Richard Clark wrote in message
Others may reference URL
http://www.eh-antenna.com/documents/EHANTENNA_proof.pdf

Ok, found it now. Missed the link as it was buried in jibber jabber,
and my mind automatically tried to filter it out. :/

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).

Probably benefiting from the ground radials also to a degree also.
"Being I consider the tower as part of the antenna, unless it's proven
not to be radiating."

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.

You would think after all the harping about the support being most of
the antenna, and also feedline radiation issues, he would have stuck
it on a non metal roof with the xmtr at the feedpoint. No feedline to
speak of. But what do I seem to see? A 90 ft tower with a small sleeve
dipole object, with a feed seemingly at the center of the device.
No mention of decoupling from said feedline running down to the base.

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.

About what I would expect from a 90 ft tower with a less than optimum
loading scheme. :/
Just for grins, lets see the 90 ft tower by itself with only top
loading wires.
Wait, that might clash with the "program".... Wouldn't want the guinea
pig "victim" antenna to outshine the wunderstick of the 21st
century...


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.

No bueno.



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.

Dunno. They would need to buy an office building to mount it on to fit
with the "program"...:/

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

Yea, that PDF file kind of gave me a headache also...


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

I bet it ain't cheap, if he's going to all this trouble to "prove" it
works.
Kind of reminds me of a lawyer buying the services of a handwriting
expert...

Efficient? Well, I guess as efficient as a UFO on a 90 ft metal stick
can be....

Low? I would hope so, if only for the neighbors sake...MK

On 30 Sep 2003 00:35:11 -0700, (Mark Keith) wrote:


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.

No bueno.

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

Yea, that PDF file kind of gave me a headache also...

Hi All,

On further review of the data offered, their tabular offering, the FCC
Ground Survey Map (M3_map.zip available at the FCC homepage), it is
evident I overstated the loss of the eh/tower/top-loaded antenna.

As noted above, this combination shows 4dB loss over their reference
comparison standing nearby their test (except in the direction of that
convenient passive radiator of course or with the concurrent
re-radiative properties of the nearby power lines the engineer notes
may affect readings). Employing the jpg file named 35e within the zip
file from the FCC, it is evident that the ground conductivity is NOT
2mS as computed, but 4mS as reported by the FCC. The location of
Eatonton is in the dead center of that quality of ground (not great,
but not as poor as 2mS).

I shrugged at what appeared to be perhaps an insubstantial difference
and reached for the calculator to see what the correlations would
bring if this data were applied to the FCC data of 4mS ground instead.
The loss is still apparent at -2.7dB. This agrees with the tabular
data instead of the misapplication of 2mS to the charting of it.

Off hand, it would seem safe to say that the eh/tower/top-load is an
average of mid 30's percent efficient.

Now, lets see, would a commercial station choose to replace a guyed
tower, with a top loaded short guyed tower, plus cost of do-dad to
enjoy the benefit of 1/3rd coverage? Let me be generous and return to
the -2.7dB valuation instead, but to observe that we are facing a
square law issue with population served. Those folks in the outlying
regions cover vastly more square miles than those in the near region,
so we will consider a population halfway between and note that
squaring that radius reveals half the listenership suffers degraded
service through this antenna substitution.

Economics 101: "How to kill a business without really trying."

Hi Stefano,

the simple english version
of the text above:
eh antenna is not efficient -
you seem to read
the press release english
easier than data numbers.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,

I think their point is that, for a new installation, it would be cheaper
since you don't need radials and the associated real estate. I seem to
recall in one place they suggested putting it on top of a building.

What a messed up web site though. They could have a picture and a diagram
without looking at the last two pages of a PDF file that took several
minutes to download via a cable modem.

There is also something messed up with the description. In one place they
mention (arbitrarily) using 450 Ohm open wire line, and then go on to say
they match 450 Ohms to 50. I don't think they mean that.

Tam/WB2TT

Hi Tarm,
please read better.
The antenna is ,at first ,matched to 450 ohms, then (through a bifilar
line)is fed to a classical "L" network to match 450 to 50 ohms.
73's steve

"Tarmo Tammaru" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Richard,

I think their point is that, for a new installation, it would be cheaper
since you don't need radials and the associated real estate. I seem to
recall in one place they suggested putting it on top of a building.

