When you say "There hasn't been any "new invention" that has re-written
past rules", you must mean "new science always preceeds inventive
exploitation of that new science". Otherwise, there are many
counterexamples -- e.g. vacuum tubes, transistors, fission reactors, and
superconducting magnets. In the fields of molecular biology and
pharmacology, there are plenty of examples of inventions -- drugs --
whose underlying science is not yet understood, but these domains are
unlikely to generate new antenna designs.
While our understanding of "basic physics" is far from complete, I agree
that most new science in this area will be revealed by theorists,
mathematicians, and experimenters with access to high-energy
accelerators -- not as a side effect of someone inventing a new widget.
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Tom Rauch
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 07:30
To: Jon, W4ZW; 'Towertalk'
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] URI magic antennas
> *I agree that the track record for recently announced
> *new antenna inventions has been poor, but are you really *asserting
> that there will be no new antenna designs from
> Dave strikes a familiar chord.
He sure does. There's nothing wrong with hoping for magic.
Unfortunately most people never think in detail about "new inventions".
There hasn't been any "new invention" that has re-written past rules.
The only real changes are in how old technology is applied or how
methods of using the technology are improved.
For example, mutual coupling effects and radiation theory wasn't
rewritten by the Yagi....and if Uda and Yagi didn't "invent" the Yagi
ten's of thousands of others could have just from textbook work. Uda
didn't create anything new, he just filled a need. Same for the Quad. It
is really just two end-loaded 1/4 wl long element Yagi's stacked 1/4 wl
The basic physics have remained unchanged for many hundreds
of years, they have only be defined by more and more
detailed rules. Inventions are really just filling a new
need by applying old rules.
21 feet of wire in a two-foot box at BEST has all the loss resistance of
that 21 feet of wire and all the radiation ability of a two-foot area.
Unfortunately there is no way around that, and there never will be. We
could minimize resistance with better conductors or increase ampere-feet
by making current uniform, but beyond that we are stuck with the basic
That's why all this nonsense...the Fractals, CFA's, CTHA's, DDRR's,
Isopoles, E-H antenna's, etc.....all turn out to be efficiency duds.
Analyzing radiation from a piece of wire isn't a complex or esoteric
science. You make the thing smaller, and current goes up for a given
amount of radiated power. When current goes up, I squared R losses go
It's always worked that way in the past, it will always work that way in
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with
any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
TowerTalk mailing list
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
TowerTalk mailing list