Roy Lewallen wrote:

Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even years
ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a
couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and
voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant.

My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna",
but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH
antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner
who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed
by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This
doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner
is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be
persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt
Maxwell, W2DU


Firstly, sorry for the 'e' in 'fraud' which does not belong there. In
fact, I asked for help from the hams' fraternity ('all the people know
all' ) - and in connection with the US PTO patent No. 6,486,846 B1,
issued on November 26, 2002 to Robert T. Hart. I live on the fifth floor
of a condominium building, and like many hams, I have no space on the
roof for a proper antenna. So, an EH-antenna would be ideal - if it
worked. I have not tried to build it yet, but I am trying to learn
about it as much as possible before that.

Obviously, my question has two aspects: a practical and a theoretical
one. The practical one: "The proof of a pie is in eating it." Has
anyone built it and can testify it is successful at least as much as a
standard dipole - according to the inventor's statements? I have not
found such an answer yet.

The theoretical one: My theoretical education in that field is rather
amateurish, but still I think I can put some questions: On the
EH-antenna homepage (http://EH-antenna.com) I found a statement that
in the classical dipole the E and the H fields are a result of a LINEAR
movement of electric charges, while those fields in the EH-antenna are
a result of the ROTATION of those charges - a feature unknown until now.
Nowhere in textbooks could I find any word about this possible
phenomenon. In science discoveries must be double confirmed at least,
but here this is not the case.

By the way, it was interesting to read that once an issued US Patent
was a guarantee that the patent at least worked, but today it
seems it is only a certificate that someone was the first to register
his idea or wouldbe invention. If so, I could even understand that,
because today the USPTO should have armies of different experts and
endless laboratories to test all the applications. However, it would
be fair to openly proclaim such a principle. In my country (Croatia) the
situation is similar. (The other day I read in the newspapers that
someone got a patent for superconductivity at normal temperatures
(through some alloys), although, to my knowledge, nobody saw it work.)
Imagine a coil without ohmic resistance, or long distance lines without
any losses!

I am still dreaming about an ideal antenna having not more than 10% of
wavelength and 100% efficiency. Thanks for all the posts, anyhow.

Bozidar, 9a2hl

I am still dreaming about an ideal antenna having not more than 10% of
wavelength and 100% efficiency. Thanks for all the posts, anyhow.

Bozidar, 9a2

Moderate/high efficiency with a 10% physical height is pretty easy to attain.
That's not an e/h antenna, as far as I am aware.


The e/h antenna appears to ignore the main point about Maxwell's equations:
changing fields generate changing fields. E' make B's and so on. You can't
separate a changing E field from its B field, and so on. Thus the premise is
wrong.

In a --very-- small volume (fraction of a radiansphere), any single current max
radiator is very inefficient. Similarly, any multiple current max radiator does
not exhibit constructive interference in the far field. That's the physics.
Antennas as a pure science are now an exhausted field.

73,
Chip N1IR

On 16 Oct 2004 13:07:25 GMT, (Fractenna) wrote:

I am still dreaming about an ideal antenna having not more than 10% of
wavelength and 100% efficiency. Thanks for all the posts, anyhow.

Bozidar, 9a2

Moderate/high efficiency with a 10% physical height is pretty easy to attain.
That's not an e/h antenna, as far as I am aware.


The e/h antenna appears to ignore the main point about Maxwell's equations:
changing fields generate changing fields. E' make B's and so on. You can't
separate a changing E field from its B field, and so on. Thus the premise is
wrong.

In a --very-- small volume (fraction of a radiansphere), any single current max
radiator is very inefficient. Similarly, any multiple current max radiator does
not exhibit constructive interference in the far field. That's the physics.
Antennas as a pure science are now an exhausted field.

73,
Chip N1IR

As I understand the theory behind Hart's 'EH' antenna, he believes that if the E
and H fields in the radiator are somehow caused to be out of phase the radiation
will be greater. We all know that when an RF voltage is applied to a conductor,
such as a single-wire antenna (the radiator), a corresponding current flows in
the radiator. We also know that the current flow produces both electric and
magnetic fields, and the crucial point in this is that the E and H fields are
inherently IN PHASE in time, but in space quadrature (90° apart). Physical laws
of nature as determined by Faraday and Ampere, and finalized by JC Maxwell, show
that the E and H fields are immutably etched in time phase, and nothing in the
feed configuration can alter that relationship.

Now along comes Hart, who says he can alter that relationship by inserting an
inductance in series with the radiator, which he says delays the current 90°
behind the voltage, and thus the H field is delayed 90° behind the E field.

I haven't read the claims in his patent, only the fiction appearing on his web
page, but if the claims reflect his misguided, and invalid theory about altering
the relationship between the E and H fields propagating along a radiating
element, the US Patent Office has established a new theory of electromagnetics
that contradicts Faraday, Ampere, and JC Maxwell.

What are we to do? Somehow we must fire the SOB's at the PTO.

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.

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

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

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

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

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