An
Annual Report--Of SortsAn
Annual Report--Of Sorts
ebruary
is full of antenneX anniversaries for me. The first will mark the close of 7 full
years of regular writing, including the "Antenna Modeling" column. It will also
mark 3 full years as technical editor for the journal. However, I am not as good at
looking back as I am at looking ahead. As Sachel Paige is reputed to have said,
"Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you."
Actually, looking back is pretty good when we review the on-line pages of antenneX. From the theoretical to the practical, every issue has had something to teach, something to challenge, and something to invite further use or investigation. But, as odd as it may sound, there is no time for too much celebration, since so much is yet to be learned, done, and written up for these pages.
antenneX (yes, that is how it is spelled, even if Word and Word Perfect object) is home to all antenna and related work, where the idea of "related work" may include other parts of the antenna system, including transmission lines and impedance-matching devices and circuits. It also includes what happens between antennas, as the regular propagation column will attest. The range of reader interests has no boundaries. Basic theory, mathematical formulations, design and analysis using modeling and range techniques, and practical antennas all have a place in these pages. We have seen reviews of books and software, as well as tutorials on how to get more out of available software.
The "X" in antenneX stands for eXperimentation, and we have seen plenty of that over the years. From Zagis to Teslaverts to CFA antennas, these pages have presented new directions, new ideas, and even new concepts in antenna work. Some results began as tentative conclusions that inspired more work--usually by more people--to confirm the results and to explain why things happen as they do. In the course of the ensuing article-to-article discussion, we have all been invited to deepen our understanding of fundamentals. The context of actual experiments not only familiarizes us with what the fundamentals are, but as well, what they mean for antennas and their operation.
Not everything in these pages has been new. Nor need it be. Many articles have shown us ways to adapt materials designed for other applications to our antenna work. Some have shown us easier ways to achieve standard goals. From simpler construction methods to simpler but accurate ways to calculate antenna dimensions, antenneX has produced a mighty collection of articles useful at the everyday level of antenna planning and construction. You may obtain a CD-ROM with the entire collection of 1,000+ articles through December 2004 as a ready archive of good ideas and thoughtful discussion.
Looking for More Submissions
One of the fascinating aspects of antenneX is that every issue is written by its readers--or at least some of its readers. As we look ahead, we want to invite more of the readership to submit articles. For some, the process of writing is neither automatic nor easy, and the monetary reward may not be great. However, nothing satisfies so much as seeing your own work in print and having it discussed by other readers in nearly 200 countries. By publishing your work, you have the opportunity of finding new avenues to expand your own efforts by pondering the reaction to that initial work.
antenneX
is quite liberal in terms of submission standards, relative to format. Every issue has a
section devoted to submission
guidelines. Of course, the text must be readable, whatever the format of submission.
Most word processors now have both spelling and grammar aids to let you catch and correct
most errors. However, experienced writers should not be cowed by the excessive rigidity of
grammar guidance in word processors. I regularly war against the level of basic ignorance
built into these guides. They are fine, so long as one writes standard declarative
sentences, but at the first sign of a poetic flare or even an inverted construction, the
guide lays on the green underlining. So use these aids wisely. The less experience you
have in writing, the more you may let the writing aids control your word structures, but
as you gain experience, confidence, and an increased sense of the fluid intricacies of our
language, the more you will wish to control the process--and the processor. Still, I never
turn my aids off. They have caught dozens of slips that I could re-read many times without
seeing.
Once upon a time, schools taught a false doctrine, namely that the passive voice indicated scientific objectivity. The active voice, so full of personal pronouns and the like, indicated a dreaded subjectivity. Nothing in the study of language has strayed so far from the truth. An occasional passive sentence may be necessary to link nouns to the sentence preceding it and the sentence following it. But, in the main, stay active. Remember that writers write, scientists and experimenters do science and experimenting. Using "I" is not a crime; it is simple honesty. Moreover, so-called inanimate objects also act. Capacitors store energy, inductor fields expand and contract, and transmission lines (though they shouldn't) do what antennas do--radiate. More specifically, for example, a capacitor holds a charge, leaks, resonates with an associate inductor at a certain frequency, and changes value with age or heat. Similarly for every other noun in the antenna vocabulary.
Notice that "I" is the first-person pronoun that identifies you as the author not only of the article, but also of the work. Beware of using a purely editorial "we," for it sometimes presumes upon the reader. However, use "we" whenever you genuinely include both yourself as writer and the reader in the sentence. We should never be afraid of "we."
