Yuri Blanarovich wrote:

100 Years ago man could not fly.

And now he can?

More importantly, 100 years ago airplanes could not fly.

How far back in time do hot-air balloons go?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



We are talking here about man flying, like flapping his wings or hands. Heck I
still can't fly, or maybe I can fly, but the landing is problematic. Any idiot
can fly in the baloon or airplane or EH? broomstick.

Now what about woo-mans? I see them frequently flying through shopping centers
and with no wings.

The quote of the day from EH "description":
"The voltage and current applied to a Hertz antenna are in phase, therefore the
E and H fields are not in phase,
thus radiation does not occur until a great distance from the antenna."

Wasaaap in between? Unplowed fields?
Far out Dudes and Dudettes!

I fear what would happen if he added one of the W8JI "equal current" coils that
could stretch the current way out there and just keep adding fields EH?
Scaaary!

BUm

Walter Maxwell wrote in message . ..
Bill, KM4LS, forwarded my emial to him to Ted Hart, W5QJR. The following is
Ted's response to me:

Hi Walter,

Bill sent me your note. Good to hear your view point on the EH Antenna. Sorry
you have not moved your brain into this century.

Walter is over 100 years old? Maybe they didn't have U-haul trailers
to haul brain matter in 1904?

100 Years ago man could not
fly.

And 100 years later he still can't, unless he is on some kind of drug
that makes him think he is...

If you read out web site you will find that our AM Broadcast antenna
out
performs a standard 1/4 wave AM Broadcast antenna.

Boy howdy...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ch%26me ta%3D

Note the local response to this "proof"... Note the near unanimous
approval of this "proof"....Not.... :/

We also have commercial
applications. Further, by direct comparison the EH Antenna outperforms wire
antennas for Ham use.

Proof by misapplication of the product? Har...Har...Har...

I have proven the EH Antenna.

I have proven my old 1968 ford truck, but I have never been prone to
think it can fly to Dallas like a Southwest boeing 737-300. Sure, I
could strap a JATO rocket to it and probably become airborne, but the
thrust reversers "drum brakes", probably would be insufficient to stop
me from becoming a wet spot on the side of a Love field hanger upon
landing. I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night though...Would this
count as "proof" ??? MK

Mark wrote,

Walter Maxwell wrote in message
...
Bill, KM4LS, forwarded my emial to him to Ted Hart, W5QJR. The following is
Ted's response to me:

Hi Walter,

Bill sent me your note. Good to hear your view point on the EH Antenna.
Sorry
you have not moved your brain into this century.

Walter is over 100 years old? Maybe they didn't have U-haul trailers
to haul brain matter in 1904?

100 Years ago man could not
fly.

And 100 years later he still can't, unless he is on some kind of drug
that makes him think he is...

If you read out web site you will find that our AM Broadcast antenna
out
performs a standard 1/4 wave AM Broadcast antenna.

Boy howdy...


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...17plnv027cn5lo
0ibuadd6vieb1q4g1ajv%404ax.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%
3DISO-8859-1%26q%3Deh%2Bantenna%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch%26me ta%3D

Note the local response to this "proof"... Note the near unanimous
approval of this "proof"....Not.... :/

We also have commercial
applications. Further, by direct comparison the EH Antenna outperforms wire
antennas for Ham use.

Proof by misapplication of the product? Har...Har...Har...

I have proven the EH Antenna.

I have proven my old 1968 ford truck, but I have never been prone to
think it can fly to Dallas like a Southwest boeing 737-300. Sure, I
could strap a JATO rocket to it and probably become airborne, but the
thrust reversers "drum brakes", probably would be insufficient to stop
me from becoming a wet spot on the side of a Love field hanger upon
landing. I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night though...Would this
count as "proof" ??? MK


This is an old story: someone comes up with what he thinks is some
way to do the impossible and becomes so fanatically attached to his
idea that he is willing to defend it to the death no matter how much proof
there is to the contrary (and try to make a buck off it,too). Very few people
take the EH antenna seriously any more. I'm surprised Walt even took the
trouble to argue with these fellows.

Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

----- 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

Sir:

Would not Mr. Hart's statements be considered "Hypothesis" not theory.
Your explanation is very lucid for this electronics technician.
Thank you!
But, why is the arena of antenna theory still theory and not "fact" or
"law" or whatever? A succinct explanation, if possible, would be
appreciated.


Regards
Bill Cook N4WC



Walter Maxwell wrote:
Bill, KM4LS, forwarded my emial to him to Ted Hart, W5QJR. The following is
Ted's response to me:

Hi Walter,

Bill sent me your note. Good to hear your view point on the EH Antenna. Sorry
you have not moved your brain into this century. 100 Years ago man could not
fly. If you read out web site you will find that our AM Broadcast antenna out
performs a standard 1/4 wave AM Broadcast antenna. We also have commercial
applications. Further, by direct comparison the EH Antenna outperforms wire
antennas for Ham use.

I have proven the EH Antenna.

Best regards,

Ted

Walter,
You said:
"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."

I disagree. I think all you've asserted is conservation of energy, not
whether or not the antenna has gain.

Joe
W3JDR

Tdonaly wrote:

This is an old story: someone comes up with what he thinks is some
way to do the impossible and becomes so fanatically attached to his
idea that he is willing to defend it to the death no matter how much proof
there is to the contrary (and try to make a buck off it,too).

Yeah, religions *are* silly. At least he's not wasting the taxpayers'
money on the faith-based antennas.

WA7AA


--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:01:54 GMT, "W3JDR" wrote:

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."

I disagree. I think all you've asserted is conservation of energy, not
whether or not the antenna has gain.

Hi Joe,

Walter has asserted that there is a constancy of power confirmed by
total integration. Any increase in radiation with the same applied
power is impossible by definition. One can observe a gain relative
between two antennas and this would require significant differences in
the two patterns. However, the data from the FCC methods of testing
prove there is no difference. Except, of course, by that due to the
nearby resonant structure which perturbs the EH field slightly (which,
when wholly integrated reveals the familiar low efficiency of the EH
relative to the nearby standard tower).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The following is Ted Hart's response to me:

----- Original Message -----
From: Ted
To: Walter Maxwell
Cc: Bill Ronay
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:50 PM
Subject: EH Antenna


Hi Walter,

Every one is entitled to their opinion - but accurate test data is irrefutable.

Comments to your comments are in your text below- - - -

Ted
----- 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.

Ted: TRUE

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

Ted: (0.84) dB

less power radiated than the reference standard antenna. Second, it is noted
that the test antenna was atop a 90-foot tower.

Ted: The tower was 90 feet, the EH Antenna was below that.

The EH Antenna was at 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.

Ted: Pattern distortion was due to a power line

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?

Ted: 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 rather than achieving gain over a standard antenna, the EH
antenna performs less well than the standard antenna.

Ted: Read the rest of the story - the center of the EH Antenna was at 0.1
wavelengths above gound - if it were raised to 1/4 wavlength then it would be
what I claim, 2.25 dB gain over a standard 1/4 wl vertical.

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 prforming in a new manner is simply a
shortened, inductively loaded Hertzian antenna performing in its conventional
manner.

Ted: You are wrong. If you were correct, the effective radiation resistance
would be a fraction of an ohm, not a much much higher resistance as indicated by
the measured bandwidth.

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.

Ted: Again, you do not present a valid argument. What you say is true, but not
germain to the issue. Consider antenna pattern gain, not total radiated power -
- - The purpose of an AM Broadcast station is to provide maximum signal to the
listener on the ground and reduce skywave as much as possible.

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: But one criteria is proof of performance - and I presented that to the
examiner.

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.

Ted: No one can claim fraud if the antenna does what I say it does.

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.

Ted: I agree that you do not have a complete understanding of antennas.

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

Ted: Please learn to read before you criticize - every thing I say about the EH
Antenna is valid.

Ted: Please do not respond - there is nothing you say that is valid and I do not
wish to waste my time trying to teach you something because you have such a
closed mind.

Ted

Walt here now:

It's past midnight now, but I'll have a short response to Ted's above comments
tomorrow.

Walt, W2DU

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:19:32 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote:

Ted: You are wrong. If you were correct, the effective radiation resistance
would be a fraction of an ohm, not a much much higher resistance as indicated by
the measured bandwidth.


The "measured bandwidth" reveals the proximity of earth in series with
a small radiation resistance. Lower the eh to ground level and you
would have a multiband antenna? (Quick, print this on the side of the
box and double the price!)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC