Talk:Crossed field antenna

message: Why did user 62.30.56.43 delete the reference from the expert witness at the hearing regarding the planning permission for the MusicMann279 to build a CFA on the Isle of Man? (Ghostoffcoast (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: IP 82.34.242.12 did this revision of the article at 17:32 on the 26th of December 2010: “The CFA used in the Silsden tests, with an overall height of 13 metres, was of similar height to a conventional antenna for the same frequency.”
Very unsatisfactory with people without any knowledge about the Crossed field antenna get meddling with the article. 
IP 82.34.242.12 spreads misconceptions with the wild claim that a 13 meter high structure tuned as a conventional antenna performs slightly better than an equivalent 1/4 wave vertical monopole as was measured in the West Yorkshire tests.
The standard 1/4 wave vertical antenna mast on that wavelength (200 metres or 1500 kHz) is 50 meters high with some one hundred and twenty 50 meter long copper wires buried radially around it to maintain a high level of efficiency. That is common knowledge and a very well established fact. It is incredible to state that the 13 meter structure tuned as a conventional antenna and without the ground radials can outperform a standard 1/4 wave vertical monopole. If that was a fact why has 1/4 wave high broadcasting mast been built for all this years?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.235.3.218 (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is another misguided idea: It is incorrect to suggest that anyone would use a 50-metre high antenna at these frequencies when a simple umbrella radiator with a height of 10-15 metres is the usual solution, as already stated, at many BBC and commercial radio transmitters in the UK.  That is a reason why there have been no orders for a CFA in the last 12 years from the broadcasting community, as stated in the article.  Quarter-wave antennas are rare at the high end of the medium wave band because they are uneconomic, the comparison is spurious and the comment indicates a lack of knowledge of the subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.242.12 (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Misguided ideas

message: Someone has re-edited the article several times insisting that the CFA was patented in 1986. But according to the UK patent documentation the application was Feb.02, 1988; the UK patent was filed Jan.27, 1989 and the UK publication was Sep.20, 1989. The US patent is dated Oct.13, 1992.
Can someone explain the statement that the CFA was patented in 1986?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.49.215 (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it matter? the thing was patented well over 20 years ago and is no longer a viable product after its many commercial failures.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.41.246 (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: CFA Patent Date?

message: Have to remove this part of the article as the named person has not issued that statement on any web site.
:Incorrect.  More details of the lost deposit of £300,000 paid by the Isle of Man International Broadcasting Company to Kabbary Antenna Technology in 2005 are given on the web .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.82.76 (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect statement on a web site

message: The last two references (i.e. the only ones that are positive about the CFA) are from a website (apparently designed in the 90's) that seemingly exists to promote CFA's. The reports are also hilarious. Not only are there misspellings, which may be excusable, but they have the bias that one would expect a perpetual motion machine report to have. The main tests seem to have been done by the company promoting CFA's. The indpendent tests, done by a company recommended by OFCOM, are noted, but they are apparently "wrong". There are the same kinds of excuses that perpetual motion people use ("it was set up wrong" or "they did the wrong measurement"). I find it rather interesting that they dont actually mention this in the summary of conclusions. I intend to remove these sources, and the parts of the article that are based on them. If someone can give a good reason to put them back, then I will happily do so. Benboy00 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased references