Periodically, I have searched the web for info on the EH. I searched again in the past couple days and I always draw the same conclusions. There are a lot of reports from Hams that tend to report performance ranging between "works almost as good as my dipole antenna" to "works slightly better than a dummy load".
Apparently the EH and the Isotron are similar in "theory" and have the same roots in the Cross Field Antenna. There was a flurry of postings and hype about the EH in the time period ranging approximately from 2002 - 2005. Activity seems to have died away more recently.
Some postings claim the EH is based on false theory. I also saw a bunch of information claiming the EH works because the coax feed actually radiates the signal rather than the antenna itself. A few people found that the overall efficiency is as little as 1%. Someone even claimed they got RF burns from the coax with a 100 watt transmitter.
Some reports simply say the EH is "snake oil". Many other posts by builders tend to say it didn't perform well, but they add that they"may have done something wrong building it". I don't think the majority of people want to be so harsh as to say it's snake oil.
"If something looks too good to be true, then it probably is". Instead of taking off as a brilliant new antenna concept, just the opposite has happened. Interest has waned over the years.
I don't think we will ever know the truth. It would be really great to have a knowledgeable part 15er build one and report the results with sound technical detail.
I can't imagine the need for the animosity people have toward an unknown design.
Gee, you could have written an email to the guy, you could ask for further information, any number of things... but no, you gotta post that it's snake oil and blah blah blah, all over the place.
Anyway, forget it. you don't want even WANT your world disrupted by something different.
Religion? Oh, please. That's an utter absurdity. Just because I don't disbelieve something automatically makes it a religion? I believe that he believes it works, and he demonstrates he is not utterly ignorant. He COULD be wrong. YOU could be wrong. For the moment, there seems to be much to gain and very little to lose, to put together a test.
The fact is, the guy has some knowledge, and he's trying something. He is convinced it works. His explanation seems reasonable. I can't think of any reason to assume it doesn't work. I've dealt with technological stuff all my life, and I can't find any evidence he is attempting to be deceptive.
Instead of pointless attacks, you could have chosen to be positive and try to help and test things, but... no. I'll look for help somewhere else, somewhere where I don't have to deal with antagonism just to experiment with something new.
Later, people.
Mark
You cannot expect a body of technical folks to believe something without proof of some kind. Time has proven it is not the super antenna it has been hyped to be. The FCC did a field test and did not approve it for broadcast use,that says a lot to me as they know how to measure an antenna's performance. Most of us are pretty technical and believe in scientific facts,emotions do not play into it as you have implied. Granted,you are excited about the concept and thats fine,build yourself one and report your findings here,we would love to hear your results. You will even find we will help you as much as we can,our mission is to further the hobby,the search for a better and more efficient antenna is our holy grail! We will encourage and support your efforts,but we will also share our opinions. My opinion is it seems funny that hard technical data proving its claims does not exsist and the concept is flawed. Yours is that the man claims it does what it does and you are certainly allowed your opinion. We agree to disagree,but we dont make it personal. You shouldnt get upset about it,you should build one and prove us naysayers wrong. Good luck!
Regards,Lee
http://www.freewebs.com/wilcomlabs/index.htm
I just need some assistance in building the LC network. The designs offered for hams and others specify wire sizes and so on, for a hundred or hundreds of watts. All I need, is to find someone who understands something well enough to duplicate the design, but small gauge conductors and scaled for our sub .1 watt power.
I'll be happy to cover the cost of materials.
This will take me a few months, as I get a transmitter put together and a site for testing and an FSM for testing.
As for the doubt? What evidence is there that it does not work? None that I can find. I can only find that a few people have messed with them and not been successful. What on earth would be unusual about that? That's expected.
I dont think you can scale the wire size down much without adding too much resistance to the coil. I think there is a point of diminished return,but I do not know how to calculate that. Anyone care to chime in here?
As for proof,if yours works as good as the claims,then I will believe,OK?
Regards,Lee
http://www.freewebs.com/wilcomlabs/index.htm
who are OBJECTIVE, that they will not run campaigns against some idea without proof, nor will they blindly assume its absolute fact.
Any honest technical person would want to find out for themselves, and have no predisposition to assume untruth on the part of the inventor, nor inerrancy, either. To objectively examine and see if the person's claims have technical merit, and if so, seek to verify.
There's about a half dozen people around the world on a hell bent campaign to defame the EH antenna for some unknown reason. I have no bone to pick eitehr way. If it works, it could be a boon to Part 15 AM broadcasting. If it doesn't, well, it doesn't. But if I were to have no success, I would ask the inventor to try to make it work. I haven't sufficient background to troubleshoot for myself, and it seems few critics do either.
markk wrote I can't imagine the need for the animosity people have toward an unknown design. Gee, you could have written an email to the guy, you could ask for further information, any number of things...
Several days ago I sent emails both to Ted Hart, and to the consultant who he had arranged to do field strength measurements on the EH design. I politely requested the measured data showing that the EH outperforms a standard 1/4-wave, broadcast type monopole (as they claim it does).
Such data shouldn't be hard to for them to supply, if the gain claims for the EH are based on physical reality. In fact it they should be eager to do so -- this is how business works.
So far I have received no reply to either email, but if I do, I'll post what I learn from them.
The reason for the doubt, Mark, is that the claims made for the EH are extraordinary, and not supported by well-known physical principles that have been thoroughly proven in operating hardware. Also the performance of a similar design, the CFA, has been measured on operating hardware and the claims made for it have not been proven.
Probably everybody hopes the EH works as claimed, but most of the technical/engineering community (including the FCC) expects to make their decisions on measured results, not on the undocumented claims of a manufacturer, and especially so when those claims are extraordinary. That is just common sense, and good engineering practice.
//
Of another EH antenna thread, that is.
Ha ha, made you look
Here is the formula I use
100mW + reasonable safety precautions + antenna experimentation = FUN
Does an EH antenna work for you? Who the heck knows? Build one and find out. Won't cost much and it will be fun. The antenna I slapped together on a whim was my best performer to date, so what's the worst that can happen? These little antennas are even easy to throw away if they don't work out.
Experimental broadcasting for a better tomorrow!
Ermi Roos's post, "They're all "whip and mast" antennas" of February 16th, 2007 in the thread
http://part15.us/node/1190
is a gem and sums up the prevailing opinion of the EH, CFA and Isotron antennas. I missed this thread originally, but in retrospect it is very worthwhile to read.
"Proof"? You have to be kidding.
You won't accept the word of people who've done it. But you take this guy's word as "proof".
Obviously, trying to experiment is fraught with danger. Not from experimenting, but from trying to ward off the antagonism of those who are determined to keep anyone else from trying anything new or 'weird'.
Well, certainly all you skeptics have not a thing to lose to let someone else try something. Whether it works or not will NOT HURT YOU. But you take it personally. Just like the infuriating nabobs who are desperately trying to get the FCC to make the antennas be at ground level, and who successfully made BMI, ASCAP, etc, begin pursuing hobbyist broadcasters.
I am dumbfounded at the lengths to which people will go to harm others, who have done NOTHING to hurt them, who in NO WAY are impacted by things being slightly different thann they want it, but yet do thier best to limit or harm the efforts of others.
My mother was old school from the Depression Era, but she had words to describe you that I can't bring myself to repeat...
Why not just build one and test it? That way you'll know first hand how the antenna performs and whether it lives up to its hype. Let us know what was discovered and if it performs better than the traditional base-loaded antennas we currently use.
Frank
www.easthillradio.com
The focus of this site is to encourage Part 15 hobbyists, and those curious about part 15 broadcasting, to share positive and instructional information about legal, low power broadcasting. We seek to build a community based on mutual respect, a commitment to sharing information and a positive attitude of exploration.
Contributions not welcome include ad hominem attacks, appeals to ridicule, red herring posts, poisoning the well and agenda threads.
Enjoy your visit.
Experimental broadcasting for a better tomorrow!
Obviously, trying to experiment is fraught with danger. Not from experimenting, but from trying to ward off the antagonism of those who are determined to keep anyone else from trying anything new or 'weird'.
Markk, there are well established procedures in science and engineering for assessing the outcome of experiments. One is called "peer review", and another is called "replication". Neither method has anything to do with antagonism. They are designed to establish the truth.
Well, certainly all you skeptics have not a thing to lose to let someone else try something. Whether it works or not will NOT HURT YOU. But you take it personally. Just like the infuriating nabobs who are desperately trying to get the FCC to make the antennas be at ground level, and who successfully made BMI, ASCAP, etc, begin pursuing hobbyist broadcasters.
I fail to see how anyone posting here, except you, have taken this "personally". There is no connection that I can see between the "nabobs" you referenced and BMI etc.
I am dumbfounded at the lengths to which people will go to harm others, who have done NOTHING to hurt them, who in NO WAY are impacted by things being slightly different thann they want it, but yet do thier best to limit or harm the efforts of others.
I agree with you on this, but it does not apply to anything that I have read in this thread. The general tone, as I read it, is simply to ask for verification of the claimed performance of this antenna. Again, replication would be a wonderful means to demonstrate that this antenna performs as claimed. Healthy skepticism is not only desirable for the advancement of technology, it is necessary.
Your contributions to this board have resulted in a thread in which ideas are being presented and discussed and this has value. It is not realistic, nor is it a good idea, to ascribe motivations to the posters when you may not agree with what is posted. Your information and comments are welcomed by me but try to avoid personal issues.
Neil
Well, all you have to do, is go find some commentary on the EH antenna, using google, etc. There's a Yahoo group dedicated to trashing Ted Hart, even. I'm always skeptical, as are most people who see someone make claims that fly in the fact of what we "know". We sometimes forget that we don't "know" all that much, really.
As far as motivations... What else could there be? I mean, I followed a ham forum where some guy built one, it didn't work, and someone nearby came over, helped him fix his lc network, and then it worked and worked well for him. Immediately, he was personally affronted by a couple of people insisting he was:
A: lying
B: a buffoon
C: a shill for Ted's company
etc.
Obviously, the idea behind his antenna isn't exactly proven, as it relies on some new theory promoted by a Russian guy.
But I don't care about all that. I just wanna try it out. Oddly enough, even the people who claim it is bogus or terribly bad claim it has at worst a 2-3 percent efficiency. Gee, if I build a total washout of an antenna design, and it's 3% efficient, HOW MUCH BETTER IS THAT than a 3 meter wire?
Frankly, I think the inventor has stumbled onto something, as some people do get them to work and work really well, and of all the anecdotal information from those who have, and even from some who have not, provides a me a level of evidence that something IS going on, whether Hart's got it right or wrong.
I don't suppose I should voice my comments about people's motivations, but after a certain point, where you read the same personal attacks on someone else, you start to get a pretty clear impression of just how some people are reacting. And I have, over the years, developed a distinct lack of tolerance for specific kinds of behavior.
Either way, I'm still trying to find someone who understands these things, or has built one successfully, to assist me in making one appropriate for part 15 broadcast on AM. But that's for a different forum.
Markk,
What can I do to help you try this antenna? I have a fairly well stocked junk box and if you need a critical component I will try to provide it at no cost.
Right now I have neither the time nor interest to do this myself but I will do what I can to help anyone who wants to build one and test it. All I expect in return is a responsible report of the results.
If you, or others have a serious interest in this I will provide an email address at your request so we can PM.
Neil