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