I think most of that is fairly misguided advice when it comes to antennas.
Here's what I don't understand. Of all the things we as hams have under
our control to improve our ability to communicate, antennas are at or
near the top of the list. Up to a certain point (as was discussed here
recently), the effectiveness of an antenna has more bang for the buck
than pretty much anything else we have a handle on. So why on earth do
some hams relegate it to "just put something up and see if it works"?
That can certainly be fun, and I have personally built multiple dozens
of different antennas just for grins, especially over the several
decades I've operated Field Day or gone camping. But if you aren't
trying to optimize your results just admit that you don't really care.
Which is fine, of course. There are lots of aspects of ham radio I have
zero interest in, but antennas isn't one of them and I would have
thought that anyone subscribed to this list was here to learn how to
make better ones.
If you are indeed trying to optimize your antenna(s) , trial and error
is a terrible way to learn how to do it because you can't control enough
of the variables and some variables are even pretty hard to measure.
Multiple iterations are slow, as well as being imprecise (because of the
variables) if you're trying to improve things like gain or pattern or
the ability to be heard in general.
It used to be that we were either stuck experimenting with antennas or
doing laborious mathematical calculations by hand, but even basic
modeling programs have turned that completely around. It isn't that the
models are infallible (they are not) .... it's our ability to quickly
and easily learn from them that is important. As I said above, I have
built many, many antennas over the years and I played around with most
of them to see what would happen, but I've learned far more from looking
at the current distributions along the elements in EZNEC and observing
the effects on gain bandwidth, pattern, and SWR than I ever did with
various experiments. The rest of what I've learned came from smarter
folks than I here on TowerTalk who either understand antenna theory
better than I do or were better at modeling that I am. I can honestly
say I haven't learned much of anything worthwhile from somebody who put
up something and claimed "it worked."
You say no one doubts the results of the experimenter. That maybe true
of the chemist or circuit designer who can control his environment, but
I ALWAYS doubt the results of the antenna experimenter who can't explain
his results with either theory or a suitable model, or both, because I
know in most cases he wasn't able to control or allow for important
variables (propagation, proximity effects, noise variability, etc) and
probably didn't even understand enough to do so if he relied only on his
experimentation to teach himself about antennas. I have a few of my own
examples of this, the most notable being an antenna I tried for Field
Day one year. I wasn't able to do my normal preparation so I modeled a
flat elongated vertical wire rectangular loop fed in the middle of one
of the short vertical segments. The model said it would perform
marginally at best, but it was easy to put up and could be fed on both
20m and 40m, so I went with it anyway. The night before Field Day I
gave it a try and worked an FR5 (FR5DN, I think) first try using 5 watts
from here in Arizona with Q5 CW signals both ways (somewhere I have the
QSL card to prove it). I thought hey, maybe this thing is better than I
thought. It wasn't. I didn't work a single other DX station that night
and the antenna turned out to be one of the worst I ever built for Field
Day as well.
The bottom line is NOT that antenna modeling will always give you the
right answer, but it will make you a heck of a lot smarter more quickly
than simple experimentation will, and in most cases you will at least
know in which direction to make changes if you're trying to make
improvements.
One last example. I recently built a 5 element 6m yagi using dimensions
posted by DK7ZB on his website, and he came up with those dimensions
using modeling software. Most 5 element yagis have a feedpoint
impedance down between 12 and 15 ohms, but his design (others have done
the same) natively gives a 50 ohm feedpoint at a very small sacrifice of
forward gain. It does so by making the first director actually longer
than the driven element. How much time and how many iterations do you
think it would take an experimenter to stumble across that?
By the way, modeling has given me FAR more "eureka" moments than any
antenna I ever built.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 9/11/2019 6:45 PM, Don wrote:
Well put by Mr Fox, Shawn. Reminds me of a little picture frame with
the following which hung on the wall of one of our top engineers in
the test and instruments company I worked for. Smart, learned, well
educated and a dedicated experimenter, determined to defy the 'it has
to be so' crowd. Quite successful.
"No one believes the results of the computational modeler except the
modeler, for only he understands the premises. No one doubts the
experimenter's results except the experimenter, for only he knows his
mistakes'. Beneath was two handwrittenlines on a strip of paper.
"Modeling is not as exciting as experimenting where the outcome can be
an Eureka moment".
I had copied that and tucked it away in my old company history files I
left with.
Don T W7WLL
On 9/11/2019 2:08 PM, Shawn Donley wrote:
I occasionally teach a class on modeling certain mechanical systems
using Simulink. The second slide is a quote from the British
mathematician George E.P Box. I think it may apply to this
discussion as well.
"All models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong,
but some are useful."
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|