"Klaus Jensen" wrote in message
...
http://www.eh-antenna.com/library/EH...DEFINITION.pdf

It's pretty bogus. His analysis is over-simplistic: Sure, if you look at the
fields close to a Hertzian antenna, they're *nearly* (but not exactly) 90
degrees out of phase, and thus most of the energy present is just circulating
around rather than radiating, but whatever energy *does* end up radiating is
already present in that near field! It's just that the equations for the
vector magnitudes of the E and H fields have different dependencies on R, so
what you "see" changes as you move away from (or up and down) the dipole. An
antenna with a given applied terminal voltage and radiation resistance
radiates the identical power as any other antenna with the same voltage and
radiation resistance -- the only thing you can change is the *pattern* of that
radiation. Similarly, loss in an antenna comes about from the finite
resistance of the materials constructing it. It's true that this can vary
from one antenna to another, since you can modify the current distribution on
the material and loss is I^2*R, but the paper cited only discusses terminal
voltage and currents (and not current along the antenna itself), so the claim
that it's inherently less lossy is quite dubious.

I'm not suggesting that the "EH antenna" isn't useful, just that the theory
presented is wrong. The deal here is that, in a certain sense, signals *like*
to propagate, and it's surprising what you can string up and still get to work
OK, even though what's *really* going on isn't what you think. See, e.g.:
http://www.w8ji.com/e-h_antenna.htm -- or just Google around some.