On 6/21/2011 6:47 PM, John Smith wrote:

Having all the antenna I want, at this time, I am just too lazy to load
up mmana and see the results ... most run-of-the-mill and
been-around-forever antennas have pretty much been optimized for cost of
materials/work to benefit ratio ... I don't think I have seen anything
new, or even claimed to be new, in decades ... or longer!


I think you're generally right. What the tools give you is the ability
to make a "semi-custom" design that's optimized for a purpose slightly
different than everyone else.

For instance, you might want a 20m Yagi that's optimized for 14.300 as
opposed to 14.050 or something.

Various and sundry multiband schemes also come to mind. Lots of
alternatives for element layout, lots of potential interactions. And
these designs are not well accommodated by analytical techniques or cut
and try on the physical article (because of the interactions at
frequencies well away from the resonant frequencies of some elements).
Doing something like a Force-12 C3 tribander by cut and try would be
tedious at best.

In the VHF/UHF world, where very high directivity is the rule, and
people worry a lot about side/back lobes (for antenna noise temperature
reasons), and because the structure is significant in size compared to
the elements, I think modeling codes are almost essential. And, there's
lots of alternatives to look at (element through the boom, on top of the
boom, connected or not, spacer or not, etc.)