|
1-2 of 2 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
EH Antennas
|
Reply
|
|
by AC5ZO on January 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I see things written about the EH and CFA antenna quite often. It seems that the info is either highly PRO or CON with little gray area between the extremes. Much of the info seems to be "testimonial" or critical without data.
I am keeping an open mind on the technology and can accept that antennas can be of a form other than a conventional dipole such as patch, loop, or slot antennas. Is there any "scientific" data where these short antennas have been tested against conventional 1/4 wv verticals or other conventional antenna?
|
| |
|
RE: EH Antennas
|
Reply
|
|
by w8ji on January 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Is there any "scientific" data where these short >antennas have been tested against conventional 1/4 wv >verticals or other conventional antenna?
No, there isn't!!!
The inventors have never invested in any test to prove their invention works. This true even though the E-H and CFA antennas date back into the 1980's!!!!
I've offered to pay $10,000 for a working model, provided they pay me if it doesn't work as claimed. So far, no reply.
If I had a great invention that would make me millions, I'd spend less time promoting it to Hams for a few dollars here and there. I'd have an independent lab measure the antenna and document the results.
That is, unless it didn't work as claimed. Then Hams would be the only market, so I'd be stuck getting a few bucks here and there.
check out
http://www.w8ji.com/receiving_basics.htm
for an explaination of fields, and why such antennas can't work.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
Forums, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Forums Manager.
|
