true or... ?
 

Hello ng,

on our ham ng in the it.* hierarchy, a ham posted this PDF:
http://eh-antenna.com/EH_HZ.pdf

I'm not a good mathematic person.. what is written on this PDF goes out of
my analisys possibilities. Perhaps, if gently someone try to explain to me
if there is something of real in what the author claim to be absolutely
real, i'll thank in advance all you readers here.
Just to have a personal opinion about this "Hz field" if someone explain me
in light terms the "physical interpretation" that the author claim in the
paper, based on Maxwell equations.

regards,

-.-. --.- (cq - Italy).

true or... ?
 

In article , -.-. --.- wrote:
Hello ng,

on our ham ng in the it.* hierarchy, a ham posted this PDF:
http://eh-antenna.com/EH_HZ.pdf

I'm not a good mathematic person.. what is written on this PDF goes out of
my analisys possibilities. Perhaps, if gently someone try to explain to me
if there is something of real in what the author claim to be absolutely
real, i'll thank in advance all you readers here.
Just to have a personal opinion about this "Hz field" if someone explain me
in light terms the "physical interpretation" that the author claim in the
paper, based on Maxwell equations.

Here's my understanding, based on what I've read about this general
class of antenna over the past few years.

I'll have to let someone with more math knowledge than I speak about
the specifics of the claims in this paper... it goes beyond what I've
studied. Pretty much everything I've read, says that these claims
depend on a rather different interpretation of Maxwell's equations
than mainstream theory utilizes. The general conclusion I've picked
up, is that you can't generate separate and independent E and H fields
(and then combine them) in the way that EH-antenna theory claims.

As far as I know, well-controlled practical experiments to demonstrate
the benefits of EH-type antennas have not resulted in success. The
antennas "work" to some extent - that is, you can get them to radiate,
and can achieve an impedance match - but the same can be said of
almost any kind of radiating structure. The claims of exceptionally
high electrical efficiency (for such a physically small antenna) don't
seem to work out, though.

In practice (from what I've read), EH antennas seem to behave like
other physically-short dipole antennas which are brought to resonance
by means of a large amount of capacitive end-loading. As such they
have a rather narrow SWR bandwidth, a low radiation resistance, and
the risk of high losses (both in the antenna itself and in the
matching network).

Tests of these sorts of heavily-loaded antennas can be misleading,
unless you take care to decouple the antenna very carefully. If you
just hang an antenna of this sort on a mast and feed it directly with
coax, both the mast structure and the feedline can act as part of the
antenna system, with significant RF currents flowing on them and quite
a bit of RF radiation taking place. This can make the antenna "look
better" than it actually is. Placing the antenna on some sort of
insulated mounting, and using an effective current choke at the
feedpoint, is necessary to distinguish the antenna's own electrical
characteristics from those of the support structure and feedline.

There are some commercial HF antennas which make claims similar to the
EH type - e.g. the Bilal Isotron family. The instructions for some
Isotron models say that they *must* be mounted on a grounded mast for
proper operation... which leads me to believe that radiation from the
mast and feedline are probably an essential part of their operation.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of 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!

true or... ?
 

On Aug 31, 2:01*pm, (Dave Platt) wrote:
In article , -.-. --.- wrote:
Hello ng,

on our ham ng in the it.* hierarchy, a ham posted this PDF:
http://eh-antenna.com/EH_HZ.pdf

I'm not a good mathematic person.. what is written on this PDF goes out of
my analisys possibilities. Perhaps, if gently someone try to explain to me
if there is something of real in what the author claim to be absolutely
real, i'll thank in advance all you readers here.
Just to have a personal opinion about this "Hz field" if someone explain me
in light terms the "physical interpretation" that the author claim in the
paper, based on Maxwell equations.

Here's my understanding, based on what I've read about this general
class of antenna over the past few years.

I'll have to let someone with more math knowledge than I speak about
the specifics of the claims in this paper... it goes beyond what I've
studied. *Pretty much everything I've read, says that these claims
depend on a rather different interpretation of Maxwell's equations
than mainstream theory utilizes. *The general conclusion I've picked
up, is that you can't generate separate and independent E and H fields
(and then combine them) in the way that EH-antenna theory claims.

As far as I know, well-controlled practical experiments to demonstrate
the benefits of EH-type antennas have not resulted in success. *The
antennas "work" to some extent - that is, you can get them to radiate,
and can achieve an impedance match - but the same can be said of
almost any kind of radiating structure. *The claims of exceptionally
high electrical efficiency (for such a physically small antenna) don't
seem to work out, though.

In practice (from what I've read), EH antennas seem to behave like
other physically-short dipole antennas which are brought to resonance
by means of a large amount of capacitive end-loading. *As such they
have a rather narrow SWR bandwidth, a low radiation resistance, and
the risk of high losses (both in the antenna itself and in the
matching network).

Tests of these sorts of heavily-loaded antennas can be misleading,
unless you take care to decouple the antenna very carefully. *If you
just hang an antenna of this sort on a mast and feed it directly with
coax, both the mast structure and the feedline can act as part of the
antenna system, with significant RF currents flowing on them and quite
a bit of RF radiation taking place. *This can make the antenna "look
better" than it actually is. *Placing the antenna on some sort of
insulated mounting, and using an effective current choke at the
feedpoint, is necessary to distinguish the antenna's own electrical
characteristics from those of the support structure and feedline.

There are some commercial HF antennas which make claims similar to the
EH type - e.g. the Bilal Isotron family. *The instructions for some
Isotron models say that they *must* be mounted on a grounded mast for
proper operation... which leads me to believe that radiation from the
mast and feedline are probably an essential part of their operation.

--
Dave Platt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AE6EO
Friends of 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!

Yup. Basically Hatelly is trying to find the "weak force" as predicted
by Einstein so that is why he is attempting to combine E and H forces
in the hope that more light is provided
to the phenomina of the addition provided by Maxwell which as yet is
not fully explained
in the books. Tom did some work on it and stated that it was the feed
line that did the radiating such that it was the system that was
providing the radiation and not just the antenna. Personally I don't
care what parts contribute to the radiation as long as it goes where I
want to put it. The bottom line is that Hatelly and Gabrera of Egypt
made an antenna but not the one they hoped for. However, I have, but
it is still in limbo because of PTO activity.

true or... ?
 

"-.-. --.-" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

I thanks people that until now reply to my post.

It's quite clear for me, an Richard and Dave wrote, the true radiating
points of an EH antenna, basically the feedline an also imho via groundwave
with the grounding system, especially on lower frequencies.

What i'm asking is not a *complete* explaining of Maxwell equations in few
posts, and why in this specific case can be right or wrong the paper.. just
from the guru of this ng a simple "yes, he wrote in the paper a right
interpretation of Maxwell equation and, in theory, the thing can work" or a
"no, he's worse than a 1st april fool".

Like the precedent post on underground antennas systems, i'm just curious
and happy if someone *demostrate* me that a strange antenna have a
incredible efficiency. But the demostration must be in a understandable way
for me, and if i don't understand, i ask to who can understand and had the
patience to explain.

Sorry, btw, for grammar & language errors.

73,

-.-. --.-

true or... ?
 

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...

snip

The
antennas "work" to some extent - that is, you can get them to radiate,
and can achieve an impedance match - but the same can be said of
almost any kind of radiating structure.

Yup. I brought a 10m dipole closer to resonance on 20m by using a clip lead
to attach one element to an eight-foot ladder that was laying in the dirt.
The tuner was able to match this mess and I had a 2000 mile QSO with 100w.

Might have been some feedline radiation in play.

Sal

true or... ?
 

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:01:41 -0700, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

In article , -.-. --.- wrote:
Hello ng,

on our ham ng in the it.* hierarchy, a ham posted this PDF:
http://eh-antenna.com/EH_HZ.pdf
...........


bogus squared.


w.

true or... ?
 

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 00:23:31 +0200, "-.-. --.-" wrote:

Like the precedent post on underground antennas systems, i'm just curious
and happy if someone *demostrate* me that a strange antenna have a
incredible efficiency.

Hi OM,

Demonstrate is not possible. The antenna radiation is not correctly
described.

Consider: a commercial AM quarterwave, vertical antenna is probably
95% to 99% efficient. To have an incredible efficiency would add only
4% more to a very simple design that has been around for 100 years.

+0.2dB or less is not incredible efficiency.

You cannot hear 0.2dB difference in sound, you cannot measure 0.2dB RF
difference except with great difficulty.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

true or... ?
 

"Richard Clark" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

Consider: a commercial AM quarterwave, vertical antenna is probably
95% to 99% efficient. To have an incredible efficiency would add only
4% more to a very simple design that has been around for 100 years.

+0.2dB or less is not incredible efficiency.

You cannot hear 0.2dB difference in sound, you cannot measure 0.2dB RF
difference except with great difficulty.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Thanks for reply, Richard.
Take also into account that, although i don't know much mathematic, i don't
have any doubt that is impossible that this kind of antenna can have a great
or also medium efficiency.

Considering your 1/4 wave AM broadcast antenna example, is not an accident
that nor military nor broadcast installations used in the past a type of
antenna like the EH/HZ...
.... and military brains have knowledges that we in the "civilian" world can
use maybe after 20-30 years.

And, if this really works, one don't waste time writing PDF. He start
working in radio with this antenna, and if the antenna is *really* what he
claim, he will be in a very short time a rich man.

-.-. --.-

true or... ?
 

"-.-. --.-" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

Consider: a commercial AM quarterwave, vertical antenna is probably
95% to 99% efficient. To have an incredible efficiency would add only
4% more to a very simple design that has been around for 100 years.

+0.2dB or less is not incredible efficiency.

You cannot hear 0.2dB difference in sound, you cannot measure 0.2dB RF
difference except with great difficulty.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Thanks for reply, Richard.
Take also into account that, although i don't know much mathematic, i
don't
have any doubt that is impossible that this kind of antenna can have a
great
or also medium efficiency.

Considering your 1/4 wave AM broadcast antenna example, is not an accident
that nor military nor broadcast installations used in the past a type of
antenna like the EH/HZ...
... and military brains have knowledges that we in the "civilian" world
can
use maybe after 20-30 years.



.... if the first 'nor' should be interpreted as 'neither' then I'd agree.
In the UK, 5/8 wavelength vertical radiators have been popular for AM radio
broadcasting, singly (e.g. used for some BBC services) and in arrays (for
commercial radio, eg. Saffron Green, north London) usually with _very_
extensive earth mats. The Isle of Man International Broadcasting company
made a big deal about ten years ago about their intention to use a CFA for
broadcasting on 279 kHz, initially from the island, and latterly from a
modified oil rig in IOM water (e.g.
http://www2.hard-core-dx.com/archive...msg01127.html). However, this
still isn't on the air so one may speculate.

Chris

true or... ?
 

"christofire" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

... if the first 'nor' should be interpreted as 'neither' then I'd agree.

neither, neither :)

just the result of the last minutes of a very busy week with 2 of my radius
servers going down for mysql accounting DB flops.
Some flops for me writing in english, too :)

73,
-.-. --.-

true or... ?
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:03:02 +0200, "-.-. --.-" wrote:

Thanks for reply, Richard.
Take also into account that, although i don't know much mathematic, i don't
have any doubt that is impossible that this kind of antenna can have a great
or also medium efficiency.

Hi OM,

Efficiency in percent (%) is simple math: 100 * PowerOut/PowerIn

In decibels, I won't show the math, I will give some example:
100% is 0dB
95% is -0.22dB
90% is -0.46dB
80% is -0.97dB
50% is -3dB
10% is -10dB

Look at your S-Meter. If any station added 5% efficiency, going from
95% to 100%, then your S-Meter would shift 0.22dB. The needle of your
S-Meter is probably more than 1dB thick when you look at it. The
needle would then move 1/5th of its thickness when a station adds 5%
efficiency.

Considering your 1/4 wave AM broadcast antenna example, is not an accident
that nor military nor broadcast installations used in the past a type of
antenna like the EH/HZ...
... and military brains have knowledges that we in the "civilian" world can
use maybe after 20-30 years.

I have been in the military - antennas work the same there too. I was
a teacher of RF Systems (LF/MF/HF/VHF/UHF/SHF). There is no magic
knowledge hidden by the government.

And, if this really works, one don't waste time writing PDF. He start
working in radio with this antenna, and if the antenna is *really* what he
claim, he will be in a very short time a rich man.

A very short time needs to be defined. This "antenna" has been around
for a long time and no one has gotten rich (and the buyers have lost
money, time, and signal).

Anyone can write a useless PDF. Anyone can get a useless patent too.
I have observed patent holders who post here that have forgotten their
own patent numbers, their own patent claims, their own URLs, their own
email addresses, and their own theory. Talk about a waste of time,
but it is wasted with the vigor of a seven year old. It would seem
that wasting time, money, and signal power was equivalent to earning a
PhD in Einsteinomics and advanced Gaussology.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

true or... ?
 

"Richard Clark" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi OM,

Efficiency in percent (%) is simple math: 100 * PowerOut/PowerIn

In decibels, I won't show the math, I will give some example:
100% is 0dB
95% is -0.22dB
90% is -0.46dB
80% is -0.97dB
50% is -3dB
10% is -10dB

Look at your S-Meter. If any station added 5% efficiency, going from
95% to 100%, then your S-Meter would shift 0.22dB. The needle of your
S-Meter is probably more than 1dB thick when you look at it. The
needle would then move 1/5th of its thickness when a station adds 5%
efficiency.

Straight and clear. Well, maybe my knowledge of physics and mathematic can
go a bit far, including understand e.g. ground losses, path loss in free
space, takeoff angle, feed point impedance and other silly things regarding
antenna world :) but sorry, Maxwell equations are a bit harder for me :)



I have been in the military - antennas work the same there too. I was
a teacher of RF Systems (LF/MF/HF/VHF/UHF/SHF). There is no magic
knowledge hidden by the government.

Well, i'm ever a optimistic mind... i just think that maybe tomorrow i can
use something better antenna thanks to MIL research ... like a trick to
build a 160m yagi in the same space of a 40 m yagi :) of course, just
joking... OTH radar DUGA-3 in Prypiat, ex USSR now Ukraine, is a good
example for me, MIL also need big antenna system.

Anyone can write a useless PDF. Anyone can get a useless patent too.
I have observed patent holders who post here that have forgotten their
own patent numbers, their own patent claims, their own URLs, their own
email addresses, and their own theory. Talk about a waste of time,
but it is wasted with the vigor of a seven year old. It would seem
that wasting time, money, and signal power was equivalent to earning a
PhD in Einsteinomics and advanced Gaussology.

Well, let say that *today* is more obvious and easy that this total waste
happen. Globalization and the internet make very easy for timewasters to get
a large public for the things they are saying/writing/claiming. And the
same, in a reverse way, happens to the skilled people, that have occasions
to read tons of wrong assertions on the internet. Many years ago the worst
case is to listen to timewasters on a local repeater or on a 40/75/80 meters
net.
When i don't understand something, the first thing i do is ask, ask and ever
ask.

Unfortunately, today is easy in the same manner both turning on a computer
and turning on a radio to communicate with other people.
Unless you don't have a wireless connection, the computer have as a bonus
that don't need any kind of antenna.

Thanks for your time,

-.-. --.-, Cristiano, Italy.

true or... ?
 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 01:14:36 +0200, "-.-. --.-" wrote:

Straight and clear. Well, maybe my knowledge of physics and mathematic can
go a bit far, including understand e.g. ground losses, path loss in free
space, takeoff angle, feed point impedance and other silly things regarding
antenna world :) but sorry, Maxwell equations are a bit harder for me :)

Hi Cristiano,

The only people that rely on things like Maxwell's equations, or
Gauss' Law are those who don't know the math.

You don't need that math to discuss 99% of the art of design. That
math might be mentioned, but whoever is trying to use it as their sole
point of discussion is someone who is lost.

I have been in the military - antennas work the same there too. I was
a teacher of RF Systems (LF/MF/HF/VHF/UHF/SHF). There is no magic
knowledge hidden by the government.

Well, i'm ever a optimistic mind... i just think that maybe tomorrow i can
use something better antenna thanks to MIL research ... like a trick to
build a 160m yagi in the same space of a 40 m yagi :) of course, just
joking... OTH radar DUGA-3 in Prypiat, ex USSR now Ukraine, is a good
example for me, MIL also need big antenna system.

Military designs and commercial designs did lead the way for practical
antennas .... 70 years ago. If you want to build an 160M version of a
RADAR antenna you might get more argument from your neighbors than you
will find here. That huge antenna will show every characteristic at
160M as it does at SHF, but you better be pointed in the right
direction.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC