RC,

Instead of playing the 'game' of posting a reply to anything I post.

Why don't you be helpful to the original poster and attempt
to answer his question.

First - What type (name) antenna is he talking about ?

Second - What is your 'expert' opinion about this antenna ?

Third - What are the technical aspects of this antenna ?

- - - - - The Original Question - - - - -

Hi,

Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured
in a 60's (or early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched
PCBs (like spaced plates) mounted inside a plastic bucket, and
fed with coax?

Does anyone know more details of this?

JEFF
ZL3TNV

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's much nicer and rewarding to be honestly helpful
.. . . then simply hateful.

A 'noted' Yahoo ~ RHF
..
..
= = = Richard Clark wrote in message
= = = . ..
On 5 Jul 2004 01:26:17 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

The EH antenna has exceptional promise. It is about 10' in
diameter, requires no extensive underground radials, uses
approximately 75% less energy and is more efficient.

Hi OM,

More efficient that what, a resistor? 75% less energy than what, a
resistor?

The eh antenna is one of several of a class that take more effort for
less return than simply putting up as much wire as you have room for -
even if it is the same size as any of these "amazing!" antennas.

The absurd claims that attend the cfa/eh/fractal crowing societies is
matched by their inability to prove them except through their own
special math (never mind the S-Meter).

However, there are those who argue SWLers need poor antennas and I
suppose these fit the bill nicely. The technical equivalent of cell
phones VS string-and-dixie cups tho'.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
..