Recently heard about EH antennas and have done some research into them
including reading some articles in this newsgroup. It is begining ti
sound very much like my friends homemade FM/TV antenna. My friend being
short on money fastened an old bicycle rim to a piece of galvanized
pipe( axel stuck in the pipe) Feedline was connected from the center o
the wheel to a point on the outer rim. I had repeated told my friend
that something like this would never work and he demonstrated to me
that it did.. I theink the EH antenna is a lot like this old wheel,
just about anything placed on a mast with work to some degree. In this
case a very poor antenna allowed my friend to receive 2 TV stations and
4 or 5 FM radio stations. This was a vast improvement over the 0 tv and
Fm stations he was receving before putting up his "antenna" Would it be
appropriate to say that an EH antenna is more like a coupler that
utilises the antenna support structure(tower/mast) and feedline as the
radiating elements of the antenna?.

On 1 Apr 2006 08:23:24 -0800, "JIMMIE" wrote:

Would it be
appropriate to say that an EH antenna is more like a coupler that
utilises the antenna support structure(tower/mast) and feedline as the
radiating elements of the antenna?.

Hi Jimmie,

Sounds fair. You may be disappointed with such a short answer. So if
you simply search Google groups using EH antenna as key terms, you
will find more discussion, but it will all reduce to your short
observation above.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 22:55:43 -0500, "
wrote:

I would suppose that under the right conditions an antenna like this could
perform reasonably well if it were properly set up and I can see how getting
consistent results would be difficult. This would leave some people to swear
by it while other swear at it.

Hi Jimmie,

This could be said of almost any design outside of the canon of
average antennas. In that regard, there's no point in going to all
the fuss'n'muss with the eh, just put up a stick and match to it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

JIMMIE wrote:

Recently heard about EH antennas and have done some research into them
including reading some articles in this newsgroup. It is begining ti
sound very much like my friends homemade FM/TV antenna. My friend being
short on money fastened an old bicycle rim to a piece of galvanized
pipe( axel stuck in the pipe) Feedline was connected from the center o
the wheel to a point on the outer rim. I had repeated told my friend
that something like this would never work and he demonstrated to me
that it did.. I theink the EH antenna is a lot like this old wheel,
just about anything placed on a mast with work to some degree. In this
case a very poor antenna allowed my friend to receive 2 TV stations and
4 or 5 FM radio stations. This was a vast improvement over the 0 tv and
Fm stations he was receving before putting up his "antenna" Would it be
appropriate to say that an EH antenna is more like a coupler that
utilises the antenna support structure(tower/mast) and feedline as the
radiating elements of the antenna?.


Jimmie,

There have been, and will continue to be - a lot of discussions about the
EH-Antenna. Some of the discussions are bordering to physical wars and
other postings are just plain simple stupid. As usual in other words...

One of the thing that are once and for all settled is that the antenna
function does not rely on coupling to other metallic objects. That myth is
so totally debunked so I won't even go there. Another fight is regarding
the efficiency.

The current discussions surrounding the EH is about any possible phase shift
as the main reason for the function.

If you are interested inthe EH-Antenna for hamradio use, browse to
www.eh-antenna.com. If you intend to use it commecially, it's patended and
you need to buy a license or a ready made antenna.
The EH is used for RFID and for vehicle communication as well as telemetry.
The ham EH's are only a very small fraction of the market.

And no, I don't think your friend made up an EH antenna.

There are some tests done in Radcom and possibly other ham magazines.

The EH-Antenna is just another small antenna with it's preferred field of
application. It's not to be compared with any directional antenna as it's
mostly omnidirectional. Also, the EH have to be mounted 1/4 wavelength up
to work according to the designers.

The EH that receives most of the appraisal is the 160m version. Probably
because it's very difficult to have a dipole or longwire up for 160m... so
when compared to a 160m dipole 10 meter above ground, the EH outperforms
that dipole... When comparing antennas close to ground, it's often a case
of "the least worse" functioning antenna and the EH performance is reported
to deteriorate lesser than wire antennas when close to ground and have a
better S/N.

The VHF EH's outperforms most typical VHF omnidirectional antennas even i
the difference in size is not that great compared to traditional antennas.

Very few hams are neutral in the view of the EH antenna so be prepared to
whip up a storm if you build one and claim success or failure.

BTW! If you intend to try for yourself, do not use ferrous material for the
build. That will bring down the resulting bandwidth by 70% or so!

