Message-ID: <000f01c2d3b6$70b1bc00$045bfea9@RSGB613192>
From: "Andy talbot" <G4JNT@THERSGB.NET>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <1ee.1cfb5f1.2b7d3963@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:20:02 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: EH-Antenna
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Is there any evidence, anywhere, showing that one of these wonder antennas
produces more gain than a conventional short monopole of the same height-
and here's the important bit - given the same amount of metal.  That metal
could be buried radials, a fatter radiator or whatever, just not used to
give extra height.

Just curious
A believer in simple Electromagnetics

Andy  G4JNT

----- Original Message -----
From: <WarmSpgs@aol.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: LF: EH-Antenna


> In a message dated 2/13/03 9:46:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> Bernd.Grupe@t-online.de writes:
>
> << If the loss of efficiency will be abt. 10dB  compared to a
> fullsize-dipol(measured at 1.8MHz!) then it would be a hope for all
lowfers
> with large aereas and tolerant neighborhood :-) >>
>
> I suppose it would, but we should remember that the comparison was not
made
> against a full size dipole.  It was made against an electrically short
> vertical, which would already be many dB down from a full size dipole.
>
> So far there is still no data anywhere in the world showing an EH antenna
or
> a CFA actually producing the same field strength as a properly working
> quarter wave vertical or a full size dipole... let alone the greater
> efficiencies claimed by their inventors.
>
> 73
> John Davis
>