FRACTALS and RUMSEY'S PRINCIPLE: New Antenna Insights
Fractenna
shown up stateside as of yet. When it does there will be a press release and
further information to what follows.
This issue contains an article by Robert Hohlfeld and I which re-explores the
basis for frequency independence in antennas. Probably many are aware that I
have struggled with understanding these issues for several years; it is a
subtle and dififcult one, only obvious when someone finally discovers the
obvious. I have known the answer since the Summer, and presented the first
paper dealing with it at ACES two weeks ago. Dr. Hohlfeld solved the problem
analytically in a week last December, an indication of his great mathematical
skill and understanding of mathematical physics. With this analytical framework
the findings are compelling.
Through symmetry arguments on Maxwell's equations, we show that:
1) Rumsey's Principle is a restrictive description of a more general rule for
frequency independence; that rule is:
2) An antenna must be self-similar AND origin symmetric to be frequency
independent.
3) Self complementarity does not provide any basis for frequency inpdendence;
it only provides for invariant--or wideband--impedance;
4) Fractal --as just fractals-- offer no solution to frequency independence.
You need fractality AND origin symmetry;
5) Fractals, like self complementarity, do provide an invariant--or
wideband--impedance.
These are important results in the following senses:
1)They establish the sole, key and necessary conditions for frequency
independence (which have nothing to do with angle-defined structure, save that
such structure is a subset of the possible solutions from these conditions);
2) They point out the profound misconceptions that have been followed since
1957;
3) They remove self complementarity as a candidate requirement for frequency
independence;
4) They establish that so-called 'log periodics' are , in fact, self
similar--fractal-- origin symmetrric antennas;
4) They establish that log periodics, Dyson cones, sinous antenna, and the like
are small subset of the more general--FRACTAL-- origin symmetric antennas ,
another name for frequency independent antennas.
Doubtless there are many here who have expressed legitimate intellectual
curiousity--and many verbal individuals who have displayed less meritritious
comments and concerns-- who have waited for a peer-reviewed, ANALYTICAL
technical paper which establishes the NECESSITY of fractals in antenna theory
and design.
This paper establishes the basic requirement of FRACTALS in the understanding
of antennas--not as an alternative; or an aside; or fraudulent premise, or
magic.
Hope this helps the education on these matters.
Regards
Chip N1IR
K1BQT
>>They establish that log periodics, Dyson cones, sinous antenna, and the like
are small subset of the more general--FRACTAL-- origin symmetric antennas ,
another name for frequency independent antennas.<<
To describe traditional broadband element stuctures as a subset of "fractal"
may have validity--in a purely physical sense. But, in that regard, your own
collection of patterned designs (which carry very specific shape designation
like "Minkowski Island") also represent only a very small subset of that same
nearly-infinite "fractal" universe.
If I trademarked the "Electromagnetic Wave" antenna as my own, would that
position me to claim that all other antennas are simply variations on my
design? I don't think so. My antenna would be just another antenna--and it
may not even be a very good one.
Rick K1BQT
Fractenna
>may have validity--in a purely physical sense. But, in that regard, your
>own
>collection of patterned designs (which carry very specific shape designation
>like "Minkowski Island") also represent only a very small subset of that same
>nearly-infinite "fractal" universe.
>
>If I trademarked the "Electromagnetic Wave" antenna as my own, would that
>position me to claim that all other antennas are simply variations on my
>design? I don't think so. My antenna would be just another antenna--and it
>may not even be a very good one.
>
>Rick K1BQT
>
In addition to being deliberately incorrect, what the heck have your comments
got to do with anything Rick? If you are incapable of understanding this
important scientific result--which I gather is the issue-- then don't try to
divert the post to bogus irrelevancies.
I would be most happy to personally review the mathematics to show you how this
was derived and shown. In fact, if you wish to visit me in my office, I would
be happy to derive the case for you on the blackboard. Dr. Hohlfeld can help
too. Should be fun:-).
This is an illumination of an important HOOK in nature. Don't try to make
someone who has spent years of toil to illuminate this look like an idiot. It
is very much NOT appreciated, and, is one of the reasons I severed our
friendship.
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
ab...@my-dejanews.com
"brownie" points this time, he did send "information", even if it was
"tilted" in the "fractal" frame... and he did not subject the News Group to
the traditional Commercial Plug", on the surface it looks like we are making
some "inroads", I Hope?.
