Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 12th 04, 12:29 AM
Walter Maxwell
 
Posts: n/a
Default EH Antenna Revisited

Happy New Year to you, too, Rick.

To anyone who believes the W5QJR EH concept is valid.

I just now received a request from Rick Lutzinger, KD6ZR, asking for my opinion
on the validity of the EH concept W5QJR touts as his invention in his website at
www.eh-antenna.com.

I went back and reviewed the posts on this thread posted during the last week of
September 2003. Surprisingly, I didn't find anyone who disagreed with the
concept. All I found there were disgreements with the claims for gain and
realistic claims that this antenna could not even radiate as well as a
conventional antenna. With this I agree.

The following text contains my reply to Rick:

Hi Rick,

I didn't have the opportunity to refer to Hart's fiasco until day before
yesterday. He appears to still be in the business of publishing proofs of
his limited knowledge of antenna and transmission line principles.
Unfortunately, he appears to believe he's found something new in his 'EH'
concept. On the contrary, 'his' antenna still performs as a Hertz, and his
limited knowledge has misled him believe he has something different. So
let's examine the situation.

Let's begin with a traditional resonant 1/4 wave vertical antenna over
perfect ground fed with a 50-ohm coax matched to a source delivering all of
its available power--signifying a conjugate match. Now let's add some
inductive reactance between the coax and the antenna. There is no longer a
conjugate match, the current lags the voltage, the power factor is no longer
100%, and the delivery of power is reduced proportionately. If we continue
to increase the inductance until the current lags voltage by 90 degrees the
power factor is zero, because cos 90 = 0. In this case the only power
delivered by the source is that dissipated in the inherent loss of the
inductance. The reactive power contained in the inductance is reflected back
to the source resulting in a mismatch that prevents any further delivery of
power other than that required to supply the power dissipated in the loss
resistance of the inductance. In this condition no power will be delivered
to the antenna.

However, if a capacitor is inserted in series with the inductor having the
same but negative value of reactance as the inductor, we know that the total
reactance now is zero, the conjugate match is restored, and the power
delivery returns to normal.

On the other hand, Hart is applying the 90-degree phase lag to a very short
antenna, whose input impedance is capacitive. As the series inductance is
increased to where its reactance equals the negative reactance of the
antenna capacitance, we have the conventional loading and matching of an
antenna that is shorter than that of resonance.

Now if Hart is able to obtain an input to the antenna that approaches an
impedance match allowing power to be delivered into the antenna, the
capacitive reactance of his short antenna is simply compensating for the
series inductance he believes produces current that lags voltage by 90
degrees. Tain't so. He is simply feeding a traditionally matched short
Hertzian antenna. Further, voltage applied to Hart's 'EH' antenna results in
antenna current flowing in exactly the same manner as in any antenna, and
the E and H fields are formed and are related to each other in the same
chronological manner as in any antenna. The natural laws of electromagnetic
theory govern the field development and there is nothing anyone can do to
violate those laws developed by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1800s--they have been
proven immutable for more than 120 years.

So how come the respondents rave about how terrific their 'EH' antennas
work? It's only because they fail to understand what is really
happening--there is no change in the chronological relationship between the E
and H fields, as Hart has misled them to believe, they are simply using a
shortened loaded antenna in the traditional manner.

Hope you find this of value, Rick

73, Walt

PS--Please note in the References section of Reflections that an asterisk
preceding a name indicates that that reference contains erroneous and
misleading information. Now take a peek at my Reference 100. The material in
that reference proves that that writer even then didn't didn't have a clue
concerning transmission line theory. Note also the date: March 1969--things
don't seem to change very much.

Walt Maxwell, W2DU



  #2   Report Post  
Old January 12th 04, 10:20 PM
Walter Maxwell
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:29:58 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote:

Happy New Year to you, too, Rick.

To anyone who believes the W5QJR EH concept is valid.

I just now received a request from Rick Lutzinger, KD6ZR, asking for my opinion
on the validity of the EH concept W5QJR touts as his invention in his website at
www.eh-antenna.com.

I went back and reviewed the posts on this thread posted during the last week of
September 2003. Surprisingly, I didn't find anyone who disagreed with the
concept. All I found there were disgreements with the claims for gain and
realistic claims that this antenna could not even radiate as well as a
conventional antenna. With this I agree.