Also, a dipole or wire antenna gives you a multiband antenna, especially
with an antenna tuner.
The EH is a single band antenna only and cannot be tweaked by an antenna
tuner. For a complete coverage of the HF ham bands you need many antennas.

Cheers


Dan / M0DFI

Dan Andersson wrote:

The EH-Antenna is just another small antenna with it's preferred field of
application. It's not to be compared with any directional antenna as it's
mostly omnidirectional. Also, the EH have to be mounted 1/4 wavelength up
to work according to the designers.


The EH antenna theory is total rubbish. It is physically impossible to
mix an electric field and a magnetic field and generate EM radation.

The basic operating premise of the EH antenna is a lie.

The EH that receives most of the appraisal is the 160m version. Probably
because it's very difficult to have a dipole or longwire up for 160m... so
when compared to a 160m dipole 10 meter above ground, the EH outperforms
that dipole

Nonsense. You won't find a single scientifically made test where an EH
antenna outperforms a similar size regular short monopole.

On 160 meters EH antennas are typically 10 dB down or more from very
poor dipoles.

If an EH antenna beats another antenna it is always tracible back to
the other antenna being grossly poor. There isn't a single professional
evaluation of the EH antenna in the world that has ever shown it to be
better than any other antenna the same physical size, and most show it
is actually worse.

If you polled a large cross section of people about a very poor leader
of a country, you'd find a significant percentage claiming the very
poor leader was a good leader despite very clear evidence to the
contrary. The EH antenna and any other widespread myth is no different.
It's all about blind faith and spin rather than facts. Some people just
don't care about facts, and prefer to live by faith.

The EH antenna will probably go on for years, despite the fact it has
been proven over and over to be a fraud.

73 Tom

wrote:


Dan Andersson wrote:

The EH-Antenna is just another small antenna with it's preferred field of
application. It's not to be compared with any directional antenna as it's
mostly omnidirectional. Also, the EH have to be mounted 1/4 wavelength up
to work according to the designers.


The EH antenna theory is total rubbish. It is physically impossible to
mix an electric field and a magnetic field and generate EM radation.

The basic operating premise of the EH antenna is a lie.

The EH that receives most of the appraisal is the 160m version. Probably
because it's very difficult to have a dipole or longwire up for 160m...
so when compared to a 160m dipole 10 meter above ground, the EH
outperforms that dipole

Nonsense. You won't find a single scientifically made test where an EH
antenna outperforms a similar size regular short monopole.

On 160 meters EH antennas are typically 10 dB down or more from very
poor dipoles.

If an EH antenna beats another antenna it is always tracible back to
the other antenna being grossly poor. There isn't a single professional
evaluation of the EH antenna in the world that has ever shown it to be
better than any other antenna the same physical size, and most show it
is actually worse.

If you polled a large cross section of people about a very poor leader
of a country, you'd find a significant percentage claiming the very
poor leader was a good leader despite very clear evidence to the
contrary. The EH antenna and any other widespread myth is no different.
It's all about blind faith and spin rather than facts. Some people just
don't care about facts, and prefer to live by faith.

The EH antenna will probably go on for years, despite the fact it has
been proven over and over to be a fraud.

73 Tom


So, the subject is still taboo.

Well Tom, I can't say I have seen your evidence that the EH-antenna is a
fraud. On the other hand, the only test I found of the 160m EH was in the
RSGB Radcom, and that test was in positive wording. I have not seen any
positive test of a 80 m EH tho'!
Also, a couple of tests that I've seen on the EH claiming it doesn't work,
have been rubbish too. I saw one test by a chap - Calvin something I think
it was, that had all the necessary equipment at hand but unfortunately, the
test where spoiled by to inflated ego's. Other tests have been claimed it
do work but I don't see any of them as really scientifically correct
either.

Professional tests? Wasn't there a proper evaluation done on a commercial EH
for a radiostation a couple years back?

I do not agree with you claim that there isn't a single professional
evaluation. The EH for VHF was tested in France - maybe two years ago now
and was in line for 27,000 installations. The EH lost because of the price,
not because of performance. The EH results gave a S/N improvement of 5 to 7
dB, which dramatically improved the telemetry systems functionality. As
this was a commercial evaluation, no data where released.

As to the field theory, which I didn't mention anything about in my earlier
posting, I just cannot comment about that theory as I, amongst many other
hams, lack the really deep knowledge of EM theory other than what can be
found in the normal text books.

