(no title)
xraystyle | 10 months ago
Same thing with radiation patterns. You can make a directional antenna that has a huge amount of gain in one direction. The trade-off is that it's deaf and dumb in every other direction. (See a Yagi-Uda design, for instance.)
Physics is immutable and when it comes to antenna design there really is no such thing as free lunch. Other than coming up with some wacky shapes I don't really think AI is going to be able to create any type of "magic" antenna that's somehow a perfect isotropic radiator with a low SWR across some huge range of wavelengths.
quesera|10 months ago
Fair analysis -- but of course, there are industries where a funky and expensive radiator optimized for a single frequency could be very worthwhile.
xraystyle|10 months ago
I can talk to the astronauts on the ISS on 2 meters with an antenna I can make out of a PVC pipe and a metal measuring tape using a 5-watt transmitter. Improving that design by 2% doesn't really mean anything useful in this context.
It would usually be vastly cheaper and easier to just increase the transmit power. Or sometimes it's the available power that's the limiting factor, and a 2% increase to the antenna isn't going to matter.
Point is, trying to chase tiny gains in one dimension or another over a thoroughly tested and well-understood antenna design is kind of a waste of time outside of an academic, beard-scratching context.
buescher|10 months ago