Paint-on Antennas for Mile-High Airships 77
Bravoc writes to tell us RTI International is reporting that a group of researchers are testing a "paint-on antenna" for high-altitude airships. From the article: "'The successful airship test flights demonstrate exciting possibilities for "paint-on" antenna technologies,' said David Myers, vice president of RTI's Engineering and Technology Unit. 'This new technology can be used to assist with hurricane disaster relief, provide enhanced security of ports and borders, perform science observation missions and improve military communications.'"
Cars have had these for ages (Score:3, Interesting)
Haven't we seen this before? (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember seeing that stuff waaay back when I was a kid, don't see it too much anymore.
What's the point (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not WLAN? (Score:4, Interesting)
Airplanes are well and good but ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I know, it sounds like cartoon physics ...
But I'm only half kidding ...
When can I get this? (Score:3, Interesting)
When can we get a few of these out here?
It would be great for tactical reasons. It would make it much easier to maintain radio como. It would also be cool if they could piggy back Radio and TV on it. There are still many blackout areas in this country.
Been Doing This For Years (Score:5, Interesting)
Originally, I tried creating a fractal antenna out of bent wire, but it was a nightmare, even using a jig to form the fractal portions. Eventually I found that glass and paint that conducts and even liquid solder on fiberboard worked better. The only problem was, you had to change the size of the antenna -- the non-conductive material affects the resonatant frequency. Eventually, I did get a compact 6 m. antenna to work, but it was never worth the trouble. The problem with the stuffs I used: there's a limit to how much power it can take, and it's far less than wire. And, like Tim Taylor, I had to go for "more power." Oops.
I never realized I was doing something unusual. Amateur radio operators will attempt to turn anything into an antenna. I've seen "dipoles" made of cars, doorknobs loaded, etc.
Re:Fractal Antennas (Score:3, Interesting)
I hilltop. For 2 and 4 meters, I use home-built 5 element quad antennas (based on designs in some issue of the ARRL mag -- again, sorry, no references).
I wanted a similar 6m antenna, based on fractals. The fractal, if I remember right, was similar to the 6-pointed star fractal you see everywhere, except based on a square and "innie" instead of "outie." The ratio of the inset piece was slightly less than 1/3 so that, when made out of wire, the wire would never quite touch itself. It was pretty much right out of the magazine article, and looking at my description, you're going to need the magazine article, unless you're into a lot of experimentation! The magazine article gave the basic dimensions. The first one was made out of a stiff copper wire. It worked, but it was easily damaged. That's why I went to painted on thin sheets of plexiglass. I'd create the fractal outline on the computer, print it out, cut it out as a stencil like I do for airbrushing, and leave little tabs to kep it from being so floppy -- tabs I'd eventually have to do freehand. I also tried aluminum tape, but found it was hard for me to work with. The reflector and director elements (I only ever got a 3 element design) were based on the quad elements, using the dimensions from the working antenna to scale the other two. The SWR was too sensitive. A low SWR at home in my basement might mean a high SWR in the field, where the temperature was different. I used thin plexiglass and probably trimmed too much of it, so it was a little too thin. The SWR would go up with power as well. Since I like to QRP, that wasn't much of a problem.
When I closed the car door and it barely bumped the center pole of the antenna and the radiator broke, I gave up. Now I use a single quad for hilltopping. There's much less activity on 6m CW, at least that I can hear, and it feels like the same 10 people on SSB.
Of course, I've never been out there during a band opening. On the other hand, I have worked 2m SSB during an aurora, and that was definitely cool.
Re:Application (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition to being a national defense and a beatings-delivery system, the military is also a giant R&D playground for all sorts of useful future civilian technology.
It actually works out really well this way: Civilian contractors score government R&D contracts to research applications for a new technology. When the R&D is done, the military may get a new weapon system. But even if the military doesn't get a new weapon system, the civilian contractor gets the benefit of a free R&D program, the lessons from which they can bring to the civilian market, without ever having to risk their financial stability by investing themselves in an unproven technology.
It's in the taxpayer's best interest for the government to engage in some level of funding things that might be useful, but which civilian companies don't want to risk researching. One way the government serves this taxpayer interest is to integrate government-funded R&D with national defense advancement.
Everybody makes out. The nation continues to be secure in the face of threats brought about by evolving technology. The economy gets a boost from cheap R&D. Workers and management get paid for doing useful work. Consumers get new and better goods and services.
About the only problem I can see is that some people still insist on complaining that the military is actually willing to foot the R&D bill on unproven new technologies.
You think it'll be such a blessing, why aren't you advancing the state of the art yourself?