What a messed up web site though. They could have a picture and a diagram
without looking at the last two pages of a PDF file that took several
minutes to download via a cable modem.

There is also something messed up with the description. In one place they
mention (arbitrarily) using 450 Ohm open wire line, and then go on to say
they match 450 Ohms to 50. I don't think they mean that.

Tam/WB2TT

Hi Richard,
ok one small step better, now.. :-)
The cylinders/radiators are completely insulated from his tower support.
Then the top supporting piece of the tower is insulated from the bottom one.
I imagine you could say the capacitive coupling between the
cylinders/radiators and the under metallic structures , can be enough to
allow some rf currents flow on them.
But this , for me, is NOT enough to call the antenna ..a top hat one.Is not.
Yes the consultant engineer noted about some influences due to the local
power line and, may be, to the 1/4 spaced reference tower.
In fact the EH showed some directivity.
This, do not worry, can be further investigate in the near future . Since we
know very well , from many our previous measures , the antenna can be equal
to a standard 1/4 tower vertical , we are very confident all can be
demonstrated in the near future when Ted will sell the first antennas.
He's collected some orders already, so we will see soon.
The blue curve on the charts is the 1/4 tower standard with 120 radials.
The consultant proved this antenna is perfectely FCC compliant as class B.
We are speaking of an antenna considered as a standard.
Well the small red dots plotted around this blue curve are the EH ones.I
think is evident how close is (on the average) to it.
Is my opinion that any system you can model being 90 feet high with NO
GROUND and with NO RADIALS can not be as efficient as the EH antenna under
test.
Note I said 90 feet high because I know you are sure that ALL the system is
radiating....but is not.
73's and best regards
Steve Ik5IIR


"Richard Clark" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
On 30 Sep 2003 00:35:11 -0700, (Mark Keith) wrote:


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.

No bueno.

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

Yea, that PDF file kind of gave me a headache also...

Hi All,

On further review of the data offered, their tabular offering, the FCC
Ground Survey Map (M3_map.zip available at the FCC homepage), it is
evident I overstated the loss of the eh/tower/top-loaded antenna.

As noted above, this combination shows 4dB loss over their reference
comparison standing nearby their test (except in the direction of that
convenient passive radiator of course or with the concurrent
re-radiative properties of the nearby power lines the engineer notes
may affect readings). Employing the jpg file named 35e within the zip
file from the FCC, it is evident that the ground conductivity is NOT
2mS as computed, but 4mS as reported by the FCC. The location of
Eatonton is in the dead center of that quality of ground (not great,
but not as poor as 2mS).

I shrugged at what appeared to be perhaps an insubstantial difference
and reached for the calculator to see what the correlations would
bring if this data were applied to the FCC data of 4mS ground instead.
The loss is still apparent at -2.7dB. This agrees with the tabular
data instead of the misapplication of 2mS to the charting of it.

Off hand, it would seem safe to say that the eh/tower/top-load is an
average of mid 30's percent efficient.

Now, lets see, would a commercial station choose to replace a guyed
tower, with a top loaded short guyed tower, plus cost of do-dad to
enjoy the benefit of 1/3rd coverage? Let me be generous and return to
the -2.7dB valuation instead, but to observe that we are facing a
square law issue with population served. Those folks in the outlying
regions cover vastly more square miles than those in the near region,
so we will consider a population halfway between and note that
squaring that radius reveals half the listenership suffers degraded
service through this antenna substitution.

Economics 101: "How to kill a business without really trying."

Hi Stefano,

the simple english version
of the text above:
eh antenna is not efficient -
you seem to read
the press release english
easier than data numbers.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 08:02:59 GMT, "stefano" wrote:

Hi Richard,
ok one small step better, now.. :-)
The cylinders/radiators are completely insulated from his tower support.

Hi Stefano,

We all realize that you are not adept at the science of antenna design
so we expect you do not understand these issues.

Then the top supporting piece of the tower is insulated from the bottom one.

This is, of course, immaterial.

I imagine you could say the capacitive coupling between the
cylinders/radiators and the under metallic structures , can be enough to
allow some rf currents flow on them.

This is in fact what happens. The physics will not allow prevent it.

But this , for me, is NOT enough to call the antenna ..a top hat one.Is not.

Again, you say this because of your inexperience in the matter. Top
Hats are part and parcel to antenna design, not for people to wear.
Please understand that it is not an article of clothing, it is a
working element of many antennas and necessary for small ones to
become partially efficient.

Yes the consultant engineer noted about some influences due to the local
power line and, may be, to the 1/4 spaced reference tower.
In fact the EH showed some directivity.
This, do not worry, can be further investigate in the near future .

Further investigation is not necessary, all the data is present. If
you do not trust this data, then you should not be here.

Since we
know very well , from many our previous measures , the antenna can be equal
to a standard 1/4 tower vertical

The point of the test was to prove this. The test proved it is not.
The eh/tower/top-hat are 66% LESS efficient and the test proves this.

, we are very confident all can be
demonstrated in the near future when Ted will sell the first antennas.

Why didn't he sell one to the test station?

He's collected some orders already, so we will see soon.

But he has not sold his first one - BIG difference (like 66% LESS
efficient).

The blue curve on the charts is the 1/4 tower standard with 120 radials.

They are the wrong ones.

The consultant proved this antenna is perfectely FCC compliant as class B.

Because it meets the MINIMUM requirement of a LOW EFFICIENT design.
The antenna in the background of the picture is BETTER! The data
proves it.

We are speaking of an antenna considered as a standard.
Well the small red dots plotted around this blue curve are the EH ones.I
think is evident how close is (on the average) to it.

The standard you speak of is the wrong one. The FCC describes the
ground around Eatonton as having 4mS of conductivity. The antenna
curve used is 2mS of conductivity. This means 3dB LOSS.

Is my opinion that any system you can model being 90 feet high with NO
GROUND and with NO RADIALS can not be as efficient as the EH antenna under
test.

I am glad to see you agree that ANY antenna is as good as eh antenna.
No one needs eh antenna.

Note I said 90 feet high because I know you are sure that ALL the system is
radiating....but is not.
73's and best regards
Steve Ik5IIR

Hi Stefano,

You are relatively untutored in the science of antennas, that is why
you come here for advice. We all recognize that the eh antenna alone
is a very poor one and that it needs other elements, such as a 90 foot
tower and top-hat to achieve 33% efficiency of standard antenna shown
in background. The data proves this. You need only look at the
numbers that you have difficulty with.

Let's look at several so that you can understand how poor the eh
antenna is:
point# Std Field eh Field eh Loss
1 310 275 -1.04dB
2 295 220 -2.55dB
3 66 43 -3.72dB
4 46 30 -3.71dB
5 36 24 -3.52dB
6 23 17.5 -2.37dB
7 20.1 12 -4.48dB
8 19.9 11.6 -4.69dB

As you can plainly see from the data taken, the further you go out the
worse the efficiency becomes. Point 8 is less than 3kM away and
compared to the antenna in the background:
the eh/tower/top-hat has an efficiency of 58%.
The antenna in the background has an efficiency of 100%

There are many charts, and on EVERY one there is in the last column a
description of eh efficiency and if we choose the efficiency of the
antenna at the last point or at least 10 miles (where the audience
is):
035° 2mS 67%
075° 2mS 61%
135° 3mS 65%
210° 1mS 81%
260° 0.1mS 120%
320° 1.5mS 59%

It is evident that the eh/tower/top-hat was compared to 5 different
FCC antenna curves! NONE of them were for the FCC mapped value of 4mS
ground conductivity even when Eatonton is in the middle of that
region. We can also see that there is a 29.5dB variation between
those curves! Where is the greatest variation? Pointed directly at
the nearby radiator of the standard antenna. If that antenna, and
power lines, and tower, and top-hat were gone (use a wood mast with
nylon rope and a choked transmission line); then the eh would be dead
on arrival.

The data simply says the eh is a dog.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,
I think you missed some important facts.

on the third page of the exhibit the consultant reports:
"The ground conductivities of each radial,as ANALYZED,differ sligthly, but
were within the range of 0.1 mmho to 3 mmho,wich,historically,is typical of
this area in Georgia. We note the theoretical ground conductivity of the
area surrounding Eatonton, Georgia,extracted from FCC M-3 is 4 mmhos "

This means he analyzed each radial and to a minimum of two points of
distance from the antenna.
That is the reason because , for instance, on some of them the blue curve is
broken on two . On that cases he measured two different conductivities at
different distance. Please look at it.

This means he was very scrupolous and, for me , he did a great job.
Considering an average value of 4mmhos the measure would have been false.

Of course he changed the conductivity value for each radial accordingly with
the measured one.
This is valid for both antennas , reference and not.

The EH antenna performed almost the same of the reference.

73's Stefano

"Richard Clark" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 08:02:59 GMT, "stefano" wrote:

Hi Richard,
ok one small step better, now.. :-)
The cylinders/radiators are completely insulated from his tower support.

Hi Stefano,

We all realize that you are not adept at the science of antenna design
so we expect you do not understand these issues.

Then the top supporting piece of the tower is insulated from the bottom
one.

This is, of course, immaterial.

I imagine you could say the capacitive coupling between the
cylinders/radiators and the under metallic structures , can be enough to
allow some rf currents flow on them.

This is in fact what happens. The physics will not allow prevent it.

But this , for me, is NOT enough to call the antenna ..a top hat one.Is
not.

Again, you say this because of your inexperience in the matter. Top
Hats are part and parcel to antenna design, not for people to wear.
Please understand that it is not an article of clothing, it is a
working element of many antennas and necessary for small ones to
become partially efficient.

Yes the consultant engineer noted about some influences due to the local
power line and, may be, to the 1/4 spaced reference tower.
In fact the EH showed some directivity.
This, do not worry, can be further investigate in the near future .

Further investigation is not necessary, all the data is present. If
you do not trust this data, then you should not be here.

Since we
know very well , from many our previous measures , the antenna can be
equal
to a standard 1/4 tower vertical

The point of the test was to prove this. The test proved it is not.
The eh/tower/top-hat are 66% LESS efficient and the test proves this.

, we are very confident all can be
demonstrated in the near future when Ted will sell the first antennas.

Why didn't he sell one to the test station?

He's collected some orders already, so we will see soon.

But he has not sold his first one - BIG difference (like 66% LESS
efficient).

The blue curve on the charts is the 1/4 tower standard with 120 radials.

They are the wrong ones.

The consultant proved this antenna is perfectely FCC compliant as class
B.

Because it meets the MINIMUM requirement of a LOW EFFICIENT design.
The antenna in the background of the picture is BETTER! The data
proves it.

We are speaking of an antenna considered as a standard.
Well the small red dots plotted around this blue curve are the EH ones.I
think is evident how close is (on the average) to it.

The standard you speak of is the wrong one. The FCC describes the
ground around Eatonton as having 4mS of conductivity. The antenna
curve used is 2mS of conductivity. This means 3dB LOSS.

Is my opinion that any system you can model being 90 feet high with NO
GROUND and with NO RADIALS can not be as efficient as the EH antenna
under
test.

I am glad to see you agree that ANY antenna is as good as eh antenna.
No one needs eh antenna.

Note I said 90 feet high because I know you are sure that ALL the system
is
radiating....but is not.
73's and best regards
Steve Ik5IIR

Hi Stefano,

You are relatively untutored in the science of antennas, that is why
you come here for advice. We all recognize that the eh antenna alone
is a very poor one and that it needs other elements, such as a 90 foot
tower and top-hat to achieve 33% efficiency of standard antenna shown
in background. The data proves this. You need only look at the
numbers that you have difficulty with.

Let's look at several so that you can understand how poor the eh
antenna is:
point# Std Field eh Field eh Loss
1 310 275 -1.04dB
2 295 220 -2.55dB
3 66 43 -3.72dB
4 46 30 -3.71dB
5 36 24 -3.52dB
6 23 17.5 -2.37dB
7 20.1 12 -4.48dB
8 19.9 11.6 -4.69dB

As you can plainly see from the data taken, the further you go out the
worse the efficiency becomes. Point 8 is less than 3kM away and
compared to the antenna in the background:
the eh/tower/top-hat has an efficiency of 58%.
The antenna in the background has an efficiency of 100%

There are many charts, and on EVERY one there is in the last column a
description of eh efficiency and if we choose the efficiency of the
antenna at the last point or at least 10 miles (where the audience
is):
035° 2mS 67%
075° 2mS 61%
135° 3mS 65%
210° 1mS 81%
260° 0.1mS 120%
320° 1.5mS 59%

It is evident that the eh/tower/top-hat was compared to 5 different
FCC antenna curves! NONE of them were for the FCC mapped value of 4mS
ground conductivity even when Eatonton is in the middle of that
region. We can also see that there is a 29.5dB variation between
those curves! Where is the greatest variation? Pointed directly at
the nearby radiator of the standard antenna. If that antenna, and
power lines, and tower, and top-hat were gone (use a wood mast with
nylon rope and a choked transmission line); then the eh would be dead
on arrival.

The data simply says the eh is a dog.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:59:39 GMT, "stefano" wrote:

Hi Richard,
I think you missed some important facts.

Hi Stefano,

No, I did not miss ANY facts. They are quoted as follows. This is
the DATA! not excuses, not explanations, not translations! It is
understandable that this is very complex for you to understand. The
science of antenna design can actually be reduced to simple analysis
of results shown in the report. The numbers below are exact
confirmation of the LOSS and POOR EFFICIENCY that confirm the eh is
like any other small lossy and inefficient antenna. It also
demonstrates that EVERY claim made for the eh is totally FALSE.


Let's look at several so that you can understand how poor the eh
antenna is:
point# Std Field eh Field eh Loss
1 310 275 -1.04dB
2 295 220 -2.55dB
3 66 43 -3.72dB
4 46 30 -3.71dB
5 36 24 -3.52dB
6 23 17.5 -2.37dB
7 20.1 12 -4.48dB
8 19.9 11.6 -4.69dB

As you can plainly see from the data taken, the further you go out the
worse the efficiency becomes. Point 8 is less than 3kM away and
compared to the antenna in the background:
the eh/tower/top-hat has an efficiency of 58%.
The antenna in the background has an efficiency of 100%

There are many charts, and on EVERY one there is in the last column a
description of eh efficiency and if we choose the efficiency of the
antenna at the last point or at least 10 miles (where the audience
is):
035° 2mS 67%
075° 2mS 61%
135° 3mS 65%
210° 1mS 81%
260° 0.1mS 120%
320° 1.5mS 59%

It is evident that the eh/tower/top-hat was compared to 5 different
FCC antenna curves! NONE of them were for the FCC mapped value of 4mS
ground conductivity even when Eatonton is in the middle of that
region. We can also see that there is a 29.5dB variation between
those curves! Where is the greatest variation? Pointed directly at
the nearby radiator of the standard antenna. If that antenna, and
power lines, and tower, and top-hat were gone (use a wood mast with
nylon rope and a choked transmission line); then the eh would be dead
on arrival.

The data simply says the eh is a dog.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


The fact that the conductivity is changed for what ever reason does
not change the fact that the eh/tower/top-hat IS ALWAYS INFERIOR.
The numbers prove this whatever anything else appears to be said!

Sorry, Stefano, you have to accept the data: the eh is a dog.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:58:58 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:59:39 GMT, "stefano" wrote:

Hi Richard,
I think you missed some important facts.

Hi Stefano,

No, I did not miss ANY facts. They are quoted as follows. This is
the DATA! not excuses, not explanations, not translations! It is
understandable that this is very complex for you to understand. The
science of antenna design can actually be reduced to simple analysis
of results shown in the report. The numbers below are exact
confirmation of the LOSS and POOR EFFICIENCY that confirm the eh is
like any other small lossy and inefficient antenna. It also
demonstrates that EVERY claim made for the eh is totally FALSE.


Again, Stefano,

Let us just throw away the eh, and keep the tower and the top-hat. We
add a capacitor (just like the eh, except simpler for a match) and we
use the same ground that the test engineer "says" the Georgia ground
is like (2mS). Results show that this is BETTER than the eh antenna:
Impedance = 38.82 + J 5.631 ohms
Max gain = -4.42dBi

Who needs eh antenna? No one! :-)
Save money, ignore false claims and enjoy better performance!

Oh! Sorry, Stefano. You sell these don't you? Maybe this why you
don't like the data. :-(

EZNEC file available on request.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC