When Klaus got involved with helix style antenna it was a great leap
forward
for antenna engineering. Klaus determined the best helix angle
empirically
and tho he made errors pertaining to gain, the empirical angles for a
helix
are still being used by even the most knoweledgable with respect
to antennas especially NASA. and the milititary
Why do the scientists still refer to these empirical figures instead
of using Maxwell's laws
to determine them? True, deviation from the exact angles does not have
serious
consequences in a lot of cases but why is science not willing to
update its procedures?
If Kraus was in error with respect to gains of long helices antennas
wouldn't it be advisable
to stay with Maxwellian figures?
The present thought is that the angle is somewhere between
10 and 15 degrees, and many dispute these figures. But we blindly
follow the books
on the understanding "all is known" and view in disdain the
"unlikely".
If this were true in WW2 we would surely have lost in the end
Fortuately,
all possibilities were kept on the table. Can we say that is true now
based
on what Wood has stated?.
Was Kraus a God?
Is Roy a God?
If so, must we excommunicate all those that differ, as with Gallileo?
It is well known in Old Europe as Rumsfield called it, that one had to
be carefull
how one viewed himself when taking a seat near the salt, and then to
be told he
actually was not worth his sal tand moved from his place, despite his
personal
thinking with respect to overstating his value.
Is "unlikely" a good reason to put a stake into the ground!
Should we still kill the messenger with respect to antennas?
Food for thought
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG