|
EH antenna, FCC certification is arrived
Hello,
After sometime ,I am here again to inform all the Om community interested about the last news on the EH antenna. The antenna was tested, following the FCC rules ,by Stu Graham a important broadcasting engineer. For any news and to read any data on it (including the complete report from the consultant) please go he http://www.eh-antenna.com/AM_Broadcast.htm Please read all the docs related. Three years ago I put on this forum a special announce about this important discovery. Now we can publish all the evidences we were right. There is no doubt, the so called "EH mode " is real and alive. During the test the antenna was installed at about 1/10 of a wavelenght . On this position alomst equalled (only -0.4 db) a perfect 1/4 standard tower with 120 radials. The real important feature is we can trade height for gain. When the antenna is installed at 1/4 wav. it shows a 2.5 db of gain ( yes , GAIN for a ground wave over a standard tower) very high efficiency very large bandwidth very compact size For the ham applications a new era is approaching. Antennas on 40, 80 or 160 metres are very small on size, showing the same or better efficiency over a standard full size vertical dipole. I wanted just share this great news with all interested people. My best 73's Stefano IK5IIR |
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:13:18 GMT, "stefano" wrote:
When the antenna is installed at 1/4 wav. very compact size Hi Stefano, Note any contradictions here? Ever really look at a picture of one? You claim you build them for a cost, so naturally you have no pecuniary interest in misinformation, n'est pas? very high efficiency Higher than the same 1/4 radiator that its compact size replaces? Geeze, a new moon and more nuts falling in this group than would be expected. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
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 |
"stefano" wrote in message ...
Hello, After sometime ,I am here again to inform all the Om community interested about the last news on the EH antenna. The antenna was tested, following the FCC rules ,by Stu Graham a important broadcasting engineer. For any news and to read any data on it (including the complete report from the consultant) please go he http://www.eh-antenna.com/AM_Broadcast.htm Please read all the docs related. I saw nothing to read but a bunch of useless jibber jabber, and silly claims. Where's the beef? MK |
"stefano" wrote in message ... Hello, After sometime ,I am here again to inform all the Om community interested about the last news on the EH antenna. The antenna was tested, following the FCC rules ,by Stu Graham a important broadcasting engineer. Uhhh, what FCC "rule" describes antenna testing? Ed WB6WSN |
Hello,
I thought it was useful add here some words from Ted: -------------- THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY: The test report shows there were 15 measurements at various distances out to 10 miles from the antenna on each of 6 radials. Then the data is plotted to show that there is some directivity due to local interference (power lines). Finally, a RMS value of all data points presents a value of 0.4 dB less than the standard AM Broadcast antenna. That value is then used in the News Release and plotted on a curve to show that even though the center of the EH antenna is at 0.1 wavelengths, the radiation is only 0.4 dB less than a standard 1/4 wavelength tower with 120 radials. The curve also shows that if the center of the EH Antenna is raised to 1/4 wavelength, the radiation from it would exceed that from the standard tower by more than 2 dB. For the AM Broadcaster, the primary benefit is that he can have an antenna that does not require any ground. He can even locate the antenna on top a building. We are currently developing a free standing antenna that will only require enough ground for a base. The end user (the Broadcaster) has no interest in the latest technology, he only wants to make money. For those that have a station, in most cases he can sell the land his antenna is now on, install an EH Antenna on a small plot, then sell the existing land and put money in his pocket. For those that want to build a new station, the land cost has been prohibitive - until now. Ted "stefano" ha scritto nel messaggio ... Hello, After sometime ,I am here again to inform all the Om community interested about the last news on the EH antenna. The antenna was tested, following the FCC rules ,by Stu Graham a important broadcasting engineer. For any news and to read any data on it (including the complete report from the consultant) please go he http://www.eh-antenna.com/AM_Broadcast.htm Please read all the docs related. Three years ago I put on this forum a special announce about this important discovery. Now we can publish all the evidences we were right. There is no doubt, the so called "EH mode " is real and alive. During the test the antenna was installed at about 1/10 of a wavelenght . On this position alomst equalled (only -0.4 db) a perfect 1/4 standard tower with 120 radials. The real important feature is we can trade height for gain. When the antenna is installed at 1/4 wav. it shows a 2.5 db of gain ( yes , GAIN for a ground wave over a standard tower) very high efficiency very large bandwidth very compact size For the ham applications a new era is approaching. Antennas on 40, 80 or 160 metres are very small on size, showing the same or better efficiency over a standard full size vertical dipole. I wanted just share this great news with all interested people. My best 73's Stefano IK5IIR |
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 11:37:53 GMT, "stefano" wrote:
Hello, I thought it was useful add here some words from Ted: Hi Stefano, You forgot to include that the eh is down, -10 to -30 dB from FCC station field measurements: http://www.eh-antenna.com/documents/EHANTENNA_proof.pdf All the while requiring a tower and top hat to perform so poorly. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
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 |
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 |
|
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 all,
for any doubt you have please ask to Mr. Graham. He was hired as an indipendent consultant and he's responsible for the data.He has more than 30 years of experience. I think to know very well the antenna, but I invite you to refer to him. 73's and best regards Steve IK5IIR "stefano" ha scritto nel messaggio ... Hello, After sometime ,I am here again to inform all the Om community interested about the last news on the EH antenna. The antenna was tested, following the FCC rules ,by Stu Graham a important broadcasting engineer. For any news and to read any data on it (including the complete report from the consultant) please go he http://www.eh-antenna.com/AM_Broadcast.htm Please read all the docs related. Three years ago I put on this forum a special announce about this important discovery. Now we can publish all the evidences we were right. There is no doubt, the so called "EH mode " is real and alive. During the test the antenna was installed at about 1/10 of a wavelenght . On this position alomst equalled (only -0.4 db) a perfect 1/4 standard tower with 120 radials. The real important feature is we can trade height for gain. When the antenna is installed at 1/4 wav. it shows a 2.5 db of gain ( yes , GAIN for a ground wave over a standard tower) very high efficiency very large bandwidth very compact size For the ham applications a new era is approaching. Antennas on 40, 80 or 160 metres are very small on size, showing the same or better efficiency over a standard full size vertical dipole. I wanted just share this great news with all interested people. My best 73's Stefano IK5IIR |
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 07:42:48 GMT, "stefano" wrote:
Hi all, for any doubt you have please ask to Mr. Graham. He was hired as an indipendent consultant and he's responsible for the data.He has more than 30 years of experience. I think to know very well the antenna, but I invite you to refer to him. 73's and best regards Steve IK5IIR Hi Stefano, After consulting Mr. Graham's report, it is obvious the eh/tower/top-hat is a poor substitute. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Stefano, I am more than willing to accept Mr. Graham's report since it clearly shows that the 'EH' antenna is not as 'good' (efficient) as the reference antenna (the 'normal' broadcast antenna). I don't understand why you are happy with this report, it disproves what you have been trying to claim for the 'EH' antenna. 'Doc |
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 |
What is missing is the description of location of the antennas ("EH just north
of existing"), their mutual positioning, location of the radial system, guy wires, etc. Judging from the pictures, they are quite close and there is most likely quite a bit of coupling and the EH might be taking free ride off the full size vertical. Also some "simplification" going from 150 ft tower to 90 ft tower with all that stuff? I bet I could get better performance with 90 ft tower loaded with coil, top hat and elevated radials. Much simpler and cheaper and no E H mumbo-jumbo. Safe to file it with CFA and Freaktals? Yuri |
Yuri, Yes, and here, the city comes by and picks up all the CFA and Fractal files on Tuesdays and Fridays... '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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com