Re: NEC-LIST: Re: NEC-LIST:Simulations of Q and the Chu Limit

In a message dated 11/29/02 10:46:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dbmiron_at_paulbunyan.net writes:

> The 3D fractal loops would also be a puzzle in such an application.
>
> Doug Miron
>

Looks like an airplane propeller. I have no idea what motivated them to try
it. If they would have asked, I could have saved them quite a bit of time. I
don't publish stuff at the 'minimum publishable unit' level. In my opinion,
this research qualifies for that because it answers to no question; is
riddled with selection effects; and has too small a sample.

There is an alarming tendency for some researchers to pick a fractal antenna
out of a hat and then use it as some (anecdotal) benchmark. FEA do, of
course, have some overall attributes which they all share. But what decides
what gets used depends on the application, and an exploration of the set of
available designs to use.

I have no idea why some researchers haven't made this leap. I still see EL
loaded with FEA articles which describe allegedly new designs, which are
merely the same or variations of published fractal images--no effort is made
to say why the design is useful, or to state what new physical insight is
gleaned. And this is an IEE engineering journal mind you.

In astronomy, this would be like someone trying to publish a paper in the
Astrophysical Journal on a newly discovered long period varable star. There
are zillions of them out there: why is this one different? What's really new?
On the other hand a SURVEY is a definite piece of new science, or reporting
some new process insight is new.

If one wants to see what value FEA have in low Q antennas, then one is
obligated to do a SEARCH SPACE of designs. Otherwise its not really science,
and that is a very real turn off to me.

What I see happening now is that while I have had to curtail publishing the
last few years because business requires it, I have by no means inhibited FEA
research by others. What I see often seems at the level of a sophomore or
junior project and does not, in my opinion, extend the state of the art.
Others look at this derivative research and say "hey, what is the big deal'"?
I agree.

Then, of course, I get the brunt of the criticism.

I now have a science advisory borad and their recommendations steer
management towards more publication. So, I am obviously addressing the
criticism that I have just given.

I will post in a few weeks asking for vounteers to critique a MS.

73
Chip N1IR

-- 
The NEC-List mailing list <nec-list_at_gweep.ca>
http://www.gweep.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/nec-list