73's
Steve
AB2ET
In article <19990327111120...@ng150.aol.com>,
k1...@aol.com (K1BQT) wrote:
> Hi Chip--
>
> >>They establish that log periodics, Dyson cones, sinous antenna, and the like
> are small subset of the more general--FRACTAL-- origin symmetric antennas ,
> another name for frequency independent antennas.<<
>
> To describe traditional broadband element stuctures as a subset of "fractal"
> may have validity--in a purely physical sense. But, in that regard, your own
> collection of patterned designs (which carry very specific shape designation
> like "Minkowski Island") also represent only a very small subset of that same
> nearly-infinite "fractal" universe.
>
> If I trademarked the "Electromagnetic Wave" antenna as my own, would that
> position me to claim that all other antennas are simply variations on my
> design? I don't think so. My antenna would be just another antenna--and it
> may not even be a very good one.
>
> Rick K1BQT
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ab...@my-dejanews.com
Just when it looked like some we started to see the "Civil" side of N1IR he
decided to start using the BS,MS,and Piled and Deeper stuff, Again.
I guess that I WAS WRONG, N1IR, Please GIVE BACK the (1) "Brownie Points".
Thank You for your understanding.
AB2ET
In article <19990327115310...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,
frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
> >To describe traditional broadband element stuctures as a subset of "fractal"
> >may have validity--in a purely physical sense. But, in that regard, your
> >own
> >collection of patterned designs (which carry very specific shape designation
> >like "Minkowski Island") also represent only a very small subset of that same
> >nearly-infinite "fractal" universe.
> >
> >If I trademarked the "Electromagnetic Wave" antenna as my own, would that
> >position me to claim that all other antennas are simply variations on my
> >design? I don't think so. My antenna would be just another antenna--and it
> >may not even be a very good one.
> >
> >Rick K1BQT
> >
>
> In addition to being deliberately incorrect, what the heck have your comments
> got to do with anything Rick? If you are incapable of understanding this
> important scientific result--which I gather is the issue-- then don't try to
> divert the post to bogus irrelevancies.
>
> I would be most happy to personally review the mathematics to show you how
this
> was derived and shown. In fact, if you wish to visit me in my office, I would
> be happy to derive the case for you on the blackboard. Dr. Hohlfeld can help
> too. Should be fun:-).
>
> This is an illumination of an important HOOK in nature. Don't try to make
> someone who has spent years of toil to illuminate this look like an idiot. It
> is very much NOT appreciated, and, is one of the reasons I severed our
> friendship.
>
> Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Fractenna
An ongoing set of posts (as you suggest) between you and Rick would make
perfect sense.
Maybe you found a new friend?
73
Phil
N1ZKT
CommQuart
I never expected to see such an excellent idea suggested under this thread.
But, I have to agree. An antenna discussion carried on by Steve and Rick
would be most beneficial to the group, I for one would be happy to benefit
from their knowledge and experience!
My hat is off to you, Phil, for initiating such a dialog!
73
Peter
>Gee Steve,
>
>An ongoing set of posts (as you suggest) between you and Rick would make
>perfect sense.
>
>
>73
>Phil
>N1ZKT
Reg Edwards
Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
Reg.
Fractenna
>What a pity Laurel & Hardy are not still around. Or
>Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
>Reg.
>
Yes; thanks for contributing. Now: what does this have to do with the thread?
Can we all return to it; end it; or start a new one?
73
Chip N1IR
ab...@my-dejanews.com
have a Hard time with that multitude of personalities that inhabit that
fountin of "bold expression", or are we back to playing with the Screen names
again.
BTW.. I did not get any ANSWERS from YOU in your N1ZKT personna on my previous
Questions in referance to the so called "70 cm monopole wonder antenna" as
allegedly depicted on N1IR's QSL, or is N1IR indisposed in a higher reality
"Dream State" dreaming up messages that individuals never posted.
Oh! Phil are you a Ph.D.
AB2ET
In article <19990328184945...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
> Gee Steve,
>
> An ongoing set of posts (as you suggest) between you and Rick would make
> perfect sense.
>
> Maybe you found a new friend?
>
> 73
> Phil
> N1ZKT
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
ab...@my-dejanews.com
Oh No Dr.Bill PLEASE, Please spare us from this fate, Another Fractured Fairy
Tale Antenna Thread, how could you do it....
My Vote is to END it; NO more Fractal ANYTHING, Antenna THREADS POSTS Or
Fractal Related COMMERCIAL P-L-U-G Messages, lets give the Fractal it just
repose, no more iterations, this way all can have a nice Easter and Passover
AB2ET
In article <19990328203147...@ng-fv1.aol.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Jeffrey A Maass
: getting worn out with all the fractal shit and antifractal shit. How
: about making a newsgroup for fractal stuff?
alt.fan.chip?
--
Jeff Maass jma...@gcfn.org Located near Columbus Ohio
USPSA/IPSC # L-1192 NROI/CRO Amateur Radio K8ND
Maass' IPSC Resources Page: http://www.netexp.net/~jmaass
Don
Fractenna
>: getting worn out with all the fractal shit and antifractal shit. How
>: about making a newsgroup for fractal stuff?
>
Don, not everything is everyone's cup of tea May I suggest that rather than
resort to scatalogical put-downs, just skip the posts you don't want to read.
Your comment is one of many which indicates that this libelous harassment I
have been subjected to is a continued and focused attempt to get me to stop my
posts : by getting enough people upset, this individual makes others feel the
only way to stop the harassment is to stop the topic. Mr. Sawicki has done this
on the antenna reflector, for example, all fully documented.
Thus my right to comment is intentionally and deliberately compromised and my
reputation is tarnished by the same.
As I have stated many times, I support inquiries and comments of a probing but
civil and scientifically based nature--from anyone.
May I suggest that you direct your concern directly to Mr. Sawicki in this
regard.
73
Chip N1IR
ab...@my-dejanews.com
It has come to my attention that effective April 1st 1999 (AND NO I have been
informed that this is NOT an April Fools Joke) "Frac...@aol.com" has been
PERMENENTLY REMOVED by the Moderator of the "ante...@qth.net" mail list.
This as a result of the third insident involving Chip N1IR that forced the
list to go on full moderation.
I just like to make it CLEAR TO ALL that I AB2ET Mr. Sawicki, had NOTHING to
do with the latest "frecas" that resulted on the "ante...@qth.net" mail
list, It has come to my attention that Chip N1IR DID IT ALL BY HIMSELF, and I
only found out about it after the "deed was done".
It was my understanding that it had to do with some coments from overseas of
"hocus pocus-- a buzz word for FRAUD" and N1IR Past life (1978) at the Arecibo
Observatory (is that not the SETI place) and of course the introduction by
twist of the "tabu" subject, I am still trying to put all of the
relevent facts together.
N1IR has made many "friends" with his and only HIS "style" of "support of
inquiries and comments of a probing but civil and "scientifically" based
nature--from anyone" with such high and lofty aspirations I just wonder why
that "Raskerly Wabit" keeps Picking on him, I just wonder why...
73's
AB2ET
In article <19990401065716...@ng94.aol.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Fractenna
>inquiries and comments of a probing but civil and "scientifically" based
>nature--from anyone" with such high and lofty aspirations I just wonder why
>that "Raskerly Wabit" keeps Picking on him, I just wonder why...
>
>73's
>AB2ET
>
>
>
Mr. Sawicki:
Below is a letter Don Lemke wrote to the moderator you are referring to. I
have, indeed, left this e-mail list. Here is the reason I have voluntarily
left.
Once again, your comments are incorrect and seek to mislead and defame.
I would like you, and a handful of others, to be on notice: I will tolerate no
more hate mail, defamatory activity, and libel.
Mr. Kaufman, my attorney, is preparing a lawsuit against Mr. Sawicki for these
reasons.
These activities of Mr. Sawicki have nothing to do with science or objective
critique. To in any way insinuate that I am suppressing science because I am
being personally harrassed and libelled is wrong and cruel. For example Mr.
Sawicki: you have never presented ONE statement indicating you have a an
objectively critical interest in my work or fractal antennas.
My decision to pursue legal recourse is based upon the mental and physical
duress that Mr. Sawicki has subjected me to, and the lost opportunities which
his harrrasment has engendered.
-----------------------------------
Excerpt copy of e-mail sent to Larry Wilson, moderator of 'ante...@qth.cnet',
by Mr. Lemke:
-------------------
Hi Wilson,
I m supprised that my request to have my views on a purely
technical subject routed to the ante...@qth.net resulted in the
isolation of the kind person who routed those purely technical remarks
from your list.
From what i just read, Chip was attacked for doing this, and from
this point of view, those attackers should be isolated from the list.
Since my posting only had to do with an ongoing technical discussion.
Was relayed to the list at MY request. And was information that was
being overlooked by apparent dogmatic viewpoints.
---------------------
I must add that I strongly--scientifically-- disagree with Mr. Lemke's
speculation--it was regarding the CFA--but so what? I do not know Mr. Lemke; he
has sent me one e-mail which was factually incorrect but nonetheless
interesting. It was a reasonable request to forward his post, and I cordially
did so. I did not suppress this post, nor control the fair exchange of an idea.
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
N1IR
john
(that he's finally been thrown off the antennas reflector).
Good riddance. I'll go resubscribe again.
A lawsuit too? How typical.
Fractenna
>From: john...@mindspring.com (john)
>Date: 4/2/99 8:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3707c300...@news.mindspring.com>
I certainly did not say this. It is most certainly not true. However, if this
is the perception then legal action may be required to clarify, as, indeed,
your post indicates the promulgation of an inaccurate perception.
>Good riddance. I'll go resubscribe again.
>
>A lawsuit too? How typical.
>
I am 44 years old. I have never instituted a lawsuit against anyone.
This is not "typical" behavior for me.
However, no one has undergone the prolonged and debilitating efforts engendered
by a few here and elsewhere. That is unacceptable. It affects my health; my
business; my career; and my family life.
I will not allow such efforts . You should be ashamed , John, by contributing
to them.
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
john
>>Subject: Re: FRACTALS and RUMSEY'S PRINCIPLE: New Antenna SPAM
>>From: john...@mindspring.com (john)
>>Date: 4/2/99 8:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3707c300...@news.mindspring.com>
>>
>>frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
>>(that he's finally been thrown off the antennas reflector).
>>
>
>I certainly did not say this. It is most certainly not true.
A trip to www.qth.net followed by selecting the ANTENNAS
forum , then the ARCHIVES will show a message from the moderator.
The moderator states that the address " frac...@aol.com has
been permanently removed from this list." Furthermore, the moderator
states that he's had to put the list on full moderation three times,
and each time frac...@aol.com has been at the center of it.
You apparently reposted private mail to the list, which
finally got you removed, according to the archives.
You can spin that any way you want... the archives are there
for anyone to review .....
It's good to be back on the antennas reflector.
/John
Fractenna
>forum , then the ARCHIVES will show a message from the moderator.
>The moderator states that the address " frac...@aol.com has
>been permanently removed from this list." Furthermore, the moderator
>states that he's had to put the list on full moderation three times,
>and each time frac...@aol.com has been at the center of it.
>You apparently reposted private mail to the list, which
>finally got you removed, according to the archives.
>
>You can spin that any way you want... the archives are there
>for anyone to review .....
>
>It's good to be back on the antennas reflector.
>
>/John
>
Hi John--
I am indeed on the list; glad we are both on it.. I am not banished from any
list; the moderator has not informed me from such; and, indeed, I checked in
this morning. Would you like me to forward some of the postings from it?
But your comment raises important questions, which I will forward to my
attorney, invoking important issues for the moderator and the list owners.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
73
Chip N1IR
Fractenna
>You apparently reposted private mail to the list, which
>finally got you removed, according to the archives.
>
I posted an e-mail on the list, as I was requested to do by Mr. Lemke. But you
know that... it was re-printed a couple of posts ago.
73
Chip N1IR
john
Fractenna
> >PLONK<
>
Glad to see that the new insights on frequency indepndence have had such a
positive impact on you John!
Vry Best,
Chip N1IR
Fractenna
@qth.net. This should provide a bit of perspective.
I have not been "banished from the antenna reflector". I signed on this
morning, but was so disgusted by the reaction I left.
If ham radio is to have open forums, it has to accept the fact that ideas need
to be discussed objectively and critically. Accusing a peer reviewed technical
journal paper of being 'hocus pocus'is the legacy of some individuals on this
particular (antenna reflector)forum.
I am sorry that something so novel, iron-clad, and interesting is threatening.
But--that is nature. Don't shoot the messenger.
Mr. Lemke's post is:
------------------
Subj: CFA, SuperC, etc (?)...
Date: 4/1/99 12:11:22 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: wb9mjn%wb9mjn....@tapr.org (Don Lemke)
Reply-to: wb9mjn%wb9mjn....@tapr.org
To: Frac...@aol.com
Hi Chip, and the group (Chip, could you forward this on to the
antenna news group, due to the anti-spam software i m unable to send to
it directly for the amprnet)
To me, these antennas, the SuperC, and CFA (as described in the group
postings) appear to be duals of the small magnetic loop. Instead of a
loop of electric current, these antennas set up a loop of magnetic
current. "Magnetic Current" is the term antenna engineers use to
describe displacement current across an opening. "Displacement Current"
was the contribution Maxwell made to Maxwell's equations, to solve the
capacitor problem, and which then showed the possibility of
electromagnetic wave propagation.
I ve been waiting for a few years for somebody to do this, hi. But
have not been interested in pursuing it myself.
--
73, Don.
----------------------------
This is not a private e-mail. I was asked to forward it, and as a courtesy I
did so. Would do it again, too. Well, maybe not for John...
73
Chip N1IR
Edward M. Wright
Great Smoking Dog Vomit !
Folks learn to use your filters !
If you don't want to see posts from Chip or about Fractennas
filter them for goodness sake.
Whining on and on and on and on isn't doing any of use any good.
Read what you want
Filter what you dont
its the USENET way.
Ed
Ed Wright ICQ 5551327 KA9AHQ/7 28.425
A Mind Like Steel Trap: Rusty and illegal in 37 states.
Work: e...@sequent.com Sloth: e...@jps.net
Spam will be dealt with RUDELY and aggressively
Christopher Trask
: frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
: >>(that he's finally been thrown off the antennas reflector).
: >>
: >
: >I certainly did not say this. It is most certainly not true.
: A trip to www.qth.net followed by selecting the ANTENNAS
: forum , then the ARCHIVES will show a message from the moderator.
: The moderator states that the address " frac...@aol.com has
: been permanently removed from this list." Furthermore, the moderator
: states that he's had to put the list on full moderation three times,
: and each time frac...@aol.com has been at the center of it.
: You apparently reposted private mail to the list, which
: finally got you removed, according to the archives.
:
: You can spin that any way you want... the archives are there
: for anyone to review .....
:
: It's good to be back on the antennas reflector.
:
John,
Thank you for going to the trouble of posting this follow-up to
the claim that fracta...@aol.com had left the antenna reflector
volutarily. I was about to post such a message myself.
BTW: Welcome back to the reflector. You can almost hear a PIN
diode drop.
,----------------------. Circuit Design for the
/ What's all this \ RF Impaired
/ extinct stuff, anyhow? /
\ _______,--------------' Chris Trask / N7ZWY
_ |/ Principal Engineer
oo\ ATG Design Services
(__)\ _ P.O. Box 25240
\ \ .' `. Tempe, Arizona 85285-5240
\ \ / \
\ '" \ Technical Editor,
. ( ) \ QRP Quarterly
'-| )__| :. \ QRP ARCI 9464
| | | | \ '.
c__; c__; '-..'>.__ Email: ctr...@primenet.com
http://www.primenet.com/~ctrask
Graphics by Loek Frederiks
Fractenna
> Thank you for going to the trouble of posting this follow-up to
>the claim that fracta...@aol.com had left the antenna reflector
>volutarily. I was about to post such a message myself.
>
> BTW: Welcome back to the reflector. You can almost hear a PIN
>diode drop.
>
Perhaps,, Mr. Trask because of the lack of constructive discussion of
innovative ideas.
For your information, I checked into the antenna reflector this morning and
have the received posts to prove it. I left again: hate mail. As I told you, I
will not tolerate it.
As I was saying...after reviewing your resume I DO recall who you are,
although my impression is minor and not positive.
Weren't you the grad student from Penn State, oh, those many years ago, who
managed to crash the AO computer--hacking as it were-- during my observing run?
Of course--you were not observing at the time. Correct me if I am wrong: did
you or did you not crash the AO computer back then?
And perhaps you would do well to recollect some of our alleged
conversations--tell us what you recall. That would be helpful
Also, since this is THREAD, Mr. Trask, kindly tell us what you wish to
contribute to it.
Regards,
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
Christopher Trask
: >John,
: > Thank you for going to the trouble of posting this follow-up to
: >the claim that fracta...@aol.com had left the antenna reflector
: >volutarily. I was about to post such a message myself.
: >
: > BTW: Welcome back to the reflector. You can almost hear a PIN
: >diode drop.
: >
: Perhaps,, Mr. Trask because of the lack of constructive discussion of
: innovative ideas.
: For your information, I checked into the antenna reflector this morning and
: have the received posts to prove it. I left again: hate mail. As I told you, I
: will not tolerate it.
This is incredible! Anyone who has access to the antenna
reflector digest can read the posting made by the moderator where he
states that one of the reasons for permanently removing YOU from the
reflector was because HE would not tolerate YOUR behaviour. You did
not leave voluntarily, you were permanently removed. Do you have any
idea at all that the entire community here can readily see exactly
what your level of credibility is?
You did not check into the antenna reflector this morning, and in
fact have not been heard from since your participation was terminated by
the moderator. Good riddance. You can now feel free to self-destruct
someplace else.
: Weren't you the grad student from Penn State, oh, those many years ago, who
: managed to crash the AO computer--hacking as it were-- during my observing run?
: Of course--you were not observing at the time. Correct me if I am wrong: did
: you or did you not crash the AO computer back then?
Your memory is just as bad as the rest of your character. I
was not there to do observing, but to design the antenna for the
Ionospheric Modification Facