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.