?

>Somewhere between 16 and 32 it gets hard to see any further change.  For 
>commonly achievable 160m heights of radials, the degree of change depends 
>some on height and more on quality of ground.

Later posts on Topband with links to real-world systems and NEC4 
calculations showed that driving a monopole against just four 1/4-wave, 
elevated radials produces close to 100% radiation efficiency, regardless of 
earth conductivity in a horizontal radius of 1/2-wavelength from the base of 
the monopole.

Here is a clip of one web post I saw from this proponent describing the 
physical layout of an FCP for 160m:

>Counting FCP segments 1 through 5.  33 feet per segment.  Directions used 
>are for illustration only.
>
>1: center to 33 feet east
>2: 33 feet east back to center
>3: center to 33 feet west
>4: 33 feet west back to center
>5: center to 33 feet east and end insulator.

The description seems to define a single conductor zig-zagging back and 
forth roughly along the same linear axis.

So the question becomes, does a single elevated "FCP" (folded) radial 
configured in a zig-zag physical form enable the same antenna system 
radiation efficiency as if such a conductor/conductors are linear, and which 
according to this proponent need at least 16 such linear conductors for 
system performance approaching 100% radiation efficiency?

Also, are there any scientifically valid proofs/measurements that the 
radiated fields of a real-world monopole system when using an FCP of this 
description will equal, or even approach the efficiency of that monopole 
when driven against just 4 x 1/4-wave horizontal radials installed at the 
same elevation, at physical intervals of 90 degrees?

Clarifications/comments gratefully sought.

RF