Total posts : 45366
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.