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.

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?

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

"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

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.

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?

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."


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 ...

Regards,
JS

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

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 ________)

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 ...



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.

Really, you need a beginners group ... :-( Won't your mom play with you
today?

JS