Eh? Did someone give the author a bad time when they asked about the dipole formula sometime? I've never heard anyone give new amateurs a bad time for asking questions such as this. Mostly it seems like a long straw man argument. As far as the orgins and usefulness of the formula, seems to be pretty well explained here: https://archive.org/stream/TheArrlAntennaBook/Hall-TheArrlAntennaBook#page/n26/mode/1up Just read two pages. They go over electrical length, velocity of propagation, length vs diameter ratio, end effect, and the practical "468" formula. In particular, observe the last paragraph of the section starting, "These formula are reasonably accurate for finding..." Maybe there is more in the podcast, but the text didn't discuss at all the scientific method. 73, Mark.
L/C A ratio, L to C. The Lengths are just a convenient proxy for L (inductance) and C (capacitance) in the overall antenna structure. .
Sorry but I could not disagree more on Hoestadter's central thesis here, because it is flawed. Here is some background information on Hoestadter: "Richard Hofstadter was an American historian and public intellectual of the mid-20th century. Hofstadter became the DeWitt Clinton Professor of American History at Columbia University. Wikipedia Influenced by: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Karl Marx, Charles A. Beard, MORE Education: Columbia University (1936–1942), Hofstadter, influenced by his wife, was a member of the Young Communist League in college, and in April 1938 he joined the Communist Party of the USA; he quit in 1939.[36] Hofstadter had been reluctant to join, knowing the orthodoxy it imposed on intellectuals, and disillusioned by the spectacle of the Moscow Show Trials, but wrote: "I join without enthusiasm but with a sense of obligation... my fundamental reason for joining is that I don't like capitalism and want to get rid of it."[37] He remained anti-capitalist, writing, "I hate capitalism and everything that goes with it," but was similarly disillusioned with Stalinism, finding the Soviet Union "essentially undemocratic" and the Communist Party rigid and doctrinaire. In the 1940s Hofstadter abandoned political causes, feeling that intellectuals were no more likely to "find a comfortable home" under socialism than they were under capitalism." Summary found on Wiki. Even if he may have quit the communist party, Marxism influenced his life and writings. Whether communist, or Nazi, or socialist, one of their central methods for a "power grab" is to find a scapegoat in which to blame your country's economic and/or social ills. In doing so, you divert your underlying and sinister movements from the attention of your power grab to indicting and persecuting an innocent group. In the Nazi case of course, the Jews were the problem as defined by Hitler and his professional propagandists. In Hoestadter's case, he conceived a scapegoat and manufactured a strawman for his anti-intellectual rants: "...an outcome of its colonial European and evangelical Protestant heritage. He contended that Protestantism's anti-intellectual tradition valued the spirit over intellectual rigour." Protestantism contributed to the Scientific Revolution, but weren't the only contributors' to it. Catholics and Protestants alike participated in the development of modern science: Copernicus and Galileo were Catholics, while Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and Newton were Protestants; Vesalius was Catholic, Harvey was Protestant; Descartes and Pascal were Catholics; Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle were Protestant. So Hoestadter's thesis seems to be based more on his distaste of Protestants and their support for capitalism than any real threat to intellectualism. Pheel
Hi Pheel, Yet Galileo and Newton eventually were declared heretics by their respective religious org's. I don't think Hofstadter, who went full circle in his own socio-econ philosophy, blamed individuals of any background. He singled out Protestantism, a theology, as a source of anti-intellectualism in the modern colonies, of course because frankly it was (is?) the majority religion of the dominant upper class power base and therefore was (does?) sometimes get used inappropriately to try to control scientific conversation to support some non-science (political) agendas. Today nearly all traditional belief systems seem to have become overwhelmed by omnipresent and globally networked personal communications flooded by content from mainstream and social media. Again, "Hofstadter argued that both anti-intellectualism and utilitarianism were consequences, in part, of the "democratization of knowledge." IOW, both the elite and the organized angry mobs, even individuals, have learned to use the power of widespread direct personal access for their own objectives, not just to tilt elections but challenge scientific method and academic authority, in all fields. Lets just see who can produce the most popular story. Our votes will decided what's correct. As Bonnie wrote earlier, "clicks-not-facts ". 73, John, WØPV
This is a very interesting topic. In a strange way, is it not philosophical? I believe the study of science used to be called philosophy? There's abductive, inductive, and deductive reasoning involved. We must know that science never "proves" anything, it merely shows likelihood beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is; we start out learning math as an absolute: 2+2 = 4; counting number math. Then comes square root. Wow, the square root of 4 is 2. Nice. But what about the square root of 3. Awe nuts! Then we have irrational numbers, "imaginary numbers", and then pi and circular measurement; and then calculus: limits; the slope of the curve, derivitaves . . . etc. . And then math turns into something that is no longer "exact" . Now we need to figure out how long to make that 80 meter dipole. We have the "formula" that supposedly flawlessly lets us find the "correct" length. But we do not live in a perfect world. So enter empirical evidence and experience in the real world. That "formula" is not "exact" in all cases. We might settle for a 1.01 to 1 swr. But how accurate is the measuring instrument? Plus or minus what? How precise is the measuring? Maybe an swr of 1.25 to 1 is ok? We have to settle for darn close in this world. Keep the finals from burning out, and radiate acceptable quality signals. Fiddle with the antenna, make it better. See what happens. That's the fun of it.
It became 'physics' as opposed to 'natural philosophy' starting with Galileo and Newton The issue is not mathematico-deductive vs inductive; its failure of the OP to recognize that all of this is part of the scientific method. He separates it out. There is no 'mystery'. Are we saying that its valid to make observations and come up with rules of thumb? You bet! ...and THEN see how it fits within an extant body of analytically driven knowledge. Observation drives hypothesis (es). Hypothesis (es) drive analytics and predictions. Predictions consort to data. And data is the Ockham's razor between one hypothes(es) and others. 73 Chip W1YW
Funny... In School, I was shown a balanced transmission line, connected to an RF Source. A lightbulb connected to a pair of alligator clips was moved up and down said open transmission line, and the distance between any of the two "brightest" points found were measured to find a wavelength. With a tape measure. Just a plain old tape measure. I sure am glad that I observed this, BEFORE reading some antenna advertisements... ;-) 73 DE W8LV BILL
Its a big tent. Sometimes top-loaded, sometimes base-loaded. The alternative is to spend 65 some odd dollars (maybe more now) for a license that has to be renewed every two years, and may be subject to review before renewal each term. And then you may not be able to "talk" to anybody else.
