----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Maxwell
To: Ted
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:20 PM
Subject: EH Antenna


Hello Ted,

Thank you for your response to my note to Bill.

Ted, I'm sorry to have rained on your parade, but I have not seen any proof that
your antenna outperforms any Hertzian antenna as you claim. As I read in the
'Article' appearing on your web site, you are claiming that when your 'EH' is at
1/4 wl above ground it has a 2.25 dB gain over a standard 1/4 wl vertical.

I have reviewed very carefully the engineering document prepared by the
broadcast consulting firm of Graham Brock, Inc., who performed extensive field
strength measurements on your EH antenna at experimental WK4XVQ in Eatonton, GA,
operating on 1520 KHz. To summarize very briefly, their report first shows an
average of approximately 1.1 dB less power radiated than the reference standard
antenna. Second, it is noted that the test antenna atop a 90-foot tower was
coupled to the standard WKVQ tower during the measurements, which is very likely
the reason the azimuthal plot of your EH antenna is scalloped rather than
circular. I'm sure you're aware that nearby objects that are resonant at the
measurement frequency will distort the readings and thus distort the resulting
data. What was done at the feedpoint of the WKVQ antenna to eliminate the
possibility of its becoming a part of the antenna system? Were the input
terminals shorted? Left open? Were any measurements made under both of these
conditions to determine whether the the WKVQ antenna was performing as a
parasitic radiator?

From the measurements performed by the Graham Brock engineers the resulting data
shows evidence that that rather than achieving gain over a standard antenna, the
EH antenna performs less well than the standard antenna.

At this point I'd like to repeat what I stated earlier concerning the concept of
your EH antenna's performance resulting from changing the time relationship
between the E and H fields to increase the radiation. What I stated earlier is
that the development of the continuous alternating E and H fields cannot be
changed in any way--not by changing the phase of the source current, or by any
other means. The laws set forth by electromagnetic theory are immutable. And I
also repeat--the antenna you believe to be performing in a new manner is simply
a shortened, inductively-loaded Hertzian antenna performing in its conventional
manner.

I believe you should consider the following academic treatment that should help
convince you that you cannot get additional power for nothing.

Assume a 1/4 wl vertical antenna with zero ohmic resistance working over perfect
ground. In this condition the only resistance in the system is radiation
resistance, and ALL power delivered to the antenna is radiated. Consider now an
imaginary hemisphere surrounding the antenna. When power P is delivered to the
antenna and all of the power radiated is then integrated over the entire
hemisphere, the integrated power will equal power P exactly. Now, because all of
the power delivered to the antenna is radiated, any increase in radiated power
due to some change in the configuration of the antenna is impossible. Therefore,
this constitutes proof that your claim of gain with the EH configuration is
invalid.

You say you have three patents on the EH. In so doing you have accomplished what
many before you have accomplished--outwitting the patent examiner who lacked
sufficient knowledge of the subject to recognize an invalid concept in the
patent application, and granted the patent. You may not have been aware that
hundreds of patents have been declared invalid for this specific reason.

Ted, I have no doubt that you honestly believe that your EH concept is correct
and valid, and that your antenna is performing within that concept. However, now
that you are made aware of the invalidity of the concept, and if you continue to
manufacture and sell your antenna as advertised to perform as you say it does,
then you must also come to believe you would be misleading the public. In this
litigious society don't be surprised if someday an attorney hands you a paper
claiming fraud. I would not like to see that happen.

Finally, if you still choose to believe my comments are incorrect, then I would
suggest you consult with other RF engineers to obtain their expert opinion, many
of whom have far greater intellect on this subject than I. You can find some
eminently qualified engineers in the news group rraa (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
by simply going to 'find' and inserting 'EH'.

Cordially,

Walt, W2DU