On 27 Feb, 11:16, "JIMMIE" wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:35 pm, "art" wrote:





On 23 Feb, 20:05, Gene Fuller wrote:

art wrote:
On 23 Feb, 15:07, Gene Fuller wrote:

To keep it simple, Gauss' Law is precisely one of the four standard
Maxwell Equations. Gauss' Law has been part of electromagnetics and
antenna theory for eons.

As for electromechanics, who knows?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.
Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have expoused on my page.
He doesn't use computor programs but basic mathematics to provide all
the desirables plus a radiation field. This array is really a
derivitation of one designed some 50 years ago and is the only one I
know that exists in literature. If you study this chapter and relate
it to what I am expousing then possible you will see things with fresh
eyes. But again if you are not fully educated in this field save your
self from the bother. I personaly have a program that if you isert any
fugure and tell it to obtain maximim gain I assure you it will not
produce a yagi but a gaussian array........ and I am thrilled with
that.
Nuff said
Art

Art,

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

AAALLLLLL antennas, regardless of structure, material, efficiency,
resonance, location, or phase of the moon are Gaussian. Gauss' Law is an
integral part of classical electromagnetics. Nothing can escape.

No, I do not have an engineering degree, but I do have several degrees
in physics. Unfortunately, I am significantly dumber than a rock, so I
have no more to offer in this thread.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Watch out Gene, I stated that Statics was a subset of electromagnetics
and I caught hell from everybody. Seems like things are infectional
around here.The book that I proferred would really be to much for a
lot of people no matter how much they over estimate their abilities
especially when they try to debate reasons why the writer is incorrect!
When I asked for academic help regarding research I got an Email from
a guy at the space antenna agency who referred me to chapter 1 and 21.
I never dreamt that I would find an actual array with all elements
resonant being discussed

Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

no need to be surprised at having an antenna with elements that are
all phased. I doubt if ther is anyone on the news group that doesnt
know that a Yagi Uda antenna doesnt represent some kind of comprimise
to an antenna with all of the elements feed. No one has ever said
otherwise although you have claimed they have.
The problem with having all the elements feed is that it is
impractical to control power distribution and phasing when changing
frequencies. The Yagi Uda overcomes this problem at a slight cost in
gain. Your idea of an antenna with multiple fed resonant elements is a
giant step backwards to a day when high gain steerable antennas were
impractical most of the hams who didnt have the money or the real
estate for huge arrays

Antenna with multiple resonant element all being fed is very common in
RADAR and space communication, you can achive very high gains in this
manner just as you have stated. It is also very expensive, has narrow
bandwidth and is a mechanical nightmare. NASA, AM BCB, commercial
shortwave stations and various other agencies and private companies
sometimes have a need for this type of antenna and they they have the
money to build them, few hams do. The Yagi Uda antenna just fills a
practical niche in antenna requirements. No ham I know of ever thought
the Yagi antenna was the end-all of antennas as you have claimed.
While it may not have the highest gain it certainly is the most
practical antenna for a lot of us.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jimmie, I have to congratulate you on your posting
and your width of knoweledge.
I for one was unaware that what I call a gaussian
array was in publication and I would really
appreciate a pointer where I could obtain more
information on this. I have a multitude of books with
respect to fields and waves plus antennas but with
the advance of new technologies it is difficult for
my bill fold to keep pace.
As a further favor could you repeat the program test
I proffered in my latest posting? I am asking since
I know that your responses would be very
worthwhile in reading since you appear to be a
scholar that searches for truth
and you would not be afraid to publisize your
program used and result for the benefit
of all.
Thank you for your input and hopefully you
will continue sharing
Best regards
Art KB9MZ

On 27 Feb, 11:16, "JIMMIE" wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:35 pm, "art" wrote:





On 23 Feb, 20:05, Gene Fuller wrote:

art wrote:
On 23 Feb, 15:07, Gene Fuller wrote:

To keep it simple, Gauss' Law is precisely one of the four standard
Maxwell Equations. Gauss' Law has been part of electromagnetics and
antenna theory for eons.

As for electromechanics, who knows?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene, forgive me if I am incorrect but I am going to assume you have
an engineering degree and are fully conversant with the work of the
masters. I f I am not correct then we can stop at this point Otherwise
I fully recommend that you check out the web foe a book on fields and
waves or something like that by a professor at Rutgers University. In
chapter 21 he delves very deeply into an array consisting of four
elements all of which are resonant.
Ofcourse he doesn't mention anything of mine but you will notice that
the array he chose is actually what I refer to as a Gaussian array
since it meets all the requirements that I have expoused on my page.
He doesn't use computor programs but basic mathematics to provide all
the desirables plus a radiation field. This array is really a
derivitation of one designed some 50 years ago and is the only one I
know that exists in literature. If you study this chapter and relate
it to what I am expousing then possible you will see things with fresh
eyes. But again if you are not fully educated in this field save your
self from the bother. I personaly have a program that if you isert any
fugure and tell it to obtain maximim gain I assure you it will not
produce a yagi but a gaussian array........ and I am thrilled with
that.
Nuff said
Art

Art,

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

AAALLLLLL antennas, regardless of structure, material, efficiency,
resonance, location, or phase of the moon are Gaussian. Gauss' Law is an
integral part of classical electromagnetics. Nothing can escape.

No, I do not have an engineering degree, but I do have several degrees
in physics. Unfortunately, I am significantly dumber than a rock, so I
have no more to offer in this thread.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Watch out Gene, I stated that Statics was a subset of electromagnetics
and I caught hell from everybody. Seems like things are infectional
around here.The book that I proferred would really be to much for a
lot of people no matter how much they over estimate their abilities
especially when they try to debate reasons why the writer is incorrect!
When I asked for academic help regarding research I got an Email from
a guy at the space antenna agency who referred me to chapter 1 and 21.
I never dreamt that I would find an actual array with all elements
resonant being discussed

Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

no need to be surprised at having an antenna with elements that are
all phased. I doubt if ther is anyone on the news group that doesnt
know that a Yagi Uda antenna doesnt represent some kind of comprimise
to an antenna with all of the elements feed. No one has ever said
otherwise although you have claimed they have.

If I did it was unintensional. I have always stated that a Yagi
because of its constructional ease is difficult to beat

The problem with having all the elements feed is that it is
impractical to control power distribution and phasing when changing
frequencies.
All problems can be overcome and I only pointed that out because
in this case it was a possibility


The Yagi Uda overcomes this problem at a slight cost in
gain.
Pretty hard to comment here since I am not sure of the application in
mind


Your idea of an antenna with multiple fed resonant elements is a
giant step backwards to a day when high gain steerable antennas were
impractical most of the hams who didnt have the money or the real
estate for huge arrays

If size is what you consider important then the gaussian array
deserves to be looked into in that it maximises the use of volume
and not of length to obtain a desirable which means less property
area for a desired gain.




Antenna with multiple resonant element all being fed is very common in
RADAR and space communication, you can achive very high gains in this
manner just as you have stated.

Yes I have seen this in Antennas for everyone especially the crossed
versions
True they are resonant but they follow a empirical design where as the
Gaussian
design can be seen as superior


It is also very expensive, has narrow
bandwidth and is a mechanical nightmare.

Absolutely not true, if an antenna uses parasitic
elements it is the worst possible choice for antenna bandwidth.
Progression of curves produced by the addition of reactances
clearly points this out.

NASA, AM BCB, commercial
shortwave stations and various other agencies and private companies
sometimes have a need for this type of antenna and they they have the
money to build them, few hams do.

Really they have to know about them before they can be considered of
use
and that is for industrial experts to decide. Checking thru patent
files of the U.S. the only reference I came across under the heading
of a gaussian antenna was not even a specific design of an antenna but
a means
of interpretation and channelisation of information gained
using mathematical theorems of Gauss and Green. Can you help me in
that area?

The Yagi Uda antenna just fills a
practical niche in antenna requirements.

Absolutely but science moves on

No ham I know of ever thought
the Yagi antenna was the end-all of antennas as you have claimed.
Well it is extremely popular tho I am sure that many would
consider discarding it if it improved a Yagi a smidgeon,
contesters are insane about that sort of thing

While it may not have the highest gain it certainly is the most
practical antenna for a lot of us.

