[Antennas] EH-Antenna Test Article On eham

2003年4月05日 22:30:25 -0600

Chris- I do not normally copy , in total, a complete posting to give 
background to an argument. However, I am, in this case, in order to have 
clearly defined places for reference.
At 06:57 PM 4/5/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Now, how do I, just a student of electronics, attempt to explain to Adam, 
>a guru, my thoughts? I repect your experience and wisdom in the field, 
>however, I have to take exception to "... the difference between science 
>and necromancy.".
>>I shall take that what you meant by 'necromancy' you meant 'magic' or 
>'sorcery', not 'the fortelling of the future by communicating with the 
>dead'; and, by science, you meant, ' knowledge of general facts, laws and 
>relationships that is obtained through systematic observations and 
>experiment, especially as applied to the physical world and the phenomena 
>associated with it'. Further, 'magic' as 'something that produces results 
>by mysterious influence, unexplained power'.

A fairly good definition, even though it omits many aspects of science that 
are important.
> From this, I would say that you and I agree that the EH antenna is 
> magical as no one can really explain it. Using present equations and 
> Poynting vector doesnot. Then is it wrong? Or is it right? We will 
> find out later. If it works then an explaination shall have to be devised.

There is NO such agreement. No independent investigator has said that it 
works as the.inventor claims. Therefore there is no magic. From what I have 
read, it performs just about as application of common analysis predicts- 
ie, pretty poorly, compared to a dipole. Why wait until later? there have 
been several tests that do not support the claims, and none ( other than 
from interested parties) that do.
>A few moons ago, a number of us were preparing for an exam in physical 
>optics. The question was asked, "When do we use the wave theory of 
>light or the particle theiory of light?'. The answer, 'Use what gives 
>you the correct answer.'.

I'm glad I didn't have that instructor.
>Or when I built my crystal radio, I had comments on why use a piece of ore 
>for your radio, be modern and use a tube (valve). Well, most diodes 
>nowadays are based upon the that hunk of galena. Or when only a 1/4wl 
>vertical was an antenna. Wow, what happened when Yagi-Udal started to 
>show their antenna? Was that magic?

I have NEVER heard of a time when only a 1/4 wave vertical was an 
antenna. Also, the Yagi-Uda antenna is clearly in agreement with the very 
principles the EH crowd is trying to refute.
>So, basically, what I am saying, I think, is;
>If it works lets try using it then explain somehow how it works.

That is the basic problem- No independent investigator has substantiated 
that it works as claimed. . Since "science" is one of the subjects of your 
post, remember one of the prime parts of the scientific process- any new 
theory or postulation is not considered validated until the results of the 
claimant are duplicated by others, independently. This is what shot the 
"cold fusion" claims down.
>That poynting vector is magic even though it (a vector) does point. I 
>have not fuly grasped it so it must be magic. Why do some call a small 
>loop antenna a magnetic loop? I thought that all antennas had both the E 
>and H vectors?

No comment except that the second sentence tells it all.
>Chris opr VE7HCB
>>>>>>- - -
>Your moderator for this list is:
>Larry Wilson KE1HZ [email protected]
>_______________________________________________
>Antennas mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/antennas

Bill Aycock - W4BSG
Woodville, Alabama 
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
 text/plain (text body -- kept)
 text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html ---