Well... Yes, that argument is made with most everything...
It has already been done... everything has been tried... all the answers are
known... there is nothing new to be found out...
(But, just on the outside chance that thinking is wrong: What about LDE
(long delay echo)? You got the answer to that?)
The fact is, most, if not all, of the formulas we deal with are crafted from
things we have first built--THEN we look for a mathmatical explanation to
explain the object we built. While this is better than nothing, it is
slow--exploration by first developing the theory and math--then the physical
object--is much more suited for really finding "something new" and the rapid
development of such objects. (i.e., computers design computers, however,
since antennas can't design antennas--we need computers to design the
antennas.)
Unfortuantly, if all we use are past "rules" and "laws" we can only find the
past!!! Anything REALLY NEW will break all the laws we are currently
slaving under (or, at the least, re-define these laws) with total disregard
to the high esteem we had held these faulty laws.... indeed, being too tied
to the past and "conventional thinking" may hold us to the past...
However, whenever there seems a danger of this happening, then someone comes
in from left field with a new idea, such as quantum physics, and all bets
are off, and the physists and mathematicians are sent off to develop new,
undenighable and final laws to explain it...
If it were all done, if there is nothing new to be found out, if all the
existing data and formulas are totally all there is... WHY THE HELL ARE WE
HERE? Let's go buy one, go home and have a beer...
Fact is, we hate to admit when we are wrong, so, when we are wrong we
quickly move on and say these NEW ideas are what we have really believed all
along!
I am not opposed to the possibility that all that can be known, is known...
however, some guy that doesn't know any better usually suddenly pops up and
you end up embarassed for your beliefs--one more time.
The fact is, I have built those "silly antennas", by hand, with real
materials--then modeled them on mathmatical models, evaluating what is
actual against what was predicted... few ever provide anything but
disappointment. But, I am convinced that while what the developers are
claiming may be "false reasoning" and improper models, there is something
here which has been overlooked and current conventional thinking and models
miss...
However, the antenna design I presented is simply a helical loaded 1/2 wave
which just happens to correspond to 1/4 wave physical length...
It really doesn't challenge any current antenna theory or present anything
new, other than perhaps an unconventional arrangement of wire...
Frankly, I take it as a "leap of faith", but as long as there are
discussions such as these... something new is comming our way right now, we
just won't be able to see it till it gets closer, then we will realize we
really "knew it all along!"
But then the harsh "reality" hits us, we realize and with some
disappointment--that once again it has happened, all the final answers and
laws are known--nothing to do but go home and grab a beer and wait for next
time... grin
Warmest regards
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:14:25 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:
Yet, it seems like such a design would suggest itself to many minds and be
a
good solution to many restricted spaces and, one does ponder why the math,
methods, formulas, software, etc. has not been created to make such a
matter
of childs play--and well documented and explained.
Hi John,
In fact, nearly every "new" idea that hits this board can be found
described with utter simplicity - years ago (10, 20, 40, 80 years).
Very little math is demanded and the record is full of documentation.
The continuous length of coil you describe has been anticipated by one
in using a "slinky." The benefit there is that the springy form
allows one to collapse or extend the coil to find resonance. Use two
of them and you have a dipole.
It performs, and has performed for years. You can buy one too. Why
doesn't everyone use one? The reason goes back years ago to rather
simple terms: size v. wavelength and the number and separation of
nodes. It performs, but not as well as a larger antenna it attempts
to replace. Hence: size v. wavelength is a restriction, there is only
one node, and it has nothing (another separate node) to combine with.
Once you can get your arms around these simple concepts, then you
throw in loss - the numbers get ugly and the pain is real.
We get tons of small antennas touted here.
Many mobile whips seem centered around designs somewhat similiar to the
one
proposed.
However, among the population of those many, when they are all
compared the longstanding traditional designs win hands down. They
win for very simple reasons. The list of rules, so to speak, is very
short.
Unfortunately there are too many simple reasons floating around as new
and improved theory. The test of the newcomer is to separate those
improved theories (noted for their baroque language, elaborate math
and lack of field work) from ages-old results nailed down in rather
ordinary terms.
The new-and-improved theories call upon
- separating the E and M fields;
- unique properties of fractal math;
- improved length efficiency;
- proofs of polygonal analysis;
- super gain;
- over/tight/critical coupling;
- faster than light transmission....
As you can see, the field of simple reasons abound. Some reasons have
their attractive features, but once you try to pull the conversation
into the realm of implementation, barriers to discussion bloom like
weeds.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
|