I totally agree, for the amateur operator it meets all rational means
unless his plot width is half the width reqyuired for the gain
provided by a yagi At that point many would be willing to look
at alteranatives. Pretty hard to swing a long boom yagi around
on a small ship so you look for alternatives.
Weather people are devising means of measuring weather conditions
by overlaying reflections of weather systems from vertical and
horizontal
radiation and then overlaying them with a minimum fo time difference
which needs a different aproach to antennas. You can not tie up
the advance of science by tying it to a Yagi.
I am not saying you are of that attitude but there are so many
that resiswt change regardless of the cost

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very nice discussion, thanks, not like some of the abusive
forms that have been directed at me which presented zero substance
in support of provided content which amplifys their inadequacies to
all
Very best regards and thanks.
Art KB9MZ

On Feb 27, 11:16 am, "JIMMIE" wrote:

no need to be surprised at having an antenna with elements that are
all phased. I doubt if ther is anyone on the news group that doesnt
know that a Yagi Uda antenna doesnt represent some kind of comprimise
to an antenna with all of the elements feed. No one has ever said
otherwise although you have claimed they have.

The problem with having all the elements feed is that it is
impractical to control power distribution and phasing when changing
frequencies.

This is just not true. A SteppIR does it mechanically by changing the
element lengths. A 4 square does it by switching ports around on a
phasing network. One can buy everything you need to build a generic 4
element HF phased array with computer adjustable LC networks for less
than a few thousand dollars. (see, e.g. LDG's AT200PC tuner with an
RS232 interface)

The Yagi Uda overcomes this problem at a slight cost in
gain. Your idea of an antenna with multiple fed resonant elements is a
giant step backwards to a day when high gain steerable antennas were
impractical most of the hams who didnt have the money or the real
estate for huge arrays

hardly backwards. Phased arrays may well save the day in this era of
ever increasing community resistance to traditional Beam on rotator on
tower installations.

Antenna with multiple resonant element all being fed is very common in
RADAR and space communication, you can achive very high gains in this
manner just as you have stated.

You can get low gains too. or just sharp adjustable nulls, which is
probably more useful.

It is also very expensive, has narrow
bandwidth and is a mechanical nightmare.

Expensive compared to what? We're not talking about a electronically
steered phased array radar here with thousands of elements. I'll bet
the hardware cost of a electronically steered phased array for HF
suitable for ham use is comparable to the hardware cost of a big
tower, rotator, and Yagi.. the phased array just isn't available as an
off the shelf product yet.


NASA, AM BCB, commercial
shortwave stations and various other agencies and private companies
sometimes have a need for this type of antenna and they they have the
money to build them, few hams do.

A ham could build an adjustable directional array of verticals,
essentially identical to an AM broadcast directional array, for
several thousand dollars. Yep, that's a bunch o'bux compared to a
Rockmite and a wire over the balcony railing. But it's not a bunch
o'bux in the context of a big station with a legal limit amp, a state
of the art transceiver, etc. If you're willing to homebrew and
scrounge, you can build computer controlled phasing networks with
stepper motors (or servos), roller inductors and variable caps.
Adjusting it is non trivial, but so is learning Morse code, or how to
use NEC or lots of other things in ham radio.. it's just not
particularly common. All the math and design information is laid out
in detail in ON4UN's book, with the implementation left "as an
exercise for the reader".

Jim, W6RMK

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Feb 27, 11:16 am, "JIMMIE" wrote:
the phased array just isn't available as an
off the shelf product yet.

sure it is, i have one for 80m, and one for 40m that were off the shelf
phasing systems... comtek sells lots of them. and i have a home made one
for 160m.

On 27 Feb, 17:12, "Dave" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

On Feb 27, 11:16 am, "JIMMIE" wrote:
the phased array just isn't available as an
off the shelf product yet.

sure it is, i have one for 80m, and one for 40m that were off the shelf
phasing systems... comtek sells lots of them. and i have a home made one
for 160m.

Look guys all of this is very silly, seems like the interest is more
fore arguments sake
than the search for the real truth. I beg you to use Google to read up
on a conservative field,
it probably will be insinia or something like that.
It clearly states that curl is part and parcel of what constitutes a
concervative field.
Now in this case they point out that curl is zero but at the same time
they point out it cannot be left out and state why. So you all that
are so clever can scan the bottom where an indication on further
information is given on curl. Following up on that tip who find an
expresion that includes time i.e. dt. But you are comfortable with
expedias discussion on conservative fields
and as Roy would say as an out, I don't understand! So we look at the
mathematics and decide for a conservative field there are only two
cartesian dimensions used in the equation and we all are aware that
it is paramount when dealing with equations equilibrium must be
maintained at all times and you cannot destable an "equal " sign".
Since curl was stated in dt terms when we looked it up to maintain
equilibrium on both sides of the equation which extends Gaussian law
with " the adition of a moment in time". All very simple, all laws
are followed and equilibrium is maintained. All we have done is used
all cartesian vectors instead of just two which allows us to broarden
the equation to include a time variant field. Gentlemen this is what
it is all about! I know many are not interested and look at it as an
opportunity to spout off. Some with a bit of education say whoa
you can't do that, but for why? Some people want me to write out
mathematical formula which my keyboard is not capable of but why not
argue with expedia instead of me. Now it is being said by some that it
is acknoweledged that the yagi can be beaten! Does your NEC program
confirm that with a sample or does it always print off a yagi. If you
have got a program that can test that out then do it for your own
good. If you haven't then point out the mathematical errors stated if
not for your own good and satisfaction. I know it is difficult to get
a horse to drink but eventually one comes along unaware of the
situation tries things for himself and then looks up and ask what
everybody is waiting for! I have given two areas that you can research
in moments
so that you can debate my errors.For goodneas sake put aside all
pettines and one upman ship and show all that you really are men.If
you are a mathematician then debate around that point. If you are just
a hobbyist but have a computor program then follow that route to cut
me down, but do something that is worthwhile. How many have an answer
to the computor test I gave, probably nobody because their findings
were embareasing. Who with a knoweledge of physics is willing to put
his stake in the ground and debate from that side, probably none. Quit
babling about "I want"
and think more in line with "I can"
Art
Art

"Dave" wrote in message
news:4G4Fh.15798$sv6.284@trndny08...

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Feb 27, 11:16 am, "JIMMIE" wrote:
the phased array just isn't available as an
off the shelf product yet.

sure it is, i have one for 80m, and one for 40m that were off the shelf
phasing systems... comtek sells lots of them. and i have a home made one
for 160m.


And 160 and 80 and 40 is where these antennas have there niche. Where the
big yagi isnt so popular or practical. I wouldnt think of putting up a Yagi
for 80 either but I might put of a couple of towers I can run in or out of
phase.

Jimmie

Jim wrote:
I'll bet the hardware cost of a electronically steered phased array
for HF suitable for ham use is comparable to the hardware cost of a big
tower, rotator, and Yagi.. the phased array just isn't available as an
off the shelf product yet.


The fully steerable phased array that can also handle 1.5kW TX power is
not available as a HAM product off the shelf yet... but we can already
see where the future is headed.

Many people already have four-square phased arrays for the lower HF
bands, but we have hardly begun to tap their true potential.

The design company Plextek has a downloadable demonstration which shows
what a four-square phased array can really do:
http://download.plextek.co.uk/AKS06.zip

The user interface is a bit clunky, but stay with it...

The program starts with an omnidirectional pattern, receiving signal 1
coming from 90deg (blue arrow at 3 o'clock). The thermometer bar at the
top right is showing a positive signal/noise ratio (green).

Click in the 'Interferers' columns to bring up either one or two
interfering stations which are the yellow arrows. The thermometer bar
now shows a negative s/n ratio on the wanted signal (red).

Now the fun starts: in the 'Algorithm' column, click on 'SMART' to turn
on Plextek's proprietary adaptive array software - watch the phased
array reconfigure itself automatically. The pattern adapts to null out
*both* of the interfering signals, while still keeping a lobe pointing
towards the wanted signal. The wanted signal reappears from under the
QRM and its s/n ratio increases dramatically.

You can then drag the interfering signals to different directions, and
the array keeps on adapting. The only case where it can't give any
improvement is where the interfering signal comes from exactly the same
direction as the wanted signal.

All this is done by varying the amplitude and phasing of the signals
from each of the elements before combining them. The 'WEIGHTS' table at
centre right shows what is required. On transmit, the same directional
patterns could be achieved by applying the same weightings to the
currents that are fed to the four elements - or of course you could
switch to a different pattern while transmitting.

OK, this is only a demonstration. It doesn't consider signals at a range
of different vertical angles; it doesn't consider the big practical
problems of achieving the correct current weightings when all four
elements are interacting; and it doesn't consider how to handle the TX
power. Even so, it will open your eyes to what a phased array can really
do.

It's all down to the magic phasing box at the centre of the array.
Whatever goes into that box will be hard to design, complicated to
control, and expensive to build... but most four-square owners would be
happy to have even a fraction of those extra capabilities.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

On Feb 28, 12:29 am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Jim wrote:
I'll bet the hardware cost of a electronically steered phased array
for HF suitable for ham use is comparable to the hardware cost of a big
tower, rotator, and Yagi.. the phased array just isn't available as an
off the shelf product yet.

The fully steerable phased array that can also handle 1.5kW TX power is
not available as a HAM product off the shelf yet... but we can already
see where the future is headed.

---------
snip
----------
It's all down to the magic phasing box at the centre of the array.
Whatever goes into that box will be hard to design, complicated to
control, and expensive to build... but most four-square owners would be
happy to have even a fraction of those extra capabilities.

I think it might be a bit of time before it's an off the shelf product
(lack of demand is part of the reason).
It also depends a bit on just how good you want the performance to be
(null depth, primarily.. forward gain is not very sensitive to phasing
and amplitude accuracy), and whether you want to make it an antenna
system that just hooks onto an existing rig and PA, essentially
hanging off a single feedline, or whether a higher level of
integration is desirable or feasible. (for instance, rather than power
combining a bunch of solid state amp modules like the current kilowatt
class SSPAs do, put a power module on each antenna)

"the magic box in the center of the array" is more the former model,
and while simple conceptually, in the long run probably isn't the best
way to solve the problem in a system context. For instance, a multi
channel receiver, which can do all the phasing, very precisely, at low
levels, either with analog or digital processing, can give you the
nice deep nulls and adaptation.For TX, though, null depth isn't as
important as maximizing the power squirted in the right direction.

Hardware wise, the design isn't particularly complicated (any of the
current crop of automatic antenna tuners can serve as the building
block). Hard to control is mostly a matter of calibration and the
right algorithms (and, yes, non trivial, but so is building a tetrode
or FET power amp that's stable from 10 to 160, etc.). Expensive is
more a matter of "compared to what".. You can buy a kilowatt autotuner
for $500, so, assuming you needed 8 of them to control 4 elements (a
single L network can only give you 90 degrees of phase shift, and you
need 180).. that's $4K. Probably need some relays and transformers,
as well as controller. I'd figure $6K, today.. But that's "off the
shelf" assemblies. and not purpose designed. Start comparing that to
the $10K to put up a tower and a Yagi (comparing new prices to new
prices, plus building permits, etc.) and the phased array starts to be
competive.

So.. not today, but I'd figure that in 10 years, you'll start to see
real broadband phased arrays (not just 4-8 switched beams in a single
band like a 4 square). They provide a real solution to restricted
space installations, if nothing else, because you can make effective
use of the "volume" of space within a small suburban lot (i.e. the max
theoretical gain from an antenna that fits in a box that's say,
15x30x10 meters is pretty high).

Jim, W6RMK

On 28 Feb, 23:20, wrote:
On Feb 28, 12:29 am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote: Jim wrote:
I'll bet the hardware cost of a electronically steered phased array
for HF suitable for ham use is comparable to the hardware cost of a big
tower, rotator, and Yagi.. the phased array just isn't available as an
off the shelf product yet.

The fully steerable phased array that can also handle 1.5kW TX power is
not available as a HAM product off the shelf yet... but we can already
see where the future is headed.

