Dan Andersson wrote:
So, the subject is still taboo.

No, but like with any untrue claim that offers something for nearly
nothing there will be those who want it to happen so bad they will have
blind unbendable faith.

Well Tom, I can't say I have seen your evidence that the EH-antenna is a
fraud. On the other hand, the only test I found of the 160m EH was in the
RSGB Radcom, and that test was in positive wording. I have not seen any
positive test of a 80 m EH tho'!

http://www.fi.uba.ar/materias/6654/d...CFAantenna.pdf

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvinf15/_technical/

are two places.

http://www.w8ji.com/e-h_antenna.htm

Professional tests? Wasn't there a proper evaluation done on a commercial EH
for a radiostation a couple years back?

This is what speaks volumes about the credibility of the CFA and EH
antenna people.

They keep claiming they will soon have supporting data, but it never
appears. There always is a reason, like the "test is secret".

Common sense would tell anyone that if they are on to something, they
would just pony-up the cash to have a reputable lab do a test. If you
think about it, there isn't a single invention in the world good for
common man that actually works where the manufacturer can't point you
at working examples that can been seen by people.

This EH stuff is exactly like the 1969 L-88 Corvette that was sitting
in the mother's garage since Viet Nam, sold to a friend of the guy
telling the story for $250.

I do not agree with you claim that there isn't a single professional
evaluation.

Point me to one. Any one.

The EH for VHF was tested in France - maybe two years ago now
and was in line for 27,000 installations. The EH lost because of the price,
not because of performance. The EH results gave a S/N improvement of 5 to 7
dB, which dramatically improved the telemetry systems functionality. As
this was a commercial evaluation, no data where released.

Sounds like the Corvette. It really happened, we just can't tell you
where and how.

As to the field theory, which I didn't mention anything about in my earlier
posting, I just cannot comment about that theory as I, amongst many other
hams, lack the really deep knowledge of EM theory other than what can be
found in the normal text books.

Then you'll have to take my word and other people's word for it. We
cannot synthesize radiation.

See:
http://www.w8ji.com/radiation_and_fields.htm

The let us take a look on the "fraud theory". The inventor of the EH doesn't
have ( as far as I know ) any known record of fraud.

1.) Ted Hart told the Atlanta Radio Club he invented or designed the
MFJ loop antenna and MFJ antenna analyzer.

2.) An officer of that club conatcted me, and asked me if that was
true.

3.) I told them no, he had nothing to do with those products and I
didn't even know who he was.

4). Ted Hart then told Antennex I "quit the Atlanta radio club" and
"stormed out of a meeting". Antennex published that letter.

I have never been a member of ARC.
I have never in my life attended a meeting of that club.
I have never quit any radio club in my life.
I have never stormed out of a meeting of any kind in my life.
Ted Hart had nothing to do with the MFJ loop or the MFJ antenna
analyzer.

73 Tom