In article tonline, Roy
Lewallen wrote:

I disagree. Antenna operation (or "theory") is dictated by science. How
the mentioned factors affect antenna performance can all be calculated
from well established, known scientific principles -- no "art" is required.


Hello, Roy and all. While I aggree with the above I think one has to keep
in mind that 50 years ago there weren't software MoM (e.g. NEC) and FDTD
tools around to implement calculations that don't lend themselves to
pencil-and-paper calculation. As a result back then there was
considerable "art" (I would call it engineering) involved in antenna
design. Hams, too, were coming up with many practical designs back then
as well as now. Practical experience was important then and still is.

However, there are some ways where art does get into the picture.
Practical antenna design usually requires tradeoffs, and there isn't
necessarily one optimum solution. Weighing the tradeoffs, often
including cost and time, requires knowledge and skill, and is a creative
process that could properly be described as art -- although the more
science you know, the bigger the bag of tricks you'll have for your
"art" project. And there are often factors which, although completely
deterministic in principle, aren't well enough known or are too complex
to practically include in calculations. There, the skill or "art" comes
in having a sufficient knowledge of the likely effects of those factors
to choose or adjust the design accordingly.

I think you've just summed up what engineering is all about. Mathematics
is an exact science; engineering is not.


What a lot of people call the "art" of antenna design is just a
substitute for understanding. If you don't understand the underlying
science or how to apply it, the only tool you have is Kentucky windage
and guesswork, often called "art" as opposed to real understanding.
While people can very often arrive at a usable solution by using nearly
all "art" and little "science", they have more and better solutions to
choose from as they replace some of that "art" with "science".

That's the difference between hobbyist tinkering and engineering. It's
what allowed the Wright Brothers to be successful when others (who may
have been close to success) failed. The Wrights took the time to
understand the science/physics, performed pertinent experiments and
meticulously collected and analyzed data. These endeavors set them apart
from their comtemporaries in pursuit of powered, heavier-than-air flight.
The Wrights were much more than bicycle mechanics; in their "off" time
they were (aeronautical) engineers. Sincerely,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail:
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337