Hi Jimmie,

I hope you appreciate the mix of confusion, theory, hope, and despair
that follows this subject. :-)

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 16:09:37 +0100, Dan Andersson
wrote:

So, the subject is still taboo.

Well, that's a new way to approach the subject, tie it to sex.

was in the RSGB Radcom

Vanity publishing is not science.

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

For what it was worth: -10dB at best, and a signal diving into the
noise floor 20 miles away for an AM band signal. The upshot of it
all, was if you couldn't see it, you couldn't hear it. Same fate as
the common rubber duckie antenna.

The EH lost because of the price,

An old oil drum with a beach umbrella cost that much? This goes
against the their noted claims of it being cheaper than a standard
design.

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. d

Soounds like a combination of the OJ Simpson defense and the Kennedy
assassination theory.

When he presented the noise bridge,
there where no problems at all as I remember it.

A noise bridge is to signal performance as a gas gauge is to
horsepower.

The best tests of the EH so far have been on VHF and without any coax
connected to the EH.

You can work the space shuttle without coax connected to a rubber duck
antenna either. Why build an eh when you already have a rubber
duckie?

BTW! I'm quite sure many of us stumble on the EH's daily nowadays as a
common use of the EH is for RFID equipment.

You have a proper reference for that of course. The reigning
crack-pot-king insists they are fractals.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC