Walt, W2DU

PS--don't you find it ironic that when radiation measurements are taken in
the
far field the measured power already relates directly to the power delivered
to
the radiator? Then if Hart's version radiates more power than the standard
radiator, where does his extra power come from. Looks like he's invented a
new
version of the perpetual motion machine. After all, it's patented, isn't it?
So
it's gotta' work.




That's nothing, have you seen : "Antenna faster than light?"

Saddly, patent laws were screwed up few years back, looks like patent office is
rubber stamping applications as they come.

Then there is a bunch of "ham extremists" trying to apply DC laws to loading
coils, ingnoring reality, parroting what they learned in the DC class. Good
thing itsa ju's a hobby.

Yuri, K3BU.us

Eike Lantzsch, ZP6CGE wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:

There is an antenna with dimensions as small as 1 / 70th ( 1.43 percent) of
a wavelength which has a radiating efficiency as high as 98.0 percent.

It is a vertical copper tube, 1 metre high (39.4 inches), 25.4 mm (1 inch)
in diameter, operating at 7 MHz.

It is only 0.86 dB worse than absolute perfection, equivalent to a loss of
only 1 / 70th of an S-unit.

It is more efficient than a very high half-wave resonant dipole, using 14
awg wire, at the same frequency. And uses a far smaller amount of expensive
copper.

Has anybody ever applied for a patent for such an antenna which has such an
outstanding performance? And did the Patent Examiner raise his eyebrows at
the claim?
----
Reg.




I don't know of any patents, but these "wonder antennas" are so
"efficient" because they use the feedline as a radiator. The feedline
is just terminated with a huge capacity. There is no magic to this -
it is just bad engineering. Good morning RFI!

Kind regards, Eike

It's theoretically possible to make small, highly efficient antennas,
but since the radiation resistance of such antennas is low as well as
the loss resistance, the Q is high and the bandwidth stinks.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:

It's theoretically possible to make small, highly efficient antennas,
but since the radiation resistance of such antennas is low as well as
the loss resistance, the Q is high and the bandwidth stinks.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

It also becomes difficult to transfer power to them without incurring
signficant loss in the matching network components.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"Fractenna"
Radiating feedline is not bad engineering.
Its one of many design options,
applicable in some circumstances.

Yeah, like BPL !!!!!

ROTFLMAO.

Gotcha!

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:00:00 +0200,
(Bozidar Pasaric) wrote:

By the way, it was interesting to read that once an issued US Patent
was a guarantee that the patent at least worked

Hi Bozidar,

This is one of those cosmic jokes that everyone believes and has no
grain of truth within it whatever.

There is NO necessity of the invention being able to work and it never
has been a necessity (cute stories aside). The Patent as a concept is
first and foremost based on CAPITALISM (remember the cold war?). The
Patent Office WILL NOT grant you a Patent unless you can offer how it
has a market advantage.

If you say your antenna will make your teeth brighter for a nice smile
- you get a number! Do you need to prove it? NO! The only thing you
need to prove is that you thought your teeth got brighter and no one
thought of THAT before. So, if someone builds your design to brighten
teeth, you get to take them to court. And why? Because it infringes
on your INCOME, not your intellect.

There is not one shred of science in any of this - except the words
they use to disguise the fraud.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

There is not one shred of science in any of this - except the words
they use to disguise the fraud.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Thanks to OM Mario, 9A4DE, who called my attention to the following two
sotes, I got the answer I was looking for. The sites a

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo
rt_2.pdf

R

There is not one shred of science in any of this - except the words
they use to disguise the fraud.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Thanks to OM Mario, 9A4DE, I finally got the answers I was looking for:
Visit these sites:
1)
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo
rt.pdf

2)
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo
rt_2.pdf

Thanks everybody for taking part in the discussion. My dilemmas have
been solved:
- practically: I am not going to build the EH antenna.
- theoretically: The EH antenna behaves exactly according to the
existing classical antenna theory.
Bozidar, 9a2hl

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:20:08 +0200,
(Bozidar Pasaric) wrote:

Thanks to OM Mario, 9A4DE, who called my attention to the following two
sotes, I got the answer I was looking for. The sites a

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo
rt_2.pdf

Hi Bozidar,

Looks OK until you ask yourself just what does line of sight
calibration have to do with useful DX communication? Their comparison
of AM antennas and their replacement eh model was tellingly abysmal
when it came to a practical sized service area (in other words, beyond
line of sight communications).

I notice they either suppress their FCC antenna report, or otherwise
hide their citations that offer signal reports that dive 30 dB below
the standard AM signal for their ramshackle AM replacement antenna.
A tractor couldn't bury their signal deeper.

Do you need a copy of that? I kept one in anticipation of its
embarrassing numbers (obviously misunderstood by the clients of this
test) suddenly disappearing (obviously when they finally got a clue).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:


There is not one shred of science in any of this - except the words
they use to disguise the fraud.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sorry, the previous message went out only partially. Here is the whole:

Thanks to OM Mario, 9A4DE I finally got the answers I was looking for.
Visit these two sites:
1)
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo
rt.pdf
2)
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo
rt_2.pdf

That means:
- practically: I am not going to build the EH antenna;
- theoreticallay: The EH antenna behaves exactly according to the
classical antenna theory.
Thanks everyone for taking part in the discusson.
Bozidar, 9a2hl

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:22:02 +0200, (Bozidar
Pasaric) wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:


There is not one shred of science in any of this - except the words
they use to disguise the fraud.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sorry, the previous message went out only partially. Here is the whole:

Thanks to OM Mario, 9A4DE I finally got the answers I was looking for.
Visit these two sites:
1)
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo
rt.pdf
2)
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo
rt_2.pdf

That means:
- practically: I am not going to build the EH antenna;
- theoreticallay: The EH antenna behaves exactly according to the
classical antenna theory.
Thanks everyone for taking part in the discusson.
Bozidar, 9a2hl

Hello, Bozidar,

There seems to be a problem with the URL you posed above. I get the error msg
'page not available'. Can you fix the URL so we can see the quote?

Walt, W2DU