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