Fractal Antenna
EI5DD
Would anyone have a copy of an article from either 73 or CQ magazine
somewhere around the 90's which contained an article on how to
construct a Fractal Quad antenna for 10 metres. The design was based on
work done by Nathan Coen N1IR.
Steve (EI5DD)
--
EI5DD
danl
Popcorn! GET YER HOT BUTTERD POPCORN HERE! Popcorn!
N9JBF
>Whisper< Does the Buffoon still come around?
Wayne
"EI5DD" <EI5DD....@radiobanter.com> wrote in message
news:EI5DD....@radiobanter.com...
remember him ever giving details to QST or to this group, but he did
eventually provide construction details on a "fractal vertical". Brings
back memories of spirited discussions. :)
--Wayne
W5GIE
Bill
amdx
I looked through my Communications Quarterlys and found summer 1995
has an article "Fractal Antennas Part 1, Introduction and the Fractal Quad"
You might be able to build an antenna from the article, I couldn't.
They sell the article here.
http://www.fractenna.com/nca_reprint.html
I don't know if part two was ever printed.
Chip took a lot of heat about this idea, probably would have
saved himself a lot of grief if he would have skipped the whole ham thing
and just started marketing them as shrunken antennas.
Mike
amdx
"danl" <danin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ainh510c1eviue0d...@4ax.com...
he is selling a bunch of them.
Mike
Art Unwin
> "danl" <daninxpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2ainh510c1eviue0d...@4ax.com...> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:44:30 +0000, EI5DD
>
> >>Would anyone have a copy of an article from either 73 or CQ magazine
> >>somewhere around the 90's which contained an article on how to
> >>construct a Fractal Quad antenna for 10 metres. The design was based on
> >>work done by Nathan Coen N1IR.
>
> >>Steve (EI5DD)
>
> > Popcorn! GET YER HOT BUTTERD POPCORN HERE! Popcorn!
>
> > N9JBF
> > >Whisper< Does the Buffoon still come around?
>
> I don't think he is buffoon, he had an idea that was novel and looks like
> he is selling a bunch of them.
> Mike
No he isn't a buffoon, he had a Doctorate! Yes this group did go after
him with insults e.t.c. until he finally left and went into business
leaving the group devoid of experts again. He has several law suits
filed against the biggest phone makers in the world where they were
using his ideas with out his knowlege and not paying for them.If it
is found that he is correct that other phone makers felt they had to
use his ideas to stay in business then it would appear the ideas had
merit.
He wasn't the last antenna expert to leave the insults from this
group,
Tom W8ti was one , Litchfield is another who left, Llewellen rarely
appears now and there were a lot more that left. The pseudo experts
are still here and easily recognisable and there are many a day that
the newbies will not come near this newsgroup to ask a question. No,
Chip was not a buffoon and is laughing all the way to the bank despite
criticism from those from those who decided there was no need to go
to college or even high school because they could holler louder than
anybody else and win.
amdx
"amdx" <am...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:f3623$4b1c5b44$18ec6dd7$49...@KNOLOGY.NET...
summer 1995, spring 1996, summer 1996 and winter 1996.
I dont know if any are construction articles.
Mike
J. Mc Laughlin
Dr. Nathan Cohen
See also US Patents: (some may have been missed) (just antenna related)
6104349
6140975
6127977
6445352
6452553
6476766
6985122
7019695
7126537
7145513
7190318
7215290
7256751
7345642
7456799
and perhaps five published applications
This set must have cost a serious amount of money.
73, Mac N8TT
--
J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA
Home: J...@power-net.net
tom
> Dear Group:
>
> Dr. Nathan Cohen
>
> See also US Patents: (some may have been missed) (just antenna related)
> 6104349
> 6140975
> 6127977
> 6445352
> 6452553
> 6476766
> 6985122
> 7019695
> 7126537
> 7145513
> 7190318
> 7215290
> 7256751
> 7345642
> 7456799
>
> and perhaps five published applications
>
> This set must have cost a serious amount of money.
>
> 73, Mac N8TT
>
What those patents cost to get would make a handsome annual salary.
Especially if any were initially rejected.
tom
K0TAR
Bill
> On Dec 6, 7:47 pm, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "danl" <daninxpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2ainh510c1eviue0d...@4ax.com...> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:44:30 +0000, EI5DD
> > > <EI5DD.5614...@radiobanter.com> wrote:
>
> > >>Would anyone have a copy of an article from either 73 or CQ magazine
> > >>somewhere around the 90's which contained an article on how to
> > >>construct a Fractal Quad antenna for 10 metres. The design was based on
> > >>work done by Nathan Coen N1IR.
>
> > >>Steve (EI5DD)
>
> > > Popcorn! GET YER HOT BUTTERD POPCORN HERE! Popcorn!
>
> > > N9JBF
> > > >Whisper< Does the Buffoon still come around?
>
> > I don't think he is buffoon, he had an idea that was novel and looks like
> > he is selling a bunch of them.
> > Mike
>
> No he isn't a buffoon, he had a Doctorate!
A non sequitur. Look at posts by frac...@aol.com and decide about
buffoonery. Cohen loved to threaten people. http://opsyhopsy.com/MiscJunk/who_is_nc.htm
Art Unwin
> On Dec 6, 9:20 pm, Art Unwin <arthurun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 7:47 pm, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
>
> > > "danl" <daninxpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:2ainh510c1eviue0d...@4ax.com...> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:44:30 +0000, EI5DD
> > > > <EI5DD.5614...@radiobanter.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>Would anyone have a copy of an article from either 73 or CQ magazine
> > > >>somewhere around the 90's which contained an article on how to
> > > >>construct a Fractal Quad antenna for 10 metres. The design was based on
> > > >>work done by Nathan Coen N1IR.
>
> > > >>Steve (EI5DD)
>
> > > > Popcorn! GET YER HOT BUTTERD POPCORN HERE! Popcorn!
>
> > > > N9JBF
> > > > >Whisper< Does the Buffoon still come around?
>
> > > I don't think he is buffoon, he had an idea that was novel and looks like
> > > he is selling a bunch of them.
> > > Mike
>
> > No he isn't a buffoon, he had a Doctorate!
>
> buffoonery. Cohen loved to threaten people.http://opsyhopsy.com/MiscJunk/who_is_nc.htm
He stood up for himself, nothing wrong with that
JIMMIE
Folding wire in a fractal pattern to shorten an antenna is probably as
good as any other way of folding wire. Maybe better than some.
JImmie
Art Unwin
Correct, Maxwell's laws referes only to the distributed loads which
remain in place no matter what you do to the wire. For way to long the
notion of straight radiators have been staked into the folk lore of
radio
by those who oppose change. Actually it was present members of this
particular group who attacked his ideas as a false technology without
presenting proof, only derision. A line eagerly joined by the pseudo
experts from the CB era, some of which remain today.
JIMMIE
>
> - Show quoted text -
Antenna physically shortened by bending the wires is certainly not new
to amateur radio as any ham with a small yard will atest. To say that
these antennas will work without degradation when compared to their
unaltered counterparts is just wrong.
Jimmie.
Jeff Liebermann
<arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>He wasn't the last antenna expert to leave the insults from this
>group,
Ever consider what motivates the real experts to spend their time
answering questions? I'm certainly no expert, but I do try to answer
what little I can. For me it's learning something new and a karma
boost in helping others learn and understand. Passing on my
experiences and knowledge and all that.
Now, contrast that with the signal to noise ratio of this group. There
isn't any question or discussion that doesn't get derailed into
politics, philosophy, and some really off the wall physics. The
dedicated experts will try to untangle the mess, and inject some
reality into the discussion, with little results. All the time and
effort spent in honestly answering on topic questions gets lost and
wasted in the apparently endless and useless pseudo science
discussions, none of which have any obvious applications to antennas.
Little wonder the experts get tired of wasting their time, and go
elsewhere.
I have some ideas on how to solve the problem, but since I'm sometimes
part of the problem, I'll leave my foot in my mouth where it belongs.
I suggest you also reflect on whether you're part of the solution or
part of the problem.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> I have some ideas on how to solve the problem, but since I'm sometimes
> part of the problem, I'll leave my foot in my mouth where it belongs.
> I suggest you also reflect on whether you're part of the solution or
> part of the problem.
Or to inject some more meaningless physics, part of the precipitate?
:-)
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
Jeff Liebermann
<g...@cable.mendelson.com> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> I have some ideas on how to solve the problem, but since I'm sometimes
>> part of the problem, I'll leave my foot in my mouth where it belongs.
>> I suggest you also reflect on whether you're part of the solution or
>> part of the problem.
>
>Or to inject some more meaningless physics, part of the precipitate?
>Geoff.
More like natural philosophy or possibly fizzix. It's also more like
flocculation than precipitation. With a precipitate, all the rot just
settles to other bottom, where it's easy to separate and identify.
With flocculation, the rubbish seems to appear out of nowhere and turn
into flakes, while the topic of discussion remains suspended in
solution.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocculation>
Let he who is free of off-topic, irrelevant, pseudo-science, and
useless comments, cast the first follow up.
Michael Coslo
So does this fractal antenna perform better than any other antenna? They
seem like a solution so a specific problem, not as the sort of thing you
would use if say you wanted high performance or had space to put a more
conventional antenna into service.
- 73 de Mike N3LI -
Michael Coslo
What I'm curious about is what exactly does he own? Does he own the
fractal patterns? the formula to derive the fractal patters. Just what?
The Madelbort and Julia sets? If it the above, I'm outta here to go get
a patent on Pi and all it's applications.
Michael Coslo
That's the point I don't get, Jimmie. I don't know that anyone is
saying these antennas don't work. I think its a matter of just how well
they work. The answer is often "not very".
Yes, we can get a lot of things to radiate. Wires folded in a fractal
pattern will radiate, so will wires folded in a random pattern. Woe is
the day someone gets a patent on "random".
Antennas that are a tuned circuit on top of a length of coax will
radiate - at least the coax will.
So what? When I was a kid I made a little model of a radio telescope
antenna out of copper wire and Aluminum foil. It was about 12 inches in
diameter. Took a wire and attached it to an old radio. It worked better
than no wire attached. Not that I'm going to promote it as a good
antenna though.
Lostgallifreyan
news:hfoj9v$741u$1...@tr22n12.aset.psu.edu:
> Woe is
> the day someone gets a patent on "random".
Nope. Celebrate it. If it happens the patent system will lose credibility as
a protection, let alone value for money, and people will rely on copyright
law instead. Maybe that needs reform but the patent system is irredeemable in
my view. The sooner it is terminally discredited the better.
That was off-topic, I know, but I withstood a few temptations already, and I
won't get carried away. I don't expect everyone to agree so I won't argue it.
if someome makes something work, and can get paid for the actual work, good
for them, I don't think anyone should stand in the way of that. If people
want to protect ideas, write them down, date them, and copyright them. That
way plagiarism is preventable but suppression of anything remotely resembling
it is not a legal option. And people won't be able to make claims for garbage
while citing patents that shouldn't have been granted anyway, and wouldn't,
if those granted could understand what was behind the obfuscating nonsense
that some try to pass as a real invention.
/rant.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Woe is
>the day someone gets a patent on "random".
Go to:
<http://www.google.com/patents>
and inscribe "random" or "random antenna" into the search box.
Michael Coslo
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:29:51 -0500, Michael Coslo <mj...@psu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Woe is
>> the day someone gets a patent on "random".
>
> Go to:
> <http://www.google.com/patents>
> and inscribe "random" or "random antenna" into the search box.
