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

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

Richard:


"One can observe a gain relative
between two antennas and this would require significant differences in
the two patterns. "

I believe this is in line with what Ted says...the EH purportedly has
vertical adjustable pattern depending on the length to diameter ratio of the
cylinders.


"However, the data from the FCC methods of testing
prove there is no difference. "

Well, that's the way I interpreted the data too. However, I don't believe
this was a 3 dimensional measurement, was it?

Joe
W3JDR

Joe, W3JDR wrote:
"However, I don`t believe this was a 3 dimensional measurement, was it?"

Purpose of 3-D pattern checks would present high-angle radiation if it
exists as a possible source of night time interference. Primary service
only includes non-interfered ground wave coverage of a station.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:01:47 GMT, "W3JDR" wrote:
Richard:

"One can observe a gain relative
between two antennas and this would require significant differences in
the two patterns. "

I believe this is in line with what Ted says...the EH purportedly has
vertical adjustable pattern depending on the length to diameter ratio of the
cylinders.

That can only be a function of physical size and wavelength, or of
physical distance between sources (emitters) in terms of wavelength.
Neither condition exists (the antenna is small, and is only one
source). Beam steering and beam focusing antennas exhibit BOTH of
these characteristics, the eh neither.

"However, the data from the FCC methods of testing
prove there is no difference. "

Well, that's the way I interpreted the data too. However, I don't believe
this was a 3 dimensional measurement, was it?

Hi Joe,

There is little point in speculating about radiation straight up. If
that is the only benefit to the antenna, it is certainly no benefit to
the listener (definition of a Dummy Load). Field tests prove the
listener enjoys no advantage from this speculative gain.

Simple fact of the matter is revealed at the test site. Are they
using an eh, or the standard quarterwave over standard radials? The
acid test of capitalist greed has eroded these fairy-tale claims.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC