*ATTENTION: "RF" & "Antennas" topic

[mamali]

Dear all,
please specify you opinion about separation of "Antenna" and "RF & Microwave" forums, there is a lot of difference between them, more than for example between "IEEE articles&..." and "EDA Articles&...". we (i mean me and who interested in antennas), and our friends interested in RF are often confused in this merged structure. .


and, please vote, even if it is i dont know! i swear it is free :lol:

your friend, marti

 

[artem]

May be we can introduce topic classification based on first topic word . I do not know how to write this in php, but if it is possible to put pull down menu when topic is created with choices Antenna, RF , optics (just example) and give the topic creator ability to choose before submuitting ne topic, then this information can be used to put classification string in front of topic header unambiguosly pointing to subforum .
Later we can use this string in search to filter out only needed subtopic . This approach can greatly reduce number of forums in board while maintaining flexibility and placing closely related topics together .

Strings must be such as not appeared in topic text and header. Let say SUBFORUM1_RF and SUBFORUM2_ANTENNA

btw , what is about separate forum for "Sensors and signal conditioning ".

 

[taf23]

Re: *ATTENTION: "RF" & "Antennas" to

i agree that it should exist an antenna forum....because even if it is a close relation between RF and antennas....still there are a lot of differences...i m new in the field of antennas but i want to study more and when i search the RF and antennas forum i m very confused of all this mixture !

 

[anashar]

Re: *ATTENTION: "RF" & "Antennas" to

Also, antenna array, space-time processing, beamforming could be added to the antenna section. In addition, beamforming and space time processign became the most important topics in 3G and 4G of mobile communications.

 

[sergio mariotti]

RF world is almost everytime "connected" to antennas.
The topics RF and Antenna seems different but are parts of the same system.
A different lenguage, (so a different forum should be necessary for) is spoken by electromagnetic peoples that mathematically study antennas. But this other forum already exist.
So, my opinion is for the "staus quo".

 

[ME]

Having too many forums makes moderating and navigating a nightmare.
Antennas and RF are close related, so I say we shouldn't split the forum. The frequency of posting in this forum isn't that high compared to some of the other forums, so I don't see any need to split the topic.
Most members who knows anything about antennas also know a lot about RF in general. Then they have to visit two forums instead of one.
Some questions might not be seen of one who knows the answer because hed had only visited the other the two forums.

From my experince as a moderator it is best to keep the number of forums to a reasonable amounth. We allready have more than enough forums.

With too many specialized forums there will be too much overlapping and people start posting and looking in the wrong forums and this gives a lot more work for moderators.

 

[plasma]

Re: *ATTENTION: "RF" & "Antennas" to

You definitely right I thought like marti in the past but I change my mind when I saw the convenience of browsing in one forum
when you look in the post of Antenna&RF you learn more then if
you look at one forum. and you can help more people.

maybe change the name to "Antenna&RF" !!!!!! :wink: :wink: :wink:

 

[mamali]

Re: *ATTENTION: "RF" & "Antennas" to

dear rf&antenna buddies ,
i think ME is right, becouse at least he has moderating experience. but we still have the classification problem. well, i think "artem" idea is nice, and practical: having a "subtopic flag". it could finally solve the topic separation problem in all forums of EDAboard. we should tell gulson the idea. bytheway, due to database changes, and a vast set of pages that should be renewed, it may spend a long time to accomplish.
thus, i think the best way now is that the author of post (us!) should specify the subtopic in the topic of the post. let us consider a protocol:

Antenna: add a capital A at the begining of the post.
Microwave and RF: add a capital M at the begining of the post.
General: add a capital G at the begining of the post.

a better way is to add a code (like "110" and "120" at the begining), but i think noone do that!

a standar Microwave and RF topic should be as this:
:arrow: M wideband matching?
{considering wideband matching circuits}
or even:
:arrow: M help!!

a standard Antenna topic should be:
:arrow: A wideband matching
{considering wideband matching of antennas, for example using L-probe or stacked-aperture coupled mic. antennas}
or even:
:arrow: A a question
and standard General topic should be:
:arrow: G wideband matching
{general solutions, such as linear-step method, or another mathematical solutions, or for example matching criteria)

be my guest and tell us about your ideas and opinions,
your friend,
marti

 

[pewang]

Antenna is always effective working relying on the same theory background as the RF and Microwave circuits.
But the optic ,although part derived from the maxwell system, is some different.So is it possible seperate the optic topic to an independance forum?

 

[vagarwal]

Re: *ATTENTION: "RF" & "Antennas" to

I dont agree. RF, Microwave and Antenna should remain integrated else
1. we would see repititions on different forums
2. we will miss out on various important topics

 

[ruth]

Re: *ATTENTION: "RF" & "Antennas" to

:wink:

antenna and rf cannot be separated .
because: a RF system may include an antenna,or to make an good antenna shoud use RF theory at the mean time.eg: sometimes you will design an active antenna. Furthermore ,now an antenna is not just an antenna but a system (eg smart antenna)

 

[leopard]

In my oppinion they should be seperated.
Not so many RF engineer needs to care much about antenna, e.g., me. By the way, RF alone is a huge topic.

 

[zorro]

Re: *ATTENTION: "RF" & "Antennas" to

Dear friends,

I think that although RF and antennas are very related topics from a system point of view, they are different specialities of engineering.

Look for example at the IEEE: there is a “Microwave Theory and Techniques” Society and an “Antennas and Propagation” Society. They have separate publications that cover different topics. I guess that there are many people that are members of both societies, but generally speaking they are different communities.

Following this example, we could have a “RF and Microwaves” forum and an “Antennas and Electromagnetics” forum. The latter could be merged with the “Electromagnetic Design and Simulation” forum.

OK, there is a nonvoid intersection between the two subjects, but the same happens with many other subjects that are kept separated.

So, I agree with the idea of separated fora (or forums).

Best regards

Z

 

[zfl]

Re: *ATTENTION: "RF" & "Antennas" to

Oh,I think it's necessary,in fact,how many people are only engaged in antenna designing?look at another,maybe it's help to new antenna designing .

 

[berraco]

Re: *ATTENTION: "RF" & "Antennas" to

I think they should be separated. So many ingeneers are involved in antenna development, but don't take care about the RF chain behind. Some considerations are common between antennas and RF, but many other are too much different. And with the advent of digital antennas, the differences are growing quickly.

 

[mamali]

Re: *ATTENTION: "RF" & "Antennas" to

well, i think new forums (nested from phpBB2) has beter performance, such as forums in forums. its the final answer for our problem: finding right place tio post, or riht place for discussions!

marti

 

[Cluricaun]

Re: *ATTENTION: "RF" & "Antennas" to

Hi

Cleaned some posts and closed this topic. If anyone having problems with that send me a PM.

/Cl