Avoid unnecessary extra phrases that do no work, but which have become part of the passive constructions that litter engineering writing. I often encounter sentences beginning, "It can be seen from the graph that. . .." Why not simply say, "The graph shows that. . .." Graphs show, display, illustrate, and demonstrate, among many other talents. Why say "It was found that X is Y," when you can simply say, "X is Y?"
One way to be active and direct is to use the 2nd-person, especially when providing directions for a procedure or for a construction project. If you have an old Heathkit manual in your archives, read a few lines to refresh yourself. "Place capacitor C47 between terminals T4 and T7, wrapping each lead around the correct terminal. Trim the leads. Solder terminal T4, but do not solder terminal T7 at this time. Caution: use only enough heat to solder the connection in order to avoid damaging the component." I have omitted the little box for you to check. However, when writing up a procedures or process, feel free to set the material into distinct steps. How large each step becomes depends on how much we builders can understand and translate in to clear actions in any one step.
On the other hand, I have seen a tendency in some technical writing to make each sentence its own paragraph. That trend is equally hard on readers. Editors immediately believe that the author wants to make the article seem longer than it really is. Write in paragraphs, using a lead sentence (or a summary sentence) to coalesce the material inside the sentences. Making a transition from one paragraph to another in technical writing tends to be easier than it is in fiction or opinion-laden essays. Technical subjects tend to create their own flow. Also remember that you need not and should not have a separate heading or sub-title for every paragraph. Save the headings for major breaks in the flow or major transitions of topics.
Illustrate your work. There are 3 major types of illustrations that we see at antenneX.
1. Line drawings. Almost every computer has enough of a paint program to produce straight lines and other features needed for antenna and circuitry diagrams. Drawings do not have to be fancy, but they should be complete, neat, and clear. Reduce the color level to 2 for black-and-white sketches and to 16 for color sketches. Then save the item in .GIF format (or .TIF for PDF). Any other format is a waste of file space. Color reduction will keep the white background white, rather than the speckled gray that it becomes when using 256 or more colors. For line-based sketches, the .JPG format is a waste and may actually add fuzziness to originally crisp lines and letters.
2. Screen grabs. Many programs let you capture a screen (large or small) and transport it to a paint program for processing and saving. By all means, process the graphic. Add any needed brief text to let the graphics be more self-explanatory. Add a figure number and use that number in the text that refers to the graphic. Delete unnecessary portions of the graphic that do not aid the reader to understand what the picture shows. If the subject mainly uses straight lines, reduce the colors to 16--if possible--and save in .GIF/.TIF format.
Screen grab of inside front
page of the antenneX Library of New Issues
3. Photographs. Digital cameras now rule the technical illustration world. But they carry a price: mastery of the processing to make them usable. My own camera has several settings for resolution, and I have taken photos using up as much as several Megabytes each. When translated into pixels, they end up excessively large, not to mention wasteful of file-space. Process the photo down to a size that is generally usable. Very few readers still use a 640 pixel screen. Most have at least 800, and 1200 is equally common. By setting your photo size to no more than 640 pixels wide, it is possible during final composition here at antenneX to center the photo. But do not even make the photo that wide if that width is not necessary to show certain details. Crop photos to center the main subject and to focus reader attention. Save the photo in as compact a .JPG file as may be feasible.
Paint programs will allow you to place a figure number on a graphic, whatever its type. You may also type in a caption or heading on the graphic. If you do so, then you do not need to externally label the figure or have an outside caption. Be careful with non-white background colors, common on photographs, to use a print position and color that is readable.
As well, be consistent with your notation. You may call the first graphic Fig. 1, Figure 1, or anything similar. If you select one of these forms, use it consistently throughout both the collection of graphics and the text. If you use external captions and do not include the graphics within the text document, then provide 2 things. The first is a notation within the text on the best place to position the graphic. During editing, we shall place it as close as possible to that position. (HTML format allows precise positioning, but PDFs generated from word processing document may require re-positioning to eliminate large blank patches on some pages.) The second item is a list of captions at the end of the text. During editing, we can move each caption to its proper position once we have positioned the graphic.
There are two ways to handle equations that may be part of your text. If you submit a word-processing document, please carefully place the equations exactly where you want them.
If you submit a text intended for HTML formatting,
then please use a word-processor with an equation-making facility or its equivalent to
create the equations. Copy and format the individual equations as simple black and white
.GIFs so that we can place them in the text at indicated positions.
antenneX will give you a chance to review your document after editing into final format. Please be sure to read everything carefully to ensure that the editing process does not change the meaning of what you are trying to say.
These notes cover a variety of items, only some of which appear in the general guidelines that appear in each issue of antenneX. The topics are matters that I encounter each month when editing every article that appears. Do not be put off from submitting an article if you do not have the ability to handle some of these items. Simply let Jack Stone know in advance what your limitations are. Then we can plan the time and work of taking your submission and structuring it for appearance in the journal.