The let us take a look on the "fraud theory". The inventor of the EH doesn't
have ( as far as I know ) any known record of fraud. On the contrary
actually. As I remember it, a similar debate raged when he presented the
mini magnetic loops some years ago. When he presented the noise bridge,
there where no problems at all as I remember it. So for now, I can't see
any deeper conspiracy theories lurking around the corner neither any real
reasons as an incentive for a fraud.

The best tests of the EH so far have been on VHF and without any coax
connected to the EH.

I'm actually very interested to read up on this and as you write there are
multiple evidence of fraud, I'm sure you can post some pointers to these
tests.

BTW! I'm quite sure many of us stumble on the EH's daily nowadays as a
common use of the EH is for RFID equipment.


Cheers


Dan

Dan Andersson wrote:
So, the subject is still taboo.

No, but like with any untrue claim that offers something for nearly
nothing there will be those who want it to happen so bad they will have
blind unbendable faith.

Well Tom, I can't say I have seen your evidence that the EH-antenna is a
fraud. On the other hand, the only test I found of the 160m EH was in the
RSGB Radcom, and that test was in positive wording. I have not seen any
positive test of a 80 m EH tho'!

http://www.fi.uba.ar/materias/6654/d...CFAantenna.pdf

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvinf15/_technical/

are two places.

http://www.w8ji.com/e-h_antenna.htm

Professional tests? Wasn't there a proper evaluation done on a commercial EH
for a radiostation a couple years back?

This is what speaks volumes about the credibility of the CFA and EH
antenna people.

They keep claiming they will soon have supporting data, but it never
appears. There always is a reason, like the "test is secret".

Common sense would tell anyone that if they are on to something, they
would just pony-up the cash to have a reputable lab do a test. If you
think about it, there isn't a single invention in the world good for
common man that actually works where the manufacturer can't point you
at working examples that can been seen by people.

This EH stuff is exactly like the 1969 L-88 Corvette that was sitting
in the mother's garage since Viet Nam, sold to a friend of the guy
telling the story for $250.

I do not agree with you claim that there isn't a single professional
evaluation.

Point me to one. Any one.

The EH for VHF was tested in France - maybe two years ago now
and was in line for 27,000 installations. The EH lost because of the price,
not because of performance. The EH results gave a S/N improvement of 5 to 7
dB, which dramatically improved the telemetry systems functionality. As
this was a commercial evaluation, no data where released.

Sounds like the Corvette. It really happened, we just can't tell you
where and how.

As to the field theory, which I didn't mention anything about in my earlier
posting, I just cannot comment about that theory as I, amongst many other
hams, lack the really deep knowledge of EM theory other than what can be
found in the normal text books.

Then you'll have to take my word and other people's word for it. We
cannot synthesize radiation.

See:
http://www.w8ji.com/radiation_and_fields.htm

The let us take a look on the "fraud theory". The inventor of the EH doesn't
have ( as far as I know ) any known record of fraud.

1.) Ted Hart told the Atlanta Radio Club he invented or designed the
MFJ loop antenna and MFJ antenna analyzer.

2.) An officer of that club conatcted me, and asked me if that was
true.

3.) I told them no, he had nothing to do with those products and I
didn't even know who he was.

4). Ted Hart then told Antennex I "quit the Atlanta radio club" and
"stormed out of a meeting". Antennex published that letter.

I have never been a member of ARC.
I have never in my life attended a meeting of that club.
I have never quit any radio club in my life.
I have never stormed out of a meeting of any kind in my life.
Ted Hart had nothing to do with the MFJ loop or the MFJ antenna
analyzer.

73 Tom

Hi Jimmie,

I hope you appreciate the mix of confusion, theory, hope, and despair
that follows this subject. :-)

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 16:09:37 +0100, Dan Andersson
wrote:

So, the subject is still taboo.

Well, that's a new way to approach the subject, tie it to sex.

was in the RSGB Radcom

Vanity publishing is not science.

Professional tests? Wasn't there a proper evaluation done on a commercial EH
for a radiostation a couple years back?

For what it was worth: -10dB at best, and a signal diving into the
noise floor 20 miles away for an AM band signal. The upshot of it
all, was if you couldn't see it, you couldn't hear it. Same fate as
the common rubber duckie antenna.

The EH lost because of the price,

An old oil drum with a beach umbrella cost that much? This goes
against the their noted claims of it being cheaper than a standard
design.

not because of performance. The EH results gave a S/N improvement of 5 to 7
dB, which dramatically improved the telemetry systems functionality. As
this was a commercial evaluation, no data where released. d

Soounds like a combination of the OJ Simpson defense and the Kennedy
assassination theory.

When he presented the noise bridge,
there where no problems at all as I remember it.

A noise bridge is to signal performance as a gas gauge is to
horsepower.

The best tests of the EH so far have been on VHF and without any coax
connected to the EH.

You can work the space shuttle without coax connected to a rubber duck
antenna either. Why build an eh when you already have a rubber
duckie?

BTW! I'm quite sure many of us stumble on the EH's daily nowadays as a
common use of the EH is for RFID equipment.

You have a proper reference for that of course. The reigning
crack-pot-king insists they are fractals.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Recently heard about EH antennas and have done some research into them
including reading some articles in this newsgroup. It is begining ti
sound very much like my friends homemade FM/TV antenna. My friend being
short on money fastened an old bicycle rim to a piece of galvanized
pipe( axel stuck in the pipe) Feedline was connected from the center o
the wheel to a point on the outer rim. I had repeated told my friend
that something like this would never work and he demonstrated to me
that it did.. I theink the EH antenna is a lot like this old wheel,
just about anything placed on a mast with work to some degree. In this
case a very poor antenna allowed my friend to receive 2 TV stations and
4 or 5 FM radio stations. This was a vast improvement over the 0 tv and
Fm stations he was receving before putting up his "antenna" Would it be
appropriate to say that an EH antenna is more like a coupler that
utilises the antenna support structure(tower/mast) and feedline as the
radiating elements of the antenna?.

I think the EH is the same idea as the CFA; in which case the following
paper
says it all: http://www.fi.uba.ar/materias/6654/d...CFAantenna.pdf.

It is hard to imagine going to these lengths to debunk nonsense, but I guess
it is the only way.

Frank

Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Jimmie,

I hope you appreciate the mix of confusion, theory, hope, and despair
that follows this subject. :-)

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 16:09:37 +0100, Dan Andersson
wrote:

So, the subject is still taboo.

Well, that's a new way to approach the subject, tie it to sex.

was in the RSGB Radcom

Vanity publishing is not science.

Professional tests? Wasn't there a proper evaluation done on a commercial
EH for a radiostation a couple years back?

For what it was worth: -10dB at best, and a signal diving into the
noise floor 20 miles away for an AM band signal. The upshot of it
all, was if you couldn't see it, you couldn't hear it. Same fate as
the common rubber duckie antenna.

The EH lost because of the price,

An old oil drum with a beach umbrella cost that much? This goes
against the their noted claims of it being cheaper than a standard
design.

not because of performance. The EH results gave a S/N improvement of 5 to
7 dB, which dramatically improved the telemetry systems functionality. As
this was a commercial evaluation, no data where released. d

Soounds like a combination of the OJ Simpson defense and the Kennedy
assassination theory.

When he presented the noise bridge,
there where no problems at all as I remember it.

A noise bridge is to signal performance as a gas gauge is to
horsepower.

The best tests of the EH so far have been on VHF and without any coax
connected to the EH.

You can work the space shuttle without coax connected to a rubber duck
antenna either. Why build an eh when you already have a rubber
duckie?

BTW! I'm quite sure many of us stumble on the EH's daily nowadays as a
common use of the EH is for RFID equipment.

You have a proper reference for that of course. The reigning
crack-pot-king insists they are fractals.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC



Richard,

One of the licensees are an Israeli supplier of RFID systems. You need to
check on the www.e-antenna.com for any references to them.

The rubber duck antennas are mostly to sensitive to metallic objects in the
proximity. There was actually good reasons to choose the EH but as the cost
for a helical was counted in cents, a multi dollar cost for an EH
replacement was a definitively showstopper.

The claim to be cheap could probably be true for a commercial AM transmitter
as you need a significant lesser amount of property to house it.

As I was writing about VHF antennas, the amount of property needed is not
really anything to do with cost...

The other comments from you Richard, went into the bin as just stupid
remarks and not really productive - merely as it tends to be on Usenet...

I've seen to much weirdness in the debate surrounding the EH's but I have to
admit that the CFA is something I'd rather avoid spending time on...

Unfortunately, the debate in this matter tends to go religious and that
excludes any real possibility to neither debunk nor confirm the EH. Pity.


So Jimmy,

By firing of questions about EH's you will really stir up a hornets nest...

Cheers

Dan / M0DFI