w4jle wrote:
And I almost had my Fractal, EH, CFA completed. Are you saying my dream of a
24 inch 5dBd gain 75 meter antenna has been shattered?

Not entirely, I can show you how to get a 22 dBi omnidirectional
radiation pattern with a folded antenna (according to EZNEC. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:26:23 GMT, Richard Clark wrote:


This sucker's signal dives right into the ground like a plow.
Obviously the eh antenna suffers a misspelling, it should be POS.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, does POS mean positive, or is it what gets stuffed into the hole plowed
by the signal?

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Well Walt, look at it this way. By claiming he puts the E and H fields in
phase, he forces the ExH power flow vector to be equal to zero. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Yeah, Cecil, that's what I thought, too, but not according to Ted. He puts his
antenna up at 1/4 wl above ground and gets 2.25 dB gain over a standard 1/4 wl
vertical. What am I missing here? Perhaps we just haven't yet found Ted's secret
for squeezing the E and H fields to rest on top of each other instead of in
sequence.

Walt

Walter Maxwell wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote:
Well Walt, look at it this way. By claiming he puts the E and H fields in
phase, he forces the ExH power flow vector to be equal to zero. :-)

Yeah, Cecil, that's what I thought, too, but not according to Ted. He puts his
antenna up at 1/4 wl above ground and gets 2.25 dB gain over a standard 1/4 wl
vertical. What am I missing here?

The only possible conclusion is that he doesn't put the E and H
fields in phase. Could it be that there is another dimension, in
which the EH antenna operates, which allows ExH to be greater
than E*H[sin(90º)]? - that's 90 degrees for you incompatible nerds. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Hi Walt,

What you are "missing" is that the EH antenna can be made from scraps of PVC
pipe and used aluminum foil. Don't need no stinkin' steel towers. (Except as
"support" of course.)

Don't worry about whether it works or not; it is a great recycling project.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Walter Maxwell wrote:



Yeah, Cecil, that's what I thought, too, but not according to Ted. He puts his
antenna up at 1/4 wl above ground and gets 2.25 dB gain over a standard 1/4 wl
vertical. What am I missing here? Perhaps we just haven't yet found Ted's secret
for squeezing the E and H fields to rest on top of each other instead of in
sequence.

Walt

Walter Maxwell wrote:

SNIP

Richard, does POS mean positive, or is it what gets stuffed into the hole plowed
by the signal?

I think it's related to fertilizer!

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:17:53 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:

Walter Maxwell wrote:

SNIP

Richard, does POS mean positive, or is it what gets stuffed into the hole plowed
by the signal?

I think it's related to fertilizer!

Dave, I think it means pile o something or other, can't think of what it is
right now.

Walt

Hello Ted,

The following is a copy of my last msg to Ted, sent much earlier today. I have
not yet received a reply.

Ted,

While I respect your wish to not respond, I have no other choice but to respond,
because I'm trying to help you here with respect to legal problems you may
encounter down the road if you insist on telling prospective buyers that your
antenna outperforms conventional antennas due to a modified relationship between
the E and H fields. Sometime in the future the truth will come out that the EH
relationship you claim is invalid, destroying your credibility. This is what I
don't want to happen.

You stated that no one can claim fraud if the antenna does what you say it does.
But Ted, the problem is that it doesn't.

I pointed out that hundreds of patents have been declared invalid in the courts
because the concepts they portrayed were found later to be invalid. In these
cases the patent examiners simply did not recognize the invalidity of the
subject when they granted the patents.

You said you presented proof of performance to the examiner. That you did, and
the engineering report you submitted was very well done. The procedure your
consulting firm used is exactly the same as what I used when I was in that
business years ago.

But Ted, your proof of performance proved only that the antenna radiated as
indicated by the measured data--it did NOT prove that the antenna was performing
with the in-phase E and H field relationship that you claim. And that is the
problem. Your statement that everything you say about the EH antenna is valid is
easily proven wrong, as I have already done in my previous email.

In your reply to my email you said the pattern distortion was due to to a power
line. I must remind you that the radiation from your antenna is vertically
polarized, while the wires of the power line are horizontal. With the quadrature
relationship between the antenna and the power line how can there be sufficient
coupling between them to distort the pattern of the vertically polarized field
radiated from the antenna?

That being said, Ted, I will bother you no longer, but I sincerely hope you'll
reconsider my comments, and cease claiming that the E and H fields are rendered
in phase by the lagging current in the power delivered to the antenna.

73,

Walt, W2DU

Walter, W2DU wrote:
"Sometime in the future the truth will come out that the EH relationship
you claim, is invalid, destroying your credibility."

Yea, verily! Ever since the command: "Let there be light." was issued,
it has been so. This was many eons before James Clerk Maxwell figured it
all out in the 19th century. Electrical energy that has escaped into
free space exists in the form of electromagnetic waves

Some of the waves we detect have been traveling toward us for billions
of years. Some of tese electromagnetic waves are called radio waves.
They travel with the velocity of light and consist of magnetic and
electric fields that are at right angles to each other and also at right
angles to the direction of travel.

Thank you Dr. F.E. Terman for your well chosen words mixed in with those
above. You can do a right-hand rule maneuver while extending one finger
to illustrate the field directions involved in a radio wave. Terman
gives a better idea with diagrams on page 1 of "Electronic and Radio
Engineering".

The electric and magnetic fields actually generate each other. It was
James Clerk Maxwell who speculated that displacement current (the
dielectric force that moves electrical charges in a capacitor),
generates magnetic flux lines, the same as current in a conductor does.
Subsequently, Maxwell`s point was proved. Out in the near vacuum of the
cosmos, there are few examples of electric current as there are very few
electrons.. Yet radio propagates very well. Maxwell came up with the
secret of propagation of radio and its ilk. A dynamic magnetic field
generates a dynamic electric field, which generates a dynamic magnetic
field and so on ad infinitum.
The same energy is swapped back and forth between fields. That produces
an equal division of energy between the two fields, electric and
magnetic.

Whatever anyone does to launch a radio wave, the secret of propagation
is revealed above and this nature of propagation is likely immutable and
remains unchanged since creation. Nature doesn`t seem to be creating
various new prototypes for a contest for survival of the best adapted
radio wave model. Biological types evolve but it seems it is only our
understanding of physics which evolves.

An EH antenna will have to prove to be better as a transformer to couple
radio sets to free space than the time tested models which occupy a
fraction of a wavelength and can be better than 95% efficient.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
An EH antenna will have to prove to be better as a transformer to couple
radio sets to free space than the time tested models which occupy a
fraction of a wavelength and can be better than 95% efficient.

Even if an antenna was invented that yielded 100% efficiency instead
of 95% efficiency, what difference would it make? 3% of an S-unit?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----