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

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

Walter Maxwell wrote:

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.

Boy, he finally got something right...Yes, accurate tests results can
tell a lot. *IF* we get ever get to see any.
Testing a non-decoupled very small antenna that is mounted to a metal 90
foot tall tower is not accurate test data.
It is a joke of immense proportion. The BC tower in close proximity
bothers me less than this. He is not testing an E/H antenna. He is
testing a 90 ft tower and feedline, being the problem of common mode
currents on the feedline are severe. Even he admits that "rf in the
shack" can be a severe problem with these antennas. But!!! He advocates
NOT using any form of feedline decoupling. It's no wonder, being that
will effectively kill the radiation from his main radiator. Which is the
feedline and tower. Someone, maybe from "Antennex", tested an E/H
antenna fed directly from the base of the antenna, with NO feedline, and
NO tower. Needless to say, the performance was earthshaking. Or
maybe we should say it's non-performance....But when you have plans to
unload these buggers for appx 40k+ apiece, I guess the motivation for
*creative* testing really kicks in.
Accurate testing goes out the back window. An accurate test result will
not fit the program. The prince becomes an ugly wart infested fraug.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?x=wrt...eb-t&n=20&fl=0
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search
for some more reading.

When he does a controlled test where the antenna is mounted on a
non-conducting tower or mast, and feeds the antenna directly at the
feedpoint using NO feedline, or at the least, a very well decoupled
feedline, then you can call it an accurate test. What he offers now is
an insult to most peoples intelligence. It's an insult to mine, and I'm
just a run of the mill dummy compared to many others on here. I suspect
most *real* broadcast engineers snicker like small school children when
they discuss the merits of the E/H antenna behind closed doors.

MK
--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:52:11 -0600, Mark Keith wrote:
Boy, he finally got something right...Yes, accurate tests results can
tell a lot. *IF* we get ever get to see any.

Hi Mark,

His own data shows quite clearly that the eh antenna, 10 miles out, is
more than 30dB down from the nearby standard quarterwave it is
supposed to replace. His own data shows that at 1 mile out, the eh is
still underperforming.

There is a basic disconnect between what is claimed, and what the data
clearly shows as a burnt resistor.

More accuracy may improve the -30dB to -30.1dB but would hardly make
things any better - or any worse.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:52:11 -0600, Mark Keith wrote:
Boy, he finally got something right...Yes, accurate tests results can
tell a lot. *IF* we get ever get to see any.

Hi Mark,

His own data shows quite clearly that the eh antenna, 10 miles out, is
more than 30dB down from the nearby standard quarterwave it is
supposed to replace. His own data shows that at 1 mile out, the eh is
still underperforming.

Yea, But it should be even uglier if he does away with the tower and
feedline. Real ugly in fact.
I doubt we will see any tests done without a metal support, or radiating
feedline. "IE: the E/H antenna tested by itself, on it's own merits".
Or at least sponsored by that bunch. I wish I could remember who tried
it without the tower and feedline...Might be in google archives...It was
so ugly, it stunk up the place. MK
--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k

Mark Keith wrote:
He is not testing an E/H antenna. He is
testing a 90 ft tower and feedline, being the problem of common mode
currents on the feedline are severe.

I might add, he is testing a 90 ft tower fed in a less than optimum
manner also...I could shunt feed a 90 ft tower like a normal person
would, and beat his setup any day I bet. If I top loaded the tower with
loading wires or a hat, Look out Mr. E/H ...It ain't gonna be pretty. I
wouldn't have the lossy coil in the "E/H" apparatus to contend with for
one thing. So I bet his test results of feeding the E/H ant-90 ft
tower/feedline combo, most likely are inferior to feeding a 90 ft tower
in a conventional manner, assuming equal ground losses. Note how the
comparison B/C antenna compares overall... So lets see...The price of
a 90 ft tower plus wire for 120 radials, or a $40k+ E/H antenna plus the
90 ft tower as support. He says you don't really need
radials...*snicker*...The E/H antenna setup will most likely be the
poorer performer of the two setups. Dunno, I know which line I'll be
in.. And I can tell you I won't have to drive to GA to pick it
up...:/ MK
--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 04:43:59 -0600, Mark Keith wrote:

Mark Keith wrote:
He is not testing an E/H antenna. He is
testing a 90 ft tower and feedline, being the problem of common mode
currents on the feedline are severe.

Hello Mark,

Perhaps I'm not perceiving your position on the EH correctly, but from your
discussions above and in your previous post, my perception is that you believe
the EH exists and can be tested, and your problem is only with the test
procedure.

Mark, my position is that the EH does not and cannot exist in the manner Hart
specifies, because there is no way that the E and H fields can exist in time
phase--the change in each field generates the other sequentially. Hart seems to
be unaware of this fundamental fact, and also seems to be unaware that no power
can be delivered with current lagging voltage by 90 degrees unless there is an
opposite reactance to move the phase away from 90.

Since power IS delivered to the so called EH, the lagging current due to the
series inductance must simply be compensating for the capacative reactance in a
conventional shorter-than-resonant antenna, thus bringing it to resonance.

I'm saying there is no such device as an 'EH' antenna.

Walt, W2DU

Walter Maxwell wrote in message

I'm saying there is no such device as an 'EH' antenna.

Oh, I agree totally. I consider it no different than any other small
loaded antenna stuck on top of a tower. Well, except that it's less
efficient than many... But even noting that, to me, the test is a
semi-sham also. Not really due to problems from the test consultants,
but from including an obviously radiating structure and feedline with
this antenna during the test. This *requires* the same height tower
"90 ft" to be included under the antenna in order to match the results
they show. Dunno, they may have done a decent job of testing, but
someone in the office should have noted that the obviously radiating
tower and feedline would skew the results. They use no decoupling of
the feedlines. In their info, they never state that a tower is a
required section of this antenna. They consider it only a support, and
they claim it or the feedline doesn't radiate.
If I had been the test consultant, I would have demanded the antenna
be placed on a non metallic structure, and to either have the
transmitter at the feedpoint, or use a well decoupled feedline. If
they refused, I would have declined the job, being I would have
realized the results would be not a result of the small antenna, but
also include the radiating tower and feedline. And thus be pretty much
of a joke if you really want to test the antenna alone on it's own
merits. And to add insult to injury, the comparison low tech B/C tower
won the contest. I have seen notes that he states these antennas could
be roof mounted. I wonder what he will use as the *main* radiator in
this case, if there is no 90ft tower on the roof. I guess the
radiation from the feedline will have to do the job...Which could be
partly indoors, and could even be shielded by metal in places. Hot
shack RF wise too I bet. Most real world E/H tests mention this
problem. What a mess... :/ I don't see broadcast stations lining up
for this system. Only a few gullable hams... MK