---------
snip
----------
snipe). They provide a real solution to restricted
space installations, if nothing else, because you can make effective
use of the "volume" of space within a small suburban lot (i.e. the max
theoretical gain from an antenna that fits in a box that's say,
15x30x10 meters is pretty high).

Jim, W6RMK

Jim, this volume approach to gain versus linear length comparison
sounds very interesting but I have not seen any reference to it
anywhere. Basically a gaussian array say for a single feed point
makes full use of volume where other antennas which are of planar form
lose out. With a planar design one can extrapolate gain by number of
elements combined with length e.t.c but I have not seen any such gain
calculation for a volume,can you help me there?
I have found that the number of elements with respect to contained
volume is a good measurement where the array is contained within the
1/2 wave length cubed beyond which it appears to have reached its
maximum. This means having covered a real estate area of half that of
a yagi but with equivalent gain.
Ofcourse one can gang arrays together if one uses multiple feeds
but I haven't personaly pursued that approach as yet.
Glad to see you posting, most informative
Best regards
Art

Jim wrote:
On Feb 28, 12:29 am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Jim wrote:
I'll bet the hardware cost of a electronically steered phased array
for HF suitable for ham use is comparable to the hardware cost of a big
tower, rotator, and Yagi.. the phased array just isn't available as an
off the shelf product yet.

The fully steerable phased array that can also handle 1.5kW TX power is
not available as a HAM product off the shelf yet... but we can already
see where the future is headed.

---------
snip
----------
It's all down to the magic phasing box at the centre of the array.
Whatever goes into that box will be hard to design, complicated to
control, and expensive to build... but most four-square owners would be
happy to have even a fraction of those extra capabilities.

I think it might be a bit of time before it's an off the shelf product
(lack of demand is part of the reason).
It also depends a bit on just how good you want the performance to be
(null depth, primarily.. forward gain is not very sensitive to phasing
and amplitude accuracy), and whether you want to make it an antenna
system that just hooks onto an existing rig and PA, essentially
hanging off a single feedline, or whether a higher level of
integration is desirable or feasible. (for instance, rather than power
combining a bunch of solid state amp modules like the current kilowatt
class SSPAs do, put a power module on each antenna)

"the magic box in the center of the array" is more the former model,
and while simple conceptually, in the long run probably isn't the best
way to solve the problem in a system context.

That is very true. Unfortunately, the ham market is divided up into
physically separate compartments of transceivers, power amplifiers and
antennas. That is a severe restriction which makes all the technical
challenges much more difficult.

However, we can try to pare the problem down a little.

Another important point is that the concept of 'market demand' is
beginning to break down in ham radio. The big manufacturers are
increasingly challenged by new products that pay no attention to the
market - they spring directly from some individual or small team
deciding they're going to do it.

Then maybe the design is produced as a kit, or manufacturing is taken up
by some lower-tier company that is faster on its feet. Seems good to
me...


For instance, a multi
channel receiver, which can do all the phasing, very precisely, at low
levels, either with analog or digital processing, can give you the
nice deep nulls and adaptation.For TX, though, null depth isn't as
important as maximizing the power squirted in the right direction.

That seems a good place to cut the problem down to size. By all means
continue to use the existing phasing networks for TX, with 4 or 8
switchable directions and fixed phasing; but switch the antennas over to
a totally separate network for RX.

At the lower power levels, the RX network could be much more complex and
versatile, combining the signals from the four (say) antennas with
amplitudes and phasing that could be varied on the fly.

Another way to scale down the problem is not to be too ambitious about
automatic null steering. In ham operating it is often difficult for a
computer to identify which is the wanted signal and which is the QRM, so
maybe let's not try. Semi-automatic null steering definitely would be
within reach, where the user has a control to steer the null direction
manually for the best audible results, and the computer does the math to
select the required network parameters.


So.. not today, but I'd figure that in 10 years, you'll start to see
real broadband phased arrays (not just 4-8 switched beams in a single
band like a 4 square).

Yes, I think maybe so. We already have most of the technology for an
advanced manually steerable RX array, so it's mainly a matter of
integrating the separate parts of it to make a practical design. Someone
just has to decide to do it... and maybe they already have.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK