Hi Doc and all,
I think you don't want read the document.
is not a press release.
Please ask to Mr. Graham
He can answer any question
Stefano

"'Doc" ha scritto nel messaggio
...


Stefano,
There appear to be a lot of "if's" in the 'certification',
and more conjecture than measured fact. Like most (should
say ~all~) press releases, this one can be used on gardens to
increase the growth rate. Just remember to wash the produce
carefully before use.
'Doc

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:55:51 GMT, "stefano" wrote:
Hi Doc and all,
I think you don't want read the document.
is not a press release.
Please ask to Mr. Graham
He can answer any question
Stefano

Hi Stefano,
I think you haven't read the document.
what you describe is press release.
Please read
http://www.eh-antenna.com/documents/EHANTENNA_proof.pdf
which shows poor performance
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Stefano,
It isn't? Then why does it say it's a press
release? And you are right, I didn't read ALL
the documents. After going through most of them
I had seen enough to know that my 'garden' wasn't
large enough for ALL the documents.
I'm sorry Stefano, until there is documented
proof from a reliable source, presented in a
straight forward manner, my credulity meter will
stay stuck on 'B.S.'...
'Doc

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:16:13 -0500, 'Doc wrote:
I'm sorry Stefano, until there is documented
proof from a reliable source, presented in a
straight forward manner, my credulity meter will
stay stuck on 'B.S.'...
'Doc

Hi Doc,

The documentation is there, it is in the appendix no one reads
(especially Stefano). It shows quite distinctly how this antenna goes
straight into the toilet out beyond line of sight (that should show
some change in the Neilsens for an AM station). Somewhere between -10
and -30dB compared to the standard quarterwave antenna. It shows up
clear as a bell on the charts (the test engineer drew the FCC standard
in RED and the test data plunges like a russian submarine). They
could use this stuff in the economics department of an University
class in how to kill business without really trying.

Of course the introductory material reads like the Playboy After Dark
advisor. They used the line of sight numbers to show that the best
numbers for the eh equaled the worst field readings the FCC considered
allowable. In other (their) words "just as efficient or better."
P.T. Barnum showed more class when he fleeced suckers.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,
It's just the same old advertising 'gimmick', tell'em what
you want them to believe, then hide the truth in all the
small print and numbers. I think the data furnished by the
Mr. Graham is ligitimate, it's just been massaged by the sales
people till it says something that isn't a fact. I also think
that Stefano may not have read ALL of the documents as you
suggested. He doesn't really sound like he's as naive as he
seems...
'Doc

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:16:13 -0500, 'Doc wrote:



Stefano,
It isn't? Then why does it say it's a press
release? And you are right, I didn't read ALL
the documents. After going through most of them
I had seen enough to know that my 'garden' wasn't
large enough for ALL the documents.
I'm sorry Stefano, until there is documented
proof from a reliable source, presented in a
straight forward manner, my credulity meter will
stay stuck on 'B.S.'...
'Doc

Not sure which documents y'all are talking about, by my Sept. issue of
RadCom arrived today, with a review of the Arno Elettronica EH
antennas. Bottom line, the EH 20m. and 40m. antennas, transmitting to
different stations, were received as .5 to 3 S-units down from the
reference transmitting antenna, a G5RV.

EH sounds like a sorta okay antenna for those with limited space.

Bob
k5qwg