| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
EH Antenna Revisited
Happy New Year to you, too, Rick.
To anyone who believes the W5QJR EH concept is valid. I just now received a request from Rick Lutzinger, KD6ZR, asking for my opinion on the validity of the EH concept W5QJR touts as his invention in his website at www.eh-antenna.com. I went back and reviewed the posts on this thread posted during the last week of September 2003. Surprisingly, I didn't find anyone who disagreed with the concept. All I found there were disgreements with the claims for gain and realistic claims that this antenna could not even radiate as well as a conventional antenna. With this I agree. The following text contains my reply to Rick: Hi Rick, I didn't have the opportunity to refer to Hart's fiasco until day before yesterday. He appears to still be in the business of publishing proofs of his limited knowledge of antenna and transmission line principles. Unfortunately, he appears to believe he's found something new in his 'EH' concept. On the contrary, 'his' antenna still performs as a Hertz, and his limited knowledge has misled him believe he has something different. So let's examine the situation. Let's begin with a traditional resonant 1/4 wave vertical antenna over perfect ground fed with a 50-ohm coax matched to a source delivering all of its available power--signifying a conjugate match. Now let's add some inductive reactance between the coax and the antenna. There is no longer a conjugate match, the current lags the voltage, the power factor is no longer 100%, and the delivery of power is reduced proportionately. If we continue to increase the inductance until the current lags voltage by 90 degrees the power factor is zero, because cos 90 = 0. In this case the only power delivered by the source is that dissipated in the inherent loss of the inductance. The reactive power contained in the inductance is reflected back to the source resulting in a mismatch that prevents any further delivery of power other than that required to supply the power dissipated in the loss resistance of the inductance. In this condition no power will be delivered to the antenna. However, if a capacitor is inserted in series with the inductor having the same but negative value of reactance as the inductor, we know that the total reactance now is zero, the conjugate match is restored, and the power delivery returns to normal. On the other hand, Hart is applying the 90-degree phase lag to a very short antenna, whose input impedance is capacitive. As the series inductance is increased to where its reactance equals the negative reactance of the antenna capacitance, we have the conventional loading and matching of an antenna that is shorter than that of resonance. Now if Hart is able to obtain an input to the antenna that approaches an impedance match allowing power to be delivered into the antenna, the capacitive reactance of his short antenna is simply compensating for the series inductance he believes produces current that lags voltage by 90 degrees. Tain't so. He is simply feeding a traditionally matched short Hertzian antenna. Further, voltage applied to Hart's 'EH' antenna results in antenna current flowing in exactly the same manner as in any antenna, and the E and H fields are formed and are related to each other in the same chronological manner as in any antenna. The natural laws of electromagnetic theory govern the field development and there is nothing anyone can do to violate those laws developed by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1800s--they have been proven immutable for more than 120 years. So how come the respondents rave about how terrific their 'EH' antennas work? It's only because they fail to understand what is really happening--there is no change in the chronological relationship between the E and H fields, as Hart has misled them to believe, they are simply using a shortened loaded antenna in the traditional manner. Hope you find this of value, Rick 73, Walt PS--Please note in the References section of Reflections that an asterisk preceding a name indicates that that reference contains erroneous and misleading information. Now take a peek at my Reference 100. The material in that reference proves that that writer even then didn't didn't have a clue concerning transmission line theory. Note also the date: March 1969--things don't seem to change very much. Walt Maxwell, W2DU |
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:29:58 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote:
Happy New Year to you, too, Rick. To anyone who believes the W5QJR EH concept is valid. I just now received a request from Rick Lutzinger, KD6ZR, asking for my opinion on the validity of the EH concept W5QJR touts as his invention in his website at www.eh-antenna.com. I went back and reviewed the posts on this thread posted during the last week of September 2003. Surprisingly, I didn't find anyone who disagreed with the concept. All I found there were disgreements with the claims for gain and realistic claims that this antenna could not even radiate as well as a conventional antenna. With this I agree. The following text contains my reply to Rick: Hi Rick, I didn't have the opportunity to refer to Hart's fiasco until day before yesterday. He appears to still be in the business of publishing proofs of his limited knowledge of antenna and transmission line principles. Unfortunately, he appears to believe he's found something new in his 'EH' concept. On the contrary, 'his' antenna still performs as a Hertz, and his limited knowledge has misled him believe he has something different. So let's examine the situation. Let's begin with a traditional resonant 1/4 wave vertical antenna over perfect ground fed with a 50-ohm coax matched to a source delivering all of its available power--signifying a conjugate match. Now let's add some inductive reactance between the coax and the antenna. There is no longer a conjugate match, the current lags the voltage, the power factor is no longer 100%, and the delivery of power is reduced proportionately. If we continue to increase the inductance until the current lags voltage by 90 degrees the power factor is zero, because cos 90 = 0. In this case the only power delivered by the source is that dissipated in the inherent loss of the inductance. The reactive power contained in the inductance is reflected back to the source resulting in a mismatch that prevents any further delivery of power other than that required to supply the power dissipated in the loss resistance of the inductance. In this condition no power will be delivered to the antenna. However, if a capacitor is inserted in series with the inductor having the same but negative value of reactance as the inductor, we know that the total reactance now is zero, the conjugate match is restored, and the power delivery returns to normal. On the other hand, Hart is applying the 90-degree phase lag to a very short antenna, whose input impedance is capacitive. As the series inductance is increased to where its reactance equals the negative reactance of the antenna capacitance, we have the conventional loading and matching of an antenna that is shorter than that of resonance. Now if Hart is able to obtain an input to the antenna that approaches an impedance match allowing power to be delivered into the antenna, the capacitive reactance of his short antenna is simply compensating for the series inductance he believes produces current that lags voltage by 90 degrees. Tain't so. He is simply feeding a traditionally matched short Hertzian antenna. Further, voltage applied to Hart's 'EH' antenna results in antenna current flowing in exactly the same manner as in any antenna, and the E and H fields are formed and are related to each other in the same chronological manner as in any antenna. The natural laws of electromagnetic theory govern the field development and there is nothing anyone can do to violate those laws developed by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1800s--they have been proven immutable for more than 120 years. So how come the respondents rave about how terrific their 'EH' antennas work? It's only because they fail to understand what is really happening--there is no change in the chronological relationship between the E and H fields, as Hart has misled them to believe, they are simply using a shortened loaded antenna in the traditional manner. Hope you find this of value, Rick 73, Walt PS--Please note in the References section of Reflections that an asterisk preceding a name indicates that that reference contains erroneous and misleading information. Now take a peek at my Reference 100. The material in that reference proves that that writer even then didn't didn't have a clue concerning transmission line theory. Note also the date: March 1969--things don't seem to change very much. Walt Maxwell, W2DU I quote here an email response from Bill Ronay, KM4LS: To: Subject: EH Antenna... Date: Jan 11, 2004 7:19 PM Dear Walter: Just read your forwarded email regarding Ted Hart, W5QJR, his discoveries and creations. Yours was a lengthy and, obviously, topically researched missive. I might suggest you get in your automobile from down there near Stetson University, drive North on US 441 and don't stop until you arrive at Ted's home and workshop just north of Eatonton, Ga. also on US 441. THEN, with all the knowledge and talent you have at your disposal, prove or disprove your claims. He has an EH currently in AM broadcast mode. There are also several ham versions available for your appraisal. Regards, Bill KM4LS W. R. "Bill" Ronay 2090 Shadow Lake Drive Buckhead, GA 30625-2700 |
The following is my email reply to KM4LS:
Hello, Bill Thanks for writing and for your concern regarding Ted's antenna concept. Bill, I can only say how sorry I am that Ted has misconceived the principles of electromagnetism in believing that the chronology of the formation of the E and H fields as they develop along a transmission line or antenna can be changed by the voltage-current relationship appearing at the input terminals of an antenna. I know he and other amateurs are using antennas they believe are operating in the mode Ted calls EH, but it is up to Ted to prove that what he claims is so. I'm sorry, but there is no way he can prove a concept that violates electromagnetic theory that has been proved true empirically for more than a century. Let him place voltage and current probes on a shortened resonant antenna with the 90-degree phase lag inductance inserted and feed a dual trace oscilloscope to see the relationship of the fields. And another experiment. Have him adjust a 1/4 wl vertical over good ground to resonance with no phase lag inductor in the circuit and then measure the power delivered to the antenna. Then, without readjusting any transmitter tuning and loading controls, have him now insert the 90-degree phase lag circuit and remeasure the power delivered. He will be amazed at the result. If the 90-degree phase lag circuit will change the chronology of the formation of the E and H fields in the shortened antennas, as Ted claims, then it will also change the chronology of the fields in a full length resonant antenna. If he can prove that the field chronology also changes in the full length antenna I'll buy into his concept. The burden of proof is on Ted, not me. In my opinion, the phase lag Ted introduces, which he believes changes the time relationship of the fields, only compensates for the capacitive reactance in the shortened antenna, making it resonant, without any change in time relationship in the normal production of the E and H fields. 73, Walt |
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 |
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
100 Years ago man could not fly. And now he can? :-) More importantly, 100 years ago airplanes could not fly. For a humorous read, goto: http://www.eh-antenna.com/documents/...DEFINITION.pdf 73, jk |
