View Single Post
  #127   Report Post  
Old March 31st 08, 10:11 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
[email protected] rmoisescu@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 4
Default Antenna physical size

I find this topic very interesting, including the mandrill part

We all want to have small, broadband, eficient antennas. I believe Art
is right in his original post, today we can have all these
characteristics in the same package. There is no law of physics
forbidding that. Through advances in computation power we can achieve
today in months what took decades in the past and there is much
research directed at these kinds of new antennas. Eventually
everyone will be able to choose and model his own antenna based on the
characteristics one wants, but without the cumbersome dimensions,
without significant bandwith limitations, without major efficiency
compromises. I believe the tradeoff (for it has to exist one) will be
ease of manufacturing.

Incidentally these new antennas have a lot to do with what Art
defines as equilibrium although I don't think he has a clear enough
definition. But it's all related to patterns, patterns which can be
found everywhere in nature an which can be expressed almost entirely
through matemathical formulas. Scaling of antennas is clearly
possible, despite of what the Chu-Harrington limit states ( or to be
fair, by applying them in a new way ).
I eagerly await the day when the 80 meter dipole will be replace by a
small device the size of a shoe box ( although it might be a bit
larger in the beginning ).

Regards,
Robert