On 9/10/19 3:42 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
On 9/10/2019 3:24 PM, Bob Shohet, KQ2M wrote:
Actually we are saying the same thing.
1) Build it and put it up!
2) Take it down or adjust it and put it back up again.
3) Repeat as needed.
4) Get on and make lots of q’s and have fun
The trouble with empirical designs is that,
even if they work, they tend to be difficult
to reproduce if they have no theoretical underpinning.
You don't know what parameters are important to control.
To me, this is one of the best applications of modeling - you can do
sensitivity analyses fairly easily - If my element is 5 degrees skewed,
does the antenna stop working.
I was having a discussion this afternoon with someone who is making
precision measurements of a dipole pattern with a beacon on a UAV - And
they're modeling the UAV's pattern and finding that "over-refined"
models are a problem. (Ultimately, the goal is to make precision
measurements of a large array of antennas called HERA)
https://reionization.org/
In the case of antennas, you also have the "QTH"
problem, where the antenna behaves differently
in different locations. With no theory, it is
difficult to address this.
There is also the question of what does it mean to
"work"? It makes lots of QSO's ... compared to what?
Especially if someone is quoting an QST article from 1960 on a design
from tested in 1958, when the sunspot number was almost 300 <grin>
(881 sunspot free days and counting!)
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|