I did google fractal. I can see that the different inventors do seem to
be using similar fractals for their antennas. It looks to me as if what
is needed for me to design my own without fear of infringement would be
to just do some minor change, get my own patent, then there ya go.
Cohen's particular patents seem just fine as far as I can see.
Not specifically involved with fractals, but with the concept of patents
in general, it looks as if we are seeing intellectual property rights
run rampant. While no one should be denied the fruits of their
cleverness, the system has devolved to the point where people are just
ginning up patents with minor changes in hopes that someone infringes on
them. Then they hit the jackpot, you bet.
The system kind of reminds me of the rednecks who play the disability
lottery, hoping to get hurt so they can collect.
Sal M. Onella
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:20:17 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
>
> >He wasn't the last antenna expert to leave the insults from this
> >group,
>
> Ever consider what motivates the real experts to spend their time
> answering questions? I'm certainly no expert, but I do try to answer
> what little I can. For me it's learning something new and a karma
> boost in helping others learn and understand. Passing on my
> experiences and knowledge and all that.
>
> Now, contrast that with the signal to noise ratio of this group. There
> isn't any question or discussion that doesn't get derailed into
> politics, philosophy, and some really off the wall physics.
< snip >
Remember, I offered a Swell Prize for anybody who produced an
algorithm to predict when a thread was going to turn ugly -- or at
least go goofy. It hasn't been claimed. Art?
Sal
JIMMIE
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:29:51 -0500, Michael Coslo <m...@psu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Woe is
> >the day someone gets a patent on "random".
>
Jimmie
Dave
pick a random number between 0 and 100, somewhere in that number of
postings any thread will turn ugly, change topics, or go completly
crazy.
Jeff Liebermann
<sob...@cox.net> wrote:
>Remember, I offered a Swell Prize for anybody who produced an
>algorithm to predict when a thread was going to turn ugly -- or at
>least go goofy. It hasn't been claimed. Art?
Easy. Create a list of the most frequent posters. Include the number
of postings they create per month, and the number of original lines of
text they add each month (don't include quotes and blank lines).
Select the top 3 posters, that have the smallest ratio of postings to
new content. These are the ones that traditionally change the topic
with one or two line inflamatory remarks. When they appear, the
thread is sure to go awry.
Also create a list of first time posters, who do NOT start a thread,
but only comment on it. These are guaranteed topic drift candidates
as long time posters directly attack the new poster, rather than his
comments.
A 3rd class of posters are those that supply pure opinions, without
any substantiation, examples, or anecdotes. Any thread that starts
out this way, will invariably include an example demonstrating that
the original allegations are wrong. It's at this point, that the
thread will go off into the minutae of the example, drifting away from
the original opinions.
Please send my prize to the address below.
George Csahanin
"Bill" <k4...@arrl.net> wrote in message
news:ea37b291-57c8-4b52...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
I was threatened with a lawyer by him in the 90's simply because I
questioned his theory.
He made no attempts to befriend the group.
GeorgeC
danl
The way he acted, not what he knew or how many he could sell
determined if he was a Buffoon...He was/is.
Wayne
You must admit that there was a certain amount of entertainment in Chip's
postings. If someone asked him a simple question, such as "how long was the
longest element on the antenna you built"....he could have just said "x
feet". Instead, he would post a 6 paragraph rant and direct the person
asking the question to some obscure publication.
danl
wrote:
He was great entertainment as a Buffoon! He just never caught on to
the fact he was the featured headliner. If threats to sue people were
money, many here would be much wealthier than they are now!
Many people use the phrase,"They laughed all the way to the bank".
Which may be true, but does not lessen the fact that some are just
destined to be Buffoons. It is their "lot in life", "their fate". No
matter how much money he makes or fame he acquires, be will always be
a Buffoon.
Dan
N9JBF
Art Unwin
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:09:56 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"danl" <daninxpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9bfsi5l9aijr0vg17...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:47:28 -0600, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
>
> >>>"danl" <daninxpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The over welming importance of the Fractal antenna is that it
ALWAYS presents a resistive load when discounting proximetry effects.
Thus leaving the problems of efficiency to the "matching" issues.
Dave
>
> - Show quoted text -
no, it doesn't. go re-read some of fracky's original posts and you
will find out that a dipole is the degenerate case of any fractal
folding algorithm, and since we all know dipoles exhibit non-resistive
impedances when not at resonance that statement is just simply wrong.
Dave
>
> - Show quoted text -
no snappy comeback for that art? are you slipping? or are facts
pesky things to be avoided?
Art Unwin
> On Dec 6, 7:47 pm, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "danl" <daninxpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2ainh510c1eviue0d...@4ax.com...> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:44:30 +0000, EI5DD
> > > <EI5DD.5614...@radiobanter.com> wrote:
>
> > >>Would anyone have a copy of an article from either 73 or CQ magazine
> > >>somewhere around the 90's which contained an article on how to
> > >>construct a Fractal Quad antenna for 10 metres. The design was based on
> > >>work done by Nathan Coen N1IR.
>
> > >>Steve (EI5DD)
>
> > > Popcorn! GET YER HOT BUTTERD POPCORN HERE! Popcorn!
>
> > > N9JBF
> > > >Whisper< Does the Buffoon still come around?
>
> > I don't think he is buffoon, he had an idea that was novel and looks like
> > he is selling a bunch of them.
> > Mike
>
> him with insults e.t.c. until he finally left and went into business
> leaving the group devoid of experts again. He has several law suits
> filed against the biggest phone makers in the world where they were
> using his ideas with out his knowlege and not paying for them.If it
> is found that he is correct that other phone makers felt they had to
> use his ideas to stay in business then it would appear the ideas had
> merit.
> He wasn't the last antenna expert to leave the insults from this
> group,
> appears now and there were a lot more that left. The pseudo experts
> are still here and easily recognisable and there are many a day that
> the newbies will not come near this newsgroup to ask a question. No,
> Chip was not a buffoon and is laughing all the way to the bank despite
> criticism from those from those who decided there was no need to go
> to college or even high school because they could holler louder than
> anybody else and win.
Apparently it is" Fractus" that is the company sueing several
companies and not "Fractal"antennas. I thought they were one and the
same companies,So I am in error. Thus I apologize for this error. So
let it be clear, that it is not Chip and his company that is pursuing
the other phone manufactures but another company of like
name
With respect to Chip's designs. What I consider important is that his
radiators do NOT contain, or produce, any lumped loads in their
manufacture that are not canceled leaving just distributed loads. Thus
for the given actual length of the radiator ( the equivalent stretched
radiator length) the impedance is strictly resistive, neglecting
proximetry effects. This meets the intent of Maxwells equations where
lumped loads DO NOT EXIST when accounting for all forces involved in
radiation. The only deviation from Maxwell that I can see is that it
does introduce sharp bends which also introduces phenomina with
respect to current lamina flow, where excess eddy current flow is
introduced, which is additive and not subject to cancellation.
Art Unwin KB9MZ...xg
JIMMIE
>
> - Show quoted text -
Art, how does a current through a lumped inductance behave contrary to
Maxells equations?
Jimmie
Art Unwin
That is pretty obvious! If you review Maxwell equations you will see
reference to root L.C, where L and C refers to distributed loads only
and is not inclusive of lumped loads. Adding a lumped load introduces
unbalance or a deviation from equilibrium, which is a fundamental when
reviewing the laws of the Masters.
Mathematics demands of every equation that the metrics MUST
cancel to zero. Thus all metrics involved must consist of pairs.
If one introduces a lumped load via building considerations then
another one has to be introduced so that the metrics are able to
cancel
out to zero.
In the case of the slinky antenna it thus demands that the windings
must be equal and opposite.
Art
Dave
always good for a laugh isn't he jimmie?