Something New?
A review of several past issues will give you a good idea of the range of articles that we have published in the past. They have covered basic theory down to the rudiments of Maxwell's equations. Some articles have covered theoretical mathematics designed to bridge the gap between those equations and practical calculations. Reports have included experiments and tests of various kinds of antennas, both large and small, both new and old. Other articles have included modeling exercises to elicit various operational potentials and limitations of antennas, both common and unusual. A number of items have shown very practical siting and construction techniques for useful antennas for amateur and other applications.
No frequency is too low and none is too high for an article in antenneX.
No antenna is too new or too old. As we have seen in recent months, no idea--if well
reasoned--is too radical for appearance and subsequent discussion. Finally, no
construction or planning technique--if novel and practical--is too simple or basic to help
any number of antenna experimenters.
Although primarily geared to some aspect of the technical side of antennas, the general field has a human side and therefore a history. Not only is that history interesting, it can also be helpful in tracing out the developments for certain antenna strains. I was enchanted to read an e-mail that the Bruce after whom the Bruce array is named was also instrumental in the development of the rhombic. According to Kraus, Bruce only regretted that his name would be forever attached to the less durable of the two designs. However, renewed amateur radio interest in the all-wire Bruce array for its straightforward construction may alleviate that worry to some extent.
In developing the Moxon rectangle into a serious monoband directional array with a multiplicity of uses, I was intrigued to discover that the antenna had some progenitors in the 1930s. Although Moxon himself developed his rectangle more directly from the independent work of VK2ABQ, learning of early experiments in using fold-back elements and end coupling is fascinating--at least to me. Since early experimenters did not have access to the analytical tools that we have today, part of looking at the historical material is subjecting it, as best possible, to the new techniques to evaluate what sort of performance the early antennas could provide.
Any number of antennas may have both recent and vintage histories of interest and insight. As well, some basic ideas may deserve combined historical and technical treatment, such as Wheeler limits. Some of the most confusing information passed around involves basic nomenclature. When is a wire antenna a dipole and when is it a doublet? When is a directional antenna with parasitic elements a Yagi (or Yagi-Uda) and when is it not a "true" Yagi? What is the difference between a Vee antenna and a quadrant antenna? Is a double-Windom really a Windom at all?
In the history of antennas, many varieties have received post facto names, such as the Bruce array, the Sterba curtain, and the Moxon rectangle. However, a certain set of antenna developers want to plant their names (or, in amateur circles, their call signs) on whatever they develop--perhaps out of a desire to be remembered. It is fascinating--as a human project--to discover which antenna names are which. Did John Kraus or others first call the flat-top phased bi-directional array an "8JK"? (8JK was Kraus' call sign before the advent of prefixes to sort out countries.) Editor's have had a major role--especially in amateur radio circles--of semi-permanently labeling antennas.
The history of antennas is full of antenna names based on what antennas look like. The cubical quad began life as a 2-element array forming the outline of a cube overall with 2 4-sided elements. The rhombic is shaped like one. So too are the V, the T, and the L, whether upright, inverted, or horizontal, shaped like their names. For some of these antenna types, we may pose technical questions of this order: is today's ??? antenna the same as it was in the early days of its existence? Answering the question involves analyzing a wide assortment of both antique and contemporary versions. Such analyses provides us with more than a few historical anecdotes; they give us insight into the antenna's performance and to the goals that the antenna developers were trying reach.
I have looked to antenna history as a fertile field for possible future antenneX articles. The aim is not to supplant any of the current types of articles, but to further expand the range of possible article topics. These notes suggest that story-telling alone is not a sufficient condition for a good article of this type. Rather, such material should combine the historical and the technical in a way that provides us with even more information with which to go forward with antenna work in the future.
The history of antennas is but one avenue for providing fresh insight into antennas. Any other approach that we have not seen in the past but which promises equivalently useful results is equally fit for the pages of antenneX. Let your imagination as well as your technical knowledge be your guide. Of course, when striking out in a new direction of potential antenneX articles, it is wise to provide Jack Stone with an outline before spending too much labor on the finished product.
The ultimate aim is for antenneX readers to play an even larger role in determining the contents of articles. Not only do we want your experimentation, thinking, and writing, we also want your ideas for good articles, especially ones that you can execute if given a go-ahead. The more that you make antenneX your journal, the more it becomes a better journal for everyone. -30-
~ antenneX ~ February 2005 Online Issue #94 ~
Send mail to
with questions or comments.
Copyright © All rights reserved - antenneX©
Last modified: January 01, 2005
