|
small antennas
I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small
antennas I see that many antenna labs use such things as their purpose in life as well as more energy efficient antennas but they are not producing anything. It also appears that they are also not interested in spending any time on such research. If you go to the Illinois University antenna lab they are all sitting with computors expecting something of interest will pop out without them putting any thing positive in in the first place. So is there really somebody being hired to produce small antennas? Same situation with hams as they fight at the very idea of the possibility of small efficient antennas that like the Universities do not want to hear of the possibilities One doctorial student at Illinois University in Central illinois stated that they have so many requests for review of antennas by the populace it is not unusual to ignore the pleas of the local populace presumably based on the premise that if it was possible they would already have done it. They have teachers way more intelligent than ordinary peopleand, where one spends most of her time working on behalf of the IEEE that research or computer operation has to be put to one side. If there really was an interest in diverse antennas instead of personal promotion maybe our tax dollars would be better spent. Yes, I write off the University of Illinois as they have never produced anything as pioneers in antennas especially with the departure of the log periodic designer that they paid hansomly to hang out there instead of there own Universities. So to sum up puting U of I to one side, is there anybody in Industry who desires small antennas or Universities investing time in such things ?. When O when is anything going to happen in the small antenna areana or is the need actually ficticious because of diminishing returns with the use of such? What Universities in the U.S. that are serious about small antennas and what have they produced in the last couple of years? If they can't or deny the possibilities then why fund them? It is your money. But then who cares, we have antennas already so we don't need anymore especiually when denial of the new suggests that all is known. |
small antennas
On Sep 15, 2:33*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small antennas I see that many antenna labs use such things as their purpose in life as well as more energy efficient antennas but they are not producing anything. It also appears that they are also not interested in spending any time on such research. If you go to the Illinois University antenna lab they are all sitting with computors expecting something of interest will pop out without them putting any thing positive in in the first place. So is there really somebody being hired to produce small antennas? Same situation with hams as they fight at the very idea of the possibility of small efficient antennas that like the Universities do not want to hear of the possibilities One doctorial student at Illinois University in Central illinois stated that they have so many requests for review of antennas by the populace it is not unusual to ignore the pleas of the local populace presumably based on the premise that if it was possible they would already have done it. *They have teachers way more intelligent than ordinary peopleand, where one spends most of her time working on behalf of the IEEE that research or computer operation has to be put to one side. If there really was an interest in diverse antennas instead of personal promotion maybe our tax dollars would be better spent. *Yes, I write off the University of Illinois as they have never produced anything *as pioneers in antennas especially with the departure of the log periodic designer that they paid hansomly to hang out there instead of there own Universities. So to sum up puting U of I to one side, is there anybody in Industry who desires small antennas or Universities investing time in such things ?. When O when is anything going to happen in the small antenna areana or is the need actually ficticious because of diminishing returns with the use of such? What Universities in the U.S. that are serious about small antennas and what have they produced in the last couple of years? If they can't or deny the possibilities then why fund them? It is your money. But then who cares, we have antennas already so we don't need anymore especiually when denial of the new suggests that all is known. If you are looking for a University to compare with try Rhode Island I don't believe any University can show antenna results in the past few years that are better than those produced in any other state. What has your State University done that is notable? |
small antennas, a lament
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:33:35 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: What Universities in the U.S. that are serious about small antennas and what have they produced in the last couple of years? If they can't or deny the possibilities then why fund them? It is your money. Let's just cut to the chase, the U of Illinois gave you the bum's rush. When all your writings read like Marx's manifesto instead of science, who would blame them? If there were universities on every block, and caped dons wandered the streets, you would still have only an empty tin cup sitting on the corner waiting for the first plunk of a nickel. But then who cares, we have antennas already so we don't need anymore especiually when denial of the new suggests that all is known. Put the cup to better use and go buy a laté. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
small antennas
"Art Unwin" wrote
When O when is anything going to happen in the small antenna areana or is the need actually ficticious because of diminishing returns with the use of such? __________ Art, O please note that even an infinitely small isotropic radiator has a peak (and r.m.s.) intrinsic gain of 0 dBi in free space. A linear, 1/2-wave dipole has only 2.15 dB more peak gain than that for those conditions, due to the shape of its radiation pattern. If you can prove, and others can replicate your claims that the radiation performance and efficiency of your shoebox antenna with equilibrium/ particle theory/ tilt etc compares favorably to an isotropic radiator or some other known and proven reference antenna, then your critics will disappear. Technobabble and hand-waving do not count. Neither does scoffing at decades of field-proven research and practice in antenna engineering, while at the same time claiming that the "masters" support your concepts (even though your concepts are unproven). Otherwise your posts about this will continue to be viewed with high skepticism and scorn, and rightly so. Probably you will duck behind your "patent claim" now, as you have done in the past when pressed for details. And so it goes (and goes, and goes). RF |
small antennas
Just how do we get more metal up in the air by making them smaller? And how
do we do that so that it can go in your pocket with the portable without poking a hole in our pants? Up till now, the answer has been to put up with poor performance and put a base station (cell site) everywhere you can. The physics says you either have to put the antenna where there is signal, or you will have to put the signal where the antenna is. Even if you could get 10db gain in your pocket, how do you get signal there? Right now, I suspect the real gains to be made are with minimizing matching losses. When you are talking short, the primary concern is to somehow minimize the losses in a matching network that actually contributes to the useful radiation pattern. We need some advances in transmission lines for minimal losses and convenience of use. You need to be able to think practically to start with, unless your primary concern is marketing hype. "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small antennas I see that many antenna labs use such things as their purpose in life as well as more energy efficient antennas but they are not producing anything. It also appears that they are also not interested in spending any time on such research. If you go to the Illinois University antenna lab they are all sitting with computors expecting something of interest will pop out without them putting any thing positive in in the first place. So is there really somebody being hired to produce small antennas? Same situation with hams as they fight at the very idea of the possibility of small efficient antennas that like the Universities do not want to hear of the possibilities One doctorial student at Illinois University in Central illinois stated that they have so many requests for review of antennas by the populace it is not unusual to ignore the pleas of the local populace presumably based on the premise that if it was possible they would already have done it. They have teachers way more intelligent than ordinary peopleand, where one spends most of her time working on behalf of the IEEE that research or computer operation has to be put to one side. If there really was an interest in diverse antennas instead of personal promotion maybe our tax dollars would be better spent. Yes, I write off the University of Illinois as they have never produced anything as pioneers in antennas especially with the departure of the log periodic designer that they paid hansomly to hang out there instead of there own Universities. So to sum up puting U of I to one side, is there anybody in Industry who desires small antennas or Universities investing time in such things ?. When O when is anything going to happen in the small antenna areana or is the need actually ficticious because of diminishing returns with the use of such? What Universities in the U.S. that are serious about small antennas and what have they produced in the last couple of years? If they can't or deny the possibilities then why fund them? It is your money. But then who cares, we have antennas already so we don't need anymore especiually when denial of the new suggests that all is known. |
small antennas
On Sep 15, 3:33*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small antennas You are probably correct if you are speaking about "small" antennas as they relate to HF. No longer is there that much demand for shortwave bands to communicate with, as you well know. This is the information age and the relative bandwidth of HF is so small is to render HF useless, even for simple email if widespread usage were desired. There's not much money in it. No money, no research. Even if you had a shoebox 160m antenna that worked, your market would quickly reach saturation point. You might get an enthusiastic reception by the readers of CQ magazine or be honored by the folks at ARRL but not much more. Is that why you are trying to link your antenna "discoveries" to finding the holy grail of the Grand Unification Theory? |
small antennas
|
small antennas
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:33:35 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small antennas You might want to look at the IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation. Most issues are full of articles on new ideas on how to design and model small antennas that can be effectively crammed into a cell phone or PDA. Same with antennas that fit in missiles, inside UAV's, and other tight locations. It's not a trivial exercise as smart phones may soon have many more radios inside (Cellular, Wi-fi, cellular data, Bluegoof, AM/FM/TV/Mobile-HDTV, 915MHz for TV remote control), and WiMax). Unless I missed something, your rants seem to lack any specifics, URL's, references, examples, substantiation, and most obvious, are lacking in numbers. If you want to enhance your credibility, I suggest you do some reading and searching, before manufacturing yet another wasted rant and denunciation. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
small antennas
On Sep 16, 12:58*am, John Smith wrote:
wrote: On Sep 15, 3:33 pm, Art Unwin wrote: I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small antennas You are probably correct if you are speaking about "small" antennas as they relate to HF. No longer is there that much demand for shortwave bands to communicate with, as you well know. This is the information age and the relative bandwidth of HF is so small is to render HF useless, even for simple email if widespread usage were desired. There's not much money in it. Amateur Radio has been dying for decades ... just a fact. *Only the reasons are debatable. No money, no research. I believe the AM Broadcast Band is very much alive and well ... they would greatly appreciate a "small antenna." No, they are declining if you are talking about anything over 200m. They are also losing spectrum for example in 40m to amateurs. Even if you had a shoebox 160m antenna that worked, your market would quickly reach saturation point. You might get an enthusiastic reception by the readers of CQ magazine or be honored by the folks at ARRL but not much more. Is that why you are trying to link your antenna "discoveries" to finding the holy grail of the Grand Unification Theory? Actually, I see no reason for HF to not be any-more-LESS usable than any other RF Frequency. *Digital voice has simply not been adopted because of the expense in replacing all the analog equipment with digital equipment ... something which is sure to be "fixed" in the future ... John, Quiz Question: Suppose you tried to modulate a 14 Khz carrier with a 50MHz digital signal. Would that be possible? (Y/N) Where would you locate the side bands? (________ and ________) |
small antennas
|
small antennas
|
small antennas
On Sep 16, 3:33*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote: ... No, they are declining if you are talking about anything over 200m. They are also losing spectrum for example in 40m to amateurs. No, the AM Broadcast Band is the MW band, ~.5Mc to ~1.800Mc ... not related to happenings in the 40m amateur band at all ... But I qualified the statement by saying anything above 200m (in wavelegth) which you faithfully quoted above. Minus 2 points for John. John, Quiz Question: Suppose you tried to modulate a 14 Khz carrier with a 50MHz digital signal. Would that be possible? (Y/N) Where would you locate the side bands? (________ and ________) A nut would attempt that ... others would modulate the 50Mhz signal ... and 49.993 to 50.007 ... in a perfect world. OK, now, since 50MHz is being modulated, how much bandwidth will each sideband occupy? Cannot be done, John. HF frequencies can only handle insignificant amounts of data information making them useless in today's digital age. THAT is why (to answer the original question) nobody gives a damn about small antennas on HF frequencies. The data we are transferring today goes far beyond a simple 10KHz voice communication on a small section of spectrum. Even a single analog TV channel occupies 5MHz which I think would cover the entire HF spectrum if it were tried. There are some exceptional HF digital applications which society can find useful in extremely limited applications such as sail mail but even that is quite disruptive due to the wide chunk of HF it occupies for a single email transmission. Really, you need a beginners group ... :-( *Won't your mom play with you today? RRAP IS a beginners group John. |
small antennas
On Sep 16, 4:09*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote: ... No, they are declining if you are talking about anything over 200m. They are also losing spectrum for example in 40m to amateurs. John, Quiz Question: Suppose you tried to modulate a 14 Khz carrier with a 50MHz digital signal. Would that be possible? (Y/N) Where would you locate the side bands? (________ and ________) Yanno'? *This is all closely related to the "Personal Attack Ploy." (also, known by other names) However, this one goes, "I will think up an extremely complex trick question from my gorgeously, exquisitely, intellectual mind. *I will then trip up the "mark" with my beautiful complex and deep plan, and use this error on "subject A" to prove his statement on past "subject B" is wrong, by sheer implication ... " *I see this used on Cecil OFTEN, and by the same ignoramuses a LOT ... I often wonder, "Is anyone here aware enough to wonder if I see this or not? *If others here notice, or not?" * ROFLOL! Most of us tried this in grade/high-school, did not find we got the results we expected, abandoned it, and moved on ... You may wish to consider the same, or not ... however, I do see, with the "resources" available here, this childish ploy is VERY much alive and well! *And, I have noticed it is accepted as being effective, by those ignorant to what it really reflects ... like the petty workings of their small minds! Somehow, this all reminds of a gathering of old men at a botchiball court!, "elmering" a new "Botchiball Recruit." *scratches-head Regards, JS heh heh...but we have it documented in this thread. You fell for it the first time and after your posted your answer you saw what you call the "trick" after thinking about it. Actually, I was only trying to cut through the BS to let you see for yourself why HF is not so valuable in today's information age in which only GHz level frequencies and above are useful for practical quantities of information transfer. But you did catch it, albeit your were a little slow on the pick up. |
small antennas
|
small antennas
|
small antennas
|
small antennas
Art Unwin wrote:
I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small antennas I'm interested, Art. I have a small antenna for 432 MHz and an even smaller one for 1296 MHz. Dave K8MN |
small antennas
Art Unwin wrote:
If you are looking for a University to compare with try Rhode Island I don't believe any University can show antenna results in the past few years that are better than those produced in any other state. Perhaps it takes a small state to research small antennas. What has your State University done that is notable? It has lost two of its three football games. Dave K8MN |
small antennas
Dave Heil wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: If you are looking for a University to compare with try Rhode Island I don't believe any University can show antenna results in the past few years that are better than those produced in any other state. Perhaps it takes a small state to research small antennas. What has your State University done that is notable? It has lost two of its three football games. Dave K8MN What about CalTech, a hotbed of physics.. undefeated in football since 1993.. |
small antennas
Jim Lux wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: Art Unwin wrote: If you are looking for a University to compare with try Rhode Island I don't believe any University can show antenna results in the past few years that are better than those produced in any other state. Perhaps it takes a small state to research small antennas. What has your State University done that is notable? It has lost two of its three football games. Dave K8MN What about CalTech, a hotbed of physics.. undefeated in football since 1993.. Heh. We counted too much on Pat White. Dave K8MN |
small antennas
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small antennas only for very high frequencies. where did art go, bad wx coming again, could use some entertainment! |
small antennas
"Dave" wrote in message ... "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small antennas only for very high frequencies. where did art go, bad wx coming again, could use some entertainment! Do we dare try to resurrect Chip? |
small antennas
"Wayne" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small antennas only for very high frequencies. where did art go, bad wx coming again, could use some entertainment! Do we dare try to resurrect Chip? now that would be interesting, art and chip getting together! |
small antennas
Art Unwin wrote:
I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small antennas I use small antennas all the time. So is there really somebody being hired to produce small antennas? It would be fairly hard to use a small antenna if no one were around to make any... :/ Same situation with hams as they fight at the very idea of the possibility of small efficient antennas that like the Universities do not want to hear of the possibilities Most that deal with small antennas eventually find that there is no free lunch. This attempt at small antenna perfection has gone on since way before I was born. Of course, being that you disregard all previous science, I guess you missed the memo. :( One doctorial student at Illinois University in Central illinois stated that they have so many requests for review of antennas by the populace it is not unusual to ignore the pleas of the local populace presumably based on the premise that if it was possible they would already have done it. And he is right. They have only had about 100 years to work on it. They have teachers way more intelligent than ordinary peopleand, where one spends most of her time working on behalf of the IEEE that research or computer operation has to be put to one side. Delirious jibber jabber disregarded... If there really was an interest in diverse antennas instead of personal promotion maybe our tax dollars would be better spent. Yes, I write off the University of Illinois as they have never produced anything as pioneers in antennas especially with the departure of the log periodic designer that they paid hansomly to hang out there instead of there own Universities. And likewise, neither have you.. So where is the beef? So to sum up puting U of I to one side, is there anybody in Industry who desires small antennas or Universities investing time in such things ?. Yes. But they deal with the real world, not a bunch of conjered up voodoo science. When O when is anything going to happen in the small antenna areana or is the need actually ficticious because of diminishing returns with the use of such? You can't polish a turd and turn it into a diamond. Only people with limited room are likely to be interesting in accepting a decrease in performance, vs using full size antennas. The only place you see me using small antennas on HF is mobile. And while I've spent a good deal of time trying to optimize the efficiency of those antennas, I have no delusions of grandeur when it comes to their efficiency vs say a dipole. I happen to realize that there is no free lunch. What Universities in the U.S. that are serious about small antennas and what have they produced in the last couple of years? Why don't you ask them. Could care less myself.. If they can't or deny the possibilities then why fund them? I don't. It is your money. But then who cares, we have antennas already so we don't need anymore especiually when denial of the new suggests that all is known. Good point, and I agree. I really don't care. I like big manly efficient antennas, not air cooled dummy loads on a stick. :/ If you say all is known, I'll take your word for it. Of course, I know that's not true, but if it applies to you, it's good to know a man who knows his limitations. Clint Eastwood would be proud. :) |
small antennas
NM5K wrote:
Yes. But they deal with the real world, not a bunch of conjered up voodoo science. Funny you should mention that. As, when you peek closely under the hood of the NEC engine (at least the one I use and have the source code to), it does have a bit of what you call "voodoo science", IMHO ... Only people with limited room are likely to be interesting in accepting a decrease in performance, vs using full size antennas. The only place you see me using small antennas on HF Don't forget us guys who are over 50 and getting tired of maintaining large hunks of metal in the sky and fighting the force of gravity Gods to do so (in more ways than one! And, not to mention neighbors, rules, regulations, etc.) With the price of real estate being manipulated near "Hong Kong Prices" (what is that, about a million dollars a sq. ft.?), reduced size antennas will only increase in uses and demand ... Regards, JS |
small antennas
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:12:51 -0700, John Smith
wrote: of the NEC engine (at least the one I use and have the source code to), it does have a bit of what you call "voodoo science", IMHO ... In your Hyper-inflated Opinion. As with many of your opunions, none are supported in accomplishment and I dare say you cannot recite a block of labeled code that conforms to your supposed humility. As with your confidence in reciting the volume of a sphere (and lacking a simple answer to my offering a chord measurement to test your confidence), I can well anticipate your post here, is as much a Troll as any of the rest. You can offer that labeled block of code to support your statement or admit your post is so much babble or your post is yet another troll How many rounds will it take to resolve to one in three? I am sure most here would hammer the last two in a heartbeat and the mole would be whacked twice. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
small antennas
Richard Clark wrote:
You can offer that labeled block of code to support your statement or admit your post is so much babble or your post is yet another troll I asked R2D2 his opinion on this matter, and he went bleeeeppp, sputter, raiiinnnnnngggggggggggg, fart. You can hear it for yourself if you go here and type "bull@#Z$%" into the frame. http://www.r2d2translator.com/ I just asked him if his sensors felt any extra amounts of excrement applied, and he sputtered out another long tirade, which ended up meaning, "well you can see the stupid meter for yourself can't you!!" You can see live streaming of this meter at: http://home.comcast.net/~nm5k/bsmeter.gif |
small antennas
Richard Clark wrote:
In your Hyper-inflated Opinion. As with many of your opunions, none are supported in accomplishment and I dare say you cannot recite a block of labeled code that conforms to your supposed humility. As ... 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard: Doesn't it even embarrass you in the least to make such statements which the mere application of common sense will declare an outrageous lie(s)? The code which comes into play when a gamma match configuration of elements is defined and handed to the NEC engine, along with the proper pf to cancel the inductance of the gamma-rod, should be proof enough .... to any legitimate software engineer with "an antenna hobby." Indeed, any man with common sense who can understand the equation(s) being called to play and their very (rounding/guessing) nature ... Download the code and locate it yourself! It comes in Fortran, Basic and "C" flavors--at least ... if you are intelligent to understand this conversation on even a basic level, you should be able to accomplish that ... Regards, JS |
small antennas
NM5K wrote:
... I asked R2D2 his opinion on this matter, and he went bleeeeppp, sputter, raiiinnnnnngggggggggggg, fart. Somehow, by the very nature of your participation(s) here, I can believe that! ROFLOL Well, I mean, you are liable to interpret your visions as such ... chuckle Regards, JS |
small antennas
Richard Clark wrote:
... How many rounds will it take to resolve to one in three? I am sure most here would hammer the last two in a heartbeat and the mole would be whacked twice. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC And then, of course, there is this little jewel: http://assemblywizard.fr33webhost.co...ristics%20.pdf Citing antennas which NEC has a "bit" of a problem modeling. The author, a professor and amateur, notes that the power is not being "lost" as heat ... so you propose it is being transferred to another dimension? You remind me of the guy who took the boat trip to see the ocean. He departed on the boat upstream at a large river. No one ever bothered to tell him that he had reached the ocean ... he fell overboard ... among his last cries, was heard, "And, I did so want to see the ocean before I died ... gurrgleeee ... " Regards, JS |
small antennas
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:43:38 -0700, John Smith
wrote: On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:12:51 -0700, John Smith wrote: of the NEC engine (at least the one I use and have the source code to), it does have a bit of what you call "voodoo science", IMHO ... In your Hyper-inflated Opinion. As with many of your opunions, none are supported in accomplishment and I dare say you cannot recite a block of labeled code that conforms to your supposed humility. Download the code and locate it yourself! Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate your homework? WHACK-A-TROLL! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
small antennas
Richard Clark wrote:
... Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate your homework? WHACK-A-TROLL! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Due to the insane nature ALL of your postings have taken (and yes, I have noted you have refrained from using quotes from Shakespeare to validate your arguments), all that is left is to point out your insanity. Restating what has been restated has lost all hope of getting though to you ... a shrink would be required now ... perhaps a family intervention? You can prove my time carrying on any discussions with you is valid, if only you can download the source to the Numerical Electromagnetic Code, compile and link it, and feeding it a problem containing a defined gamma, and observing it though a debugger ... if you can't, all you are is a waste of time to me ... indeed, to any of consequence in this debate. Regards, JS |
small antennas
Richard Clark wrote:
... Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate your homework? WHACK-A-TROLL! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC However, you no longer remind of the poor fool drowning in the proof he demands ... You know remind me of this poor dummy: http://www.degendesigns.com/Downloads/TheEasyWay.PDF Talking about "stuff" he has no business discussing ... Regards, JS |
small antennas
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:40:38 -0700, John Smith
wrote: Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate your homework? all that is left is to point out Plenty of wheezing, but not a whisper of support for your own statement. WHACK-A-TROLL! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
small antennas
Plenty of wheezing, but not a whisper of support for your own
statement. WHACK-A-TROLL! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC HEY! Are you guys making fun of my antenna again?! |
small antennas
Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:40:38 -0700, John Smith wrote: Brett, what a feeble way to support your own statements. Above you say you already have the code and have located a bit... Your dog ate your homework? all that is left is to point out Plenty of wheezing, but not a whisper of support for your own statement. WHACK-A-TROLL! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC In this instance, I said what I meant, and meant what I said, and ABSOLUTELY--stand behind it ... if you are pre-Alzheimer's, you already know that ... your real problem is that real men have went underground .... don't count on that as a condition which will alway exist ... fools with no mind and no extrapolative powers bore us (and, you will note, me especially!,) and, if you think I am a bad-A$$, what until you see my son ... ROFLOL Regards, JS |
small antennas
JB wrote:
HEY! Are you guys making fun of my antenna again?! Huh? Did you join forces with Art? grin Regards, JS |
small antennas
"NM5K" wrote in message ... Art Unwin wrote: if it was possible they would already have done it. And he is right. They have only had about 100 years to work on it. Yes. In the 1950's the USAF studied small antennas for the "new" Boeing 707's that they were buying as C-135/KC-135. I remember reading about it in one of the magazines of the time. They apparently were not entirely happy with the antenna that projected forward from the top of the stabilizer. They continued to employ a belly-mount trailing wire on some aircraft at least into the 1980's. (Good info hard to find.) If all the money the Air Force could throw at a problem didn't come up with some magic, do we have a lot of hope??? |
small antennas
Sal M. Onella wrote:
"NM5K" wrote in message ... Art Unwin wrote: if it was possible they would already have done it. And he is right. They have only had about 100 years to work on it. Yes. In the 1950's the USAF studied small antennas for the "new" Boeing 707's that they were buying as C-135/KC-135. I remember reading about it in one of the magazines of the time. They apparently were not entirely happy with the antenna that projected forward from the top of the stabilizer. They continued to employ a belly-mount trailing wire on some aircraft at least into the 1980's. (Good info hard to find.) If all the money the Air Force could throw at a problem didn't come up with some magic, do we have a lot of hope??? Hope for what? Magic? The tradeoffs inherent in electrically small antennas are well known, and each design requires intelligent application of that knowledge to come up with an antenna that's acceptable in size, form factor, and performance for that particular use. Many, many antennas now being designed and ones in common use are electrically small -- the ones in your car's remote control key fob, your Bluetooth USB dongle or cell phone earpiece, and embedded in RFID tags are just a very few examples. With the increasing use of wireless devices, the need for electrically small antennas has grown rapidly, and there are a number of good texts devoted to that specific topic. These texts contain a good treatment of the tradeoffs involved and useful ideas for designs using currently available technology and materials, but no new fundamental theory. Advancements in the art will continue to come with intelligent and clever application of established theory by people who understand the theory and how to apply it, not from tinkerers who lack this knowledge and conjure their miracles by vague hand-waving and bad measurement. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
small antennas
Sal M. Onella wrote:
... If all the money the Air Force could throw at a problem didn't come up with some magic, do we have a lot of hope??? Kinda like, "Look at those pyramids, if we can't build 'em let wrap it up and go home?" Good argument, you go, I'll stay ... Regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com