Richard Clark wrote in message
Others may reference URL
http://www.eh-antenna.com/documents/EHANTENNA_proof.pdf

Ok, found it now. Missed the link as it was buried in jibber jabber,
and my mind automatically tried to filter it out. :/

I note that in photograph found on page 27 of 29 that the "reference"
antenna is close enough to fall on the eh antenna. I also note that
the engineer speculates that this structure was not isolated enough
from the eh tests as it is demonstrated in the single radiation chart
that was conducted within 6 wavelengths of the test antenna (page 25).

Probably benefiting from the ground radials also to a degree also.
"Being I consider the tower as part of the antenna, unless it's proven
not to be radiating."

I also note that the antenna tower (yes folks, a common tower)
supporting the supposed antenna has guying that is not broken up with
insulators (plainly in view for the reference antenna in the
background). Top loading, how convenient.

You would think after all the harping about the support being most of
the antenna, and also feedline radiation issues, he would have stuck
it on a non metal roof with the xmtr at the feedpoint. No feedline to
speak of. But what do I seem to see? A 90 ft tower with a small sleeve
dipole object, with a feed seemingly at the center of the device.
No mention of decoupling from said feedline running down to the base.

When we actually look at the data (starting on page 7) and stepping
back from the antenna 10 Miles (a reasonable distance to evaluate the
far field) we see that both charts and tables of data for the eh fall
dismally below the reference.

About what I would expect from a 90 ft tower with a less than optimum
loading scheme. :/
Just for grins, lets see the 90 ft tower by itself with only top
loading wires.
Wait, that might clash with the "program".... Wouldn't want the guinea
pig "victim" antenna to outshine the wunderstick of the 21st
century...


The page of data called FCC figure 8 reveals that at 10Miles (actually
9.43 Miles) that the eh, tower, and top-hat are -4.24dB from the
reference and -15dB from FCC standard curve. The chart marked Exhibit
#1B (page 8) shows that further out at 20 Miles that the eh, tower,
and top-hat are -26.6dB from the FCC standard curve.

No bueno.



However, none of this means anything if the radio station that hosted
this test does not buy one. After all, they are a commercial
enterprise and if they want the additional efficiency within a couple
of wavelengths at the cost of 10 to 30dB coverage outside of the
block, they can certainly let economics rule that decision.

Dunno. They would need to buy an office building to mount it on to fit
with the "program"...:/

Perhaps I read the data out of order, or the charts upside down.

Yea, that PDF file kind of gave me a headache also...


Have they placed an order for this cheap, efficient, low antenna?

I bet it ain't cheap, if he's going to all this trouble to "prove" it
works.
Kind of reminds me of a lawyer buying the services of a handwriting
expert...

Efficient? Well, I guess as efficient as a UFO on a 90 ft metal stick
can be....

Low? I would hope so, if only for the neighbors sake...MK