On 7 Jul 2004 02:31:53 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

RC - The topic became EH Antennas, and I posted "Links"

So long as we both agree you had nothing to contribute but a rather
notorious and noxious example of voodoo antenna design as an
unsuitable response to the original poster.

I see you remain wholly unprepared to actually discuss the pro's or
the con's of the eh design. THIS after all is the purpose of the
group you are posting to.

RC - When all you have is a single short WHIP Antenna built into your
'portable' AM/F/Shortwave Radio. A pair of "TV Rabbit Ears" properly
connected to the radio; may indeed function better as an Antenna.

May indeed - but then you really don't know how well do you? We can
agree you are unsuited for this forum's agenda.

For others following the poor quality of discussion surrounding the eh
antenna; this design has been field tested, studied and analyzed quite
thoroughly on rec.radio.amateur.antenna.

RC - They may wish to also seek an 'alternative' view point

We can both agree they "may" rather seek to go to Disneyland instead.
However this is not rec.radio.tourism nor rec.radio.therapy.
Netiquette demands you post appropriate responses.

It is quite an education to
simply look at the field data offered by the proponents themselves
(who are just as incapable in reading engineering reports as any
Yahoo).

RC - Yes as you have 'noted' I am Yahoo.

Of that there has never been any doubt. We both agree you can't read
an engineering report. One can only wonder what point you have to
make beyond tepid repetition of mumbled Te Deums. If you are ignorant
of their own data, I see little purpose to your correspondence here.

For the sheer bulk and complexity of the eh design, their own reports
shows it to be fully 0.1% to 1% efficient compared to a simple design.
Of course, few of you may be capable of erecting this simple design.

RC - For those who wish to seek an 'alternative' view point

We both agree that you have no experience with it yourself to
contradict their own reports of its abysmal performance.

RC - When all you have is a single short WHIP Antenna built into your
'portable' AM/F/Shortwave Radio. A pair of "TV Rabbit Ears" properly
connected to the radio; may indeed function better as an Antenna.

At lest we agree you still don't know how much better, and in fact you
don't even know if it would be better, do you? You seem wholly
disinterested in the discussion of the merit of antennas - shouldn't
you take up a hobby that engages you more and participate in their
groups?

Henceforth we can call these designs Faith-Gain Antennas.

Faith-Gain Antennas - How They Work... God Only Knows ? ? ?

All can agree you don't.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On 7 Jul 2004 02:31:53 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

RC - The topic became EH Antennas, and I posted "Links"

So long as we both agree you had nothing to contribute but a rather
notorious and noxious example of voodoo antenna design as an
unsuitable response to the original poster.

I see you remain wholly unprepared to actually discuss the pro's or
the con's of the eh design. THIS after all is the purpose of the
group you are posting to.

RC - When all you have is a single short WHIP Antenna built into your
'portable' AM/F/Shortwave Radio. A pair of "TV Rabbit Ears" properly
connected to the radio; may indeed function better as an Antenna.

May indeed - but then you really don't know how well do you? We can
agree you are unsuited for this forum's agenda.

For others following the poor quality of discussion surrounding the eh
antenna; this design has been field tested, studied and analyzed quite
thoroughly on rec.radio.amateur.antenna.

RC - They may wish to also seek an 'alternative' view point

We can both agree they "may" rather seek to go to Disneyland instead.
However this is not rec.radio.tourism nor rec.radio.therapy.
Netiquette demands you post appropriate responses.

It is quite an education to
simply look at the field data offered by the proponents themselves
(who are just as incapable in reading engineering reports as any
Yahoo).

RC - Yes as you have 'noted' I am Yahoo.

Of that there has never been any doubt. We both agree you can't read
an engineering report. One can only wonder what point you have to
make beyond tepid repetition of mumbled Te Deums. If you are ignorant
of their own data, I see little purpose to your correspondence here.

For the sheer bulk and complexity of the eh design, their own reports
shows it to be fully 0.1% to 1% efficient compared to a simple design.
Of course, few of you may be capable of erecting this simple design.

RC - For those who wish to seek an 'alternative' view point

We both agree that you have no experience with it yourself to
contradict their own reports of its abysmal performance.

RC - When all you have is a single short WHIP Antenna built into your
'portable' AM/F/Shortwave Radio. A pair of "TV Rabbit Ears" properly
connected to the radio; may indeed function better as an Antenna.

At lest we agree you still don't know how much better, and in fact you
don't even know if it would be better, do you? You seem wholly
disinterested in the discussion of the merit of antennas - shouldn't
you take up a hobby that engages you more and participate in their
groups?

Henceforth we can call these designs Faith-Gain Antennas.

Faith-Gain Antennas - How They Work... God Only Knows ? ? ?

All can agree you don't.

All can probably also agree that you seem more interested in your
correspondent than in antennas.

jk

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:12:37 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
All can probably also agree that you seem more interested in your
correspondent than in antennas.

Feeling left out Jim?

What you say is true and I could become interested in you as well as
you don't have much to say about antennas either.

But not very interested, so don't get any false hopes up. Instead,
pick a topic and avoid this soap opera. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelly wrote,

All can probably also agree that you seem more interested in your
correspondent than in antennas.

jk


That's a cheap shot, but it's a cheap shot worth thinking about. Sometimes
the users's expectations and expertise - or lack thereof - are the deciding
factors
in whether something "works" or not. The EH antenna may work for some people
in the way that homeopathy, brightly colored sugar pills, and other quack
remedies work in medicine, but Richard is right, the technical qualities of
antennas
can't be revealed by testimonials or protestations of faith.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:12:37 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
All can probably also agree that you seem more interested in your
correspondent than in antennas.

Feeling left out Jim?

I'm feeling out left......here in SoCal. :-)

What you say is true and I could become interested in you as well as
you don't have much to say about antennas either.

I'll wager I have less to say than you do on just about any subject.
:-)

But not very interested, so don't get any false hopes up. Instead,
pick a topic and avoid this soap opera. ;-)

Roger. In fact, I was trying to encourage you to avoid them!

73, jk

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:54:41 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
Roger. In fact, I was trying to encourage you to avoid them!

Hi Jim,

Good advice.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Tdonaly wrote:

Jim Kelly wrote,

All can probably also agree that you seem more interested in your
correspondent than in antennas.

jk



That's a cheap shot, but it's a cheap shot worth thinking about. Sometimes
the users's expectations and expertise - or lack thereof - are the deciding
factors
in whether something "works" or not. The EH antenna may work for some people
in the way that homeopathy, brightly colored sugar pills, and other quack
remedies work in medicine, but Richard is right, the technical qualities of
antennas
can't be revealed by testimonials or protestations of faith.


I read a couple pdf's on the things where a couple hams tested 20 meter
backpacker against a dipole.

When the test signals were coupled with a very short length of coax to
the antenna, the EH didn't perform well at all. When coupled with a 1
wave length of coax, the feedline radiated, but not very efficiently,
around 1% as efficiently as the dipole, IIRC. Forgive the numerical
blunders, it was late, and I might have slipped a number or two! 8^)

A long coax version fared better against a vertical in a second test,
but in all fairness, the vertical had a pretty lousy ground.

But okay, the thing worked. The authors concluded that what they had
was a tuned circuit on the end of some coax, and the coax radiated more
so than the antenna. This sounds almost like aa halfwave antenna with
it's tuned circuit. Any relation there?

All in all, it sure seems like a lot of trouble for a so-so antenna,
and since I don't particularly like RF burns and radiating coax, I think
I'll pass! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

But okay, the thing worked. The authors concluded that what they had
was a tuned circuit on the end of some coax, and the coax radiated more
so than the antenna. This sounds almost like aa halfwave antenna with
it's tuned circuit.

The problem with the EH and CFA as has been pointed out many times is the
claim to provide Electromagnetic radiation through Poynting Vector Synthesis.
They produce the E and H field seperately and combine the two in the antenna to
produce EM radiation. The claim is with this Synthesis, high radiation
efficiency is produced from a very small antenna, the Holy Grail, a small
efficient antenna.
If someone gets results from one of these antennas, it is due to feedline
radiation, so they will proclaim "it works". But it does not work because of
Poynting Vector Synthesis as claimed. There are a number of ways to get your
feedline to radiate, the EH antenna could be one of the better ones, along with
the commercial Bilal Isotron.



73 Gary N4AST

JGBOYLES wrote:

But okay, the thing worked. The authors concluded that what they had
was a tuned circuit on the end of some coax, and the coax radiated more
so than the antenna. This sounds almost like aa halfwave antenna with
it's tuned circuit.


The problem with the EH and CFA as has been pointed out many times is the
claim to provide Electromagnetic radiation through Poynting Vector Synthesis.
They produce the E and H field seperately and combine the two in the antenna to
produce EM radiation. The claim is with this Synthesis, high radiation
efficiency is produced from a very small antenna, the Holy Grail, a small
efficient antenna.

Hmm, maybe Occam's razor should be invoked?

If someone gets results from one of these antennas, it is due to feedline
radiation, so they will proclaim "it works". But it does not work because of
Poynting Vector Synthesis as claimed. There are a number of ways to get your
feedline to radiate, the EH antenna could be one of the better ones, along with
the commercial Bilal Isotron.

At least the Isotrons are kinda cool looking... 8^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

Instead of playing the 'game' of posting a reply to anything I post.

Your ego is showing.

Uh oh -- worlds are colliding. Remember, rec.radio.shortwave is not a radio
newsgroup, the people there are not knowledgeable about, or interested in,
the technical aspects of radio. If it doesn't involve nasty name-calling or
wild-eyed, mouth-foaming political looniness, then it doesn't belong in
rec.radio.shortwave.