The following text contains my reply to Rick:

Hi Rick,

I didn't have the opportunity to refer to Hart's fiasco until day before
yesterday. He appears to still be in the business of publishing proofs of
his limited knowledge of antenna and transmission line principles.
Unfortunately, he appears to believe he's found something new in his 'EH'
concept. On the contrary, 'his' antenna still performs as a Hertz, and his
limited knowledge has misled him believe he has something different. So
let's examine the situation.

Let's begin with a traditional resonant 1/4 wave vertical antenna over
perfect ground fed with a 50-ohm coax matched to a source delivering all of
its available power--signifying a conjugate match. Now let's add some
inductive reactance between the coax and the antenna. There is no longer a
conjugate match, the current lags the voltage, the power factor is no longer
100%, and the delivery of power is reduced proportionately. If we continue
to increase the inductance until the current lags voltage by 90 degrees the
power factor is zero, because cos 90 = 0. In this case the only power
delivered by the source is that dissipated in the inherent loss of the
inductance. The reactive power contained in the inductance is reflected back
to the source resulting in a mismatch that prevents any further delivery of
power other than that required to supply the power dissipated in the loss
resistance of the inductance. In this condition no power will be delivered
to the antenna.

However, if a capacitor is inserted in series with the inductor having the
same but negative value of reactance as the inductor, we know that the total
reactance now is zero, the conjugate match is restored, and the power
delivery returns to normal.

On the other hand, Hart is applying the 90-degree phase lag to a very short
antenna, whose input impedance is capacitive. As the series inductance is
increased to where its reactance equals the negative reactance of the
antenna capacitance, we have the conventional loading and matching of an
antenna that is shorter than that of resonance.

Now if Hart is able to obtain an input to the antenna that approaches an
impedance match allowing power to be delivered into the antenna, the
capacitive reactance of his short antenna is simply compensating for the
series inductance he believes produces current that lags voltage by 90
degrees. Tain't so. He is simply feeding a traditionally matched short
Hertzian antenna. Further, voltage applied to Hart's 'EH' antenna results in
antenna current flowing in exactly the same manner as in any antenna, and
the E and H fields are formed and are related to each other in the same
chronological manner as in any antenna. The natural laws of electromagnetic
theory govern the field development and there is nothing anyone can do to
violate those laws developed by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1800s--they have been
proven immutable for more than 120 years.

So how come the respondents rave about how terrific their 'EH' antennas
work? It's only because they fail to understand what is really
happening--there is no change in the chronological relationship between the E
and H fields, as Hart has misled them to believe, they are simply using a
shortened loaded antenna in the traditional manner.

Hope you find this of value, Rick

73, Walt

PS--Please note in the References section of Reflections that an asterisk
preceding a name indicates that that reference contains erroneous and
misleading information. Now take a peek at my Reference 100. The material in
that reference proves that that writer even then didn't didn't have a clue
concerning transmission line theory. Note also the date: March 1969--things
don't seem to change very much.

Walt Maxwell, W2DU


I quote here an email response from Bill Ronay, KM4LS:

To:
Subject: EH Antenna...
Date: Jan 11, 2004 7:19 PM
Dear Walter:

Just read your forwarded email regarding Ted Hart, W5QJR, his discoveries and
creations. Yours was a lengthy and, obviously, topically researched missive.

I might suggest you get in your automobile from down there near Stetson
University, drive North on US 441 and don't stop until you arrive at Ted's home
and workshop just north of Eatonton, Ga. also on US 441.

THEN, with all the knowledge and talent you have at your disposal, prove or
disprove your claims. He has an EH currently in AM broadcast mode. There are
also several ham versions available for your appraisal.

Regards,

Bill
KM4LS

W. R. "Bill" Ronay
2090 Shadow Lake Drive
Buckhead, GA 30625-2700

  #3   Report Post  
Old January 12th 04, 10:23 PM
Walter Maxwell
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The following is my email reply to KM4LS:

Hello, Bill

Thanks for writing and for your concern regarding Ted's antenna concept.

Bill, I can only say how sorry I am that Ted has misconceived the principles of
electromagnetism in believing that the chronology of the formation of the E and
H fields as they develop along a transmission line or antenna can be changed by
the voltage-current relationship appearing at the input terminals of an antenna.
I know he and other amateurs are using antennas they believe are operating in
the mode Ted calls EH, but it is up to Ted to prove that what he claims is so.

I'm sorry, but there is no way he can prove a concept that violates
electromagnetic theory that has been proved true empirically for more than a
century. Let him place voltage and current probes on a shortened resonant
antenna with the 90-degree phase lag inductance inserted and feed a dual trace
oscilloscope to see the relationship of the fields.

And another experiment. Have him adjust a 1/4 wl vertical over good ground to
resonance with no phase lag inductor in the circuit and then measure the power
delivered to the antenna. Then, without readjusting any transmitter tuning and
loading controls, have him now insert the 90-degree phase lag circuit and
remeasure the power delivered. He will be amazed at the result.

If the 90-degree phase lag circuit will change the chronology of the formation
of the E and H fields in the shortened antennas, as Ted claims, then it will
also change the chronology of the fields in a full length resonant antenna. If
he can prove that the field chronology also changes in the full length antenna
I'll buy into his concept. The burden of proof is on Ted, not me. In my opinion,
the phase lag Ted introduces, which he believes changes the time relationship of
the fields, only compensates for the capacitive reactance in the shortened
antenna, making it resonant, without any change in time relationship in the
normal production of the E and H fields.

73,

Walt



  #4   Report Post  
Old January 12th 04, 10:32 PM
Walter Maxwell
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill, KM4LS, forwarded my emial to him to Ted Hart, W5QJR. The following is
Ted's response to me:

Hi Walter,

Bill sent me your note. Good to hear your view point on the EH Antenna. Sorry
you have not moved your brain into this century. 100 Years ago man could not
fly. If you read out web site you will find that our AM Broadcast antenna out
performs a standard 1/4 wave AM Broadcast antenna. We also have commercial
applications. Further, by direct comparison the EH Antenna outperforms wire
antennas for Ham use.

I have proven the EH Antenna.

Best regards,

Ted


  #5   Report Post  
Old January 13th 04, 12:20 AM
Jim Kelley
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

100 Years ago man could not fly.


And now he can?


:-)

More importantly, 100 years ago airplanes could not fly.

For a humorous read, goto:

http://www.eh-antenna.com/documents/...DEFINITION.pdf

73, jk


  #6   Report Post  
Old January 13th 04, 12:31 AM
Yuri Blanarovich
 
Posts: n/a
Default

100 Years ago man could not fly.

And now he can? Using EH antenna as a broomstick?
Far out Dude!

Quickly get the patent, print marketing pamflets and sell it to developing
nations. (send me the royalties)

BUm
  #7   Report Post  
Old January 13th 04, 01:10 AM
Jim Kelley
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

100 Years ago man could not fly.

And now he can?


More importantly, 100 years ago airplanes could not fly.


How far back in time do hot-air balloons go?


It isn't possible for balloons to go back in time. :-)

73, Jim AC6XG
  #8   Report Post  
Old January 13th 04, 01:22 AM
Cecil Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Kelley wrote:
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

100 Years ago man could not fly.


And now he can?


More importantly, 100 years ago airplanes could not fly.


How far back in time do hot-air balloons go?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
  #9   Report Post  
Old January 13th 04, 01:26 AM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:32:26 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote:


I have proven the EH Antenna.

Best regards,

Ted



:-P

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
  #10   Report Post  
Old January 13th 04, 01:58 AM
Dave Platt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Jim Kelley wrote:

More importantly, 100 years ago airplanes could not fly.


How far back in time do hot-air balloons go?


It isn't possible for balloons to go back in time. :-)


That depends on whether you happen to have a very long, incredibly
massive cylinder, rotating at near-relativistic speeds, somewhere
downwind of your launch point.

Most of us don't - extreme tidal effects aren't one of the things
exempted by PRB-1.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 8 February 24th 11 11:22 PM
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? lbbs Antenna 16 December 13th 03 04:01 PM
Passive Antenna Repeater Revisited WP20032 Antenna 4 November 17th 03 08:49 AM
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 12 October 16th 03 07:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017