Hi Chip, Yes, it's always a pleasure to engage in intelligent discourse with you on The Zed or anywhere Happy New Year!
Steve, Sorry, to break the painful news, but DXCC is not the actual goal of the Amateur Radio Service. P.S. Your "cigar smoking" analogy seems to reek with smouldering mansplain
Most people are aware than there is more to propagation along a radiator than a simple formula, but this is the simplified version and will get you a basic 40M wire dipole without learning algebra or downloading a design program. We don't expect the Amateur Radio Operator to be an Engineer, after all, Amateur Radio enthusiasts come from literally all walks of life and ages. Amateur Radio is such a multi-faceted thing. Some may excel at Community Service while others just like building. For some Amateur Radio is a tool to augment their calling, and for some it is a learning tool. You must not read history as this isn't exactly a new phenomenon. It is prevalent in both the Scientific and General communities and it applies to more than Amateur Radio...
If the story is true....consider: Edison asked the engineer to calculate the volume, not measure it. Two very different things.
I do not know why anyone is arguing with Onno. Have you not noticed he never posts anything in reply? The ensuing arguments says more about the personalities of the commenters than it does of the OP. God help us, Onno is wrong on the internet.
Yeah - the "dead horse" anecdote has already been used .... you can find mathematics to fine-tune your antenna wire woes all you like. At the end of the day, the best you can do is approximate. The best antenna people in the world will tell you that every antenna is a compromise of some kind. There is a reason Pi does not resolve .... There is a reason we speak of half-lives when working in a lot of disciplines. Once you tune into that, 468, imho, ain't so bad. For the musician in you, we went through roughly the same shtick when we thought 432 Hz for A above middle C was better than 440 Hz .... then we found out that most music lovers couldn't tell the difference. Sure, we all want to pioneer "something new", but we probably should work on exactly that, rather than scream "You're doing it all WRONG!!" just to get "likes" and "views" ... with so many people doing this, how "new" can it actually be?
Science is a body of knowledge, a 'recipe', as it were, for reality. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. All of these are garnered as hard-earned nuggets, using math as a language of expression. Science is not interpretative. Interpretation lurks from ignorance and/or an absence of sufficient data--when the set of hypotheses cannot be distinguished from same. The basics of ham radio are simple, easy to understand, and necessary to know in order to get a license. Onno's intent is fine: he wants to encourage those who may be puzzled. The problem is that Onno does not have sufficient knowledge to be 'top form' ham radio news on these topics. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is that he has been corrected on just these matters, yet ignores the corrections AND starts yet another problematic thread. This is the third one he has up on top-form , right now. Onno wants us to follow him, for example (its here on the top form Zed page), on his journey to 2M moonbounce--ON CW-- with QRP (5 watts). The physics tells him that it cannot be done, in QSO form. He just ignored that fact when presented with it, and continues on with a 'project update'. Here, he wants 'top form' amateur radio news to convey his opinion on the scientific method, separating it out, for example, from empiricism. That indicates a basic lack of understanding of science. The formulas on dipoles, for example, are not reached by fiddling around. They are approximations taken from hoary , basic physics, guided by what assumptions went into the analysis. Simple formulas are excellent 'rules of thumb' that are practical and useful. IF the basic science is not well understood, these rules of thumb act as 'data input' into the scientific method. Conversely, when they are well understood (as is the case here), they act as approximations of far more complex mathematical descriptions, which are not needed in practical implementation. You don't have to be a 'rocket scientist' in ham radio. But you do need to know the basics, which is what you learned, at least in the US, in studying for your ticket. Be proud of that, and enjoy getting OTA. Continue with learning if you want. We all encourage your journey. 73 Chip W1YW
Its NOT!? Oh no! I've been deluded by the DX gods for 50 years!! ;-) Well, there was George Sands, who never passed up a good smoke! ;-)
Sorry if I repeat some of what others have already said, but I wish to make a point about two important concepts: Simplification and approximation. The usual dipole formula is a derivation from, and a simplification of electromagnetic field mathematics, valid only for a dipole floating unsupported in infinite free space, made from a vanishingly thin wire with velocity factor 0.95, and having a perfect vanishingly small point radio source at the center. If it is used in any other context, such as any real situation, then it is an approximation. How good the approximation is depends upon how far from the valid conditions it is being used. The OP, finding that the formula doesn't work exactly for a real dipole near the earth, jumps to the conclusion that there is something mysterious happening, that science has failed. He either doesn't understand how the formula was derived and how to use it properly, or is feigning a lack of understanding in order to make a lengthy podcast to take advantage of people confused by the topic. If it's the former, then I think he needs to learn a bit more about antennas. If it's the latter then shame on him, in my opinion, for adding to the general destruction of logical thinking and lack of knowledge of the scientific method happening today, especially on social media.
Wow, this is an interesting thread. So far there's been posted every theory short of the practical god of mathematics quoted; Dr Ian Malcolm. You want a NEW HAM, Engineer or Technician of any trade or profession to be successful... Start them off with a thorough knowledge of how to use these things.. and use them well. Maybe you may by the end of your days have been called, "Electro the Magnificent, Gizmo Girl, and maybe if you're really good.. a Total Mad-Scientist / Wizard." Once you have full control and know the proper operation of your tools, you may apply them to: Processor melting levels of number crunching, Shooten From the Hip, or totally winging it (trial and error). These days give me a stack of YouTube videos and a good set of tools and I'll cook ya mean Goulash or replumb your house. and I hate plumbing... Have a great day, I hear Home Depot calling, Erika DD
I tried this methodology in the content of this article in my career as a tech commercial aviation. I work for Walt Disney World now. Works MUCH better here.