100 Years ago man could not fly.
And now he can? Using EH antenna as a broomstick? Far out Dude! Quickly get the patent, print marketing pamflets and sell it to developing nations. (send me the royalties) BUm |
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: 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? It isn't possible for balloons to go back in time. :-) 73, Jim AC6XG |
Jim Kelley wrote:
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 -----= 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 Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:32:26 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote:
I have proven the EH Antenna. Best regards, Ted :-P 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
In article , Jim Kelley wrote:
More importantly, 100 years ago airplanes could not fly. How far back in time do hot-air balloons go? It isn't possible for balloons to go back in time. :-) That depends on whether you happen to have a very long, incredibly massive cylinder, rotating at near-relativistic speeds, somewhere downwind of your launch point. Most of us don't - extreme tidal effects aren't one of the things exempted by PRB-1. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
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 |
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 |
Walter Maxwell wrote:
"To anyone who believes the W5QJR EH conceptis valid." OK. I read the first page: "Welcome to the Wonderful World of EH Antennas". It said nothing of why I should be interested. Why convert an existing broadcast antenna to EH? FCC has a publication, "Rules of Good Engineering Practice for Standard Broadcast Stations" which includes Mv/m at 1 mile on a radial over perfect earth from a vertical antenna of various heights. It shows about 195 mV/m for a 1/4-wave grounded vertical. This can be adjusted for any power or diistance from the sender: E = Eo sq rt P/d Eo = 195 mV/m for the 1/4-wave antenna at 1 mile P = the actual radiated power d = distance from antenna in miles The mV/m at a mile assumes a perfect ground and a perfect antenna ground system. FCC says 120 radials equally spaced and 1/2-wavelength long are its standard. Efficiency typically exceeds 95%. If the vertical radiator is higher (longer) than !/8-wavelength, the 150 mV/m at 1 mile, required minimum efficiency, can still be met with 120 radials on the earth that are only 1/4-wavelength long. The reduction in efficiency is small. Nobody has perfect ground unless he is at sea. For imperfect ground, the FCC publishes "Ground Wave Propagation Curves" for various soil conductivities. In the FCC millivolt per meter numbers for vertical antennas of various heights, the field strength only increases 5% in going from very short to a full 1/4-wave height. This requires the near perfect ground. A 3/8-wave radiator only has a 15% advantage over a very short radiator. If the radiator is a thin wire, bandwidth may be only + or - 1% of the wire`s resonant frequency. Broadcast stations use towers of substantial cross section as antennas. These provide several percent of bandwidth and allow full audio range in the medium wave band. A short antenna has low radiation resistance and high capacitive reactance. This requires tuning out the large capacitive reactance (small capacitance) with an equally large inductive reactance (large reactor), and matching the very low drivepoint resistance of an end-driven vertical to the higher impedance sending circuit. Resistance involved in neutralizing reactance and matching the antenna to the source is likely to be lossy for the too-short antenna. Walter has already pointed this out. Why would the EH antenna have interest? Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
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 |
|
Walter Maxwell wrote:
Richard, my point is that the EH antenna, as Ted Hart claims it, cannot exist. He claims that by feeding the antenna with current lagging voltage by 90 degrees it puts the E and H fields in time phase. This is impossible, totally violating the principles of electromagnetic theory. Ted's claim shows misundstanding of the theory of wave propagation. 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 -----= 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! =----- |
|
Walter, W2DU wrote:
"This is impossible, totally violating the principles of electromagnetic theory." I agree. It violates first principles of electricity. Radiation is a resistive load. Voltage across the load coincides exactly with current through the load. Volts and amps are in-phase. Nothing can be done to change that. There is no electrical energy storage in a resistance. Once you tune for unity power factor and match for power transfer, you`re done and no monkey business will change the radiator from its natural function. You put a voltage across its drivepoint and it does its thing independent of how the voltage got there if the source can supply the antenna`s demand. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
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? "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 -----= 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! =----- |
Richard Clark wrote:
"If you want to crow about your EH/POS DX contacts 1 mile out, they better be in the direction of that nearby standard quarterwave antenna." All that needs to be done to take the standard quarterwave antenna out of the picture is to open-circuit the vertical to ground. That makes it resonant at about 2X the frequency where it is a 1/2-wave at resonance and capable of absorbing energy which it reradiates as a parasitic element. This may not be so good for the 2nd harmonic in some direction. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
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(90ยบ)]? - 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! =----- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com