On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:13:18 GMT, "stefano" wrote:

The antenna was tested, following the FCC rules ,by Stu Graham a important
broadcasting engineer.

Hi Stefano,

Others may reference URL
http://www.eh-antenna.com/documents/EHANTENNA_proof.pdf

I note that in photograph found on page 27 of 29 that the "reference"
antenna is close enough to fall on the eh antenna. I also note that
the engineer speculates that this structure was not isolated enough
from the eh tests as it is demonstrated in the single radiation chart
that was conducted within 6 wavelengths of the test antenna (page 25).

I also note that the antenna tower (yes folks, a common tower)
supporting the supposed antenna has guying that is not broken up with
insulators (plainly in view for the reference antenna in the
background). Top loading, how convenient.

When we actually look at the data (starting on page 7) and stepping
back from the antenna 10 Miles (a reasonable distance to evaluate the
far field) we see that both charts and tables of data for the eh fall
dismally below the reference.

The page of data called FCC figure 8 reveals that at 10Miles (actually
9.43 Miles) that the eh, tower, and top-hat are -4.24dB from the
reference and -15dB from FCC standard curve. The chart marked Exhibit
#1B (page 8) shows that further out at 20 Miles that the eh, tower,
and top-hat are -26.6dB from the FCC standard curve.

Continuing on through the remaining data does nothing to pull the eh
out of the toilet.

However, none of this means anything if the radio station that hosted
this test does not buy one. After all, they are a commercial
enterprise and if they want the additional efficiency within a couple
of wavelengths at the cost of 10 to 30dB coverage outside of the
block, they can certainly let economics rule that decision.

Perhaps I read the data out of order, or the charts upside down.
Please advise.

Have they placed an order for this cheap, efficient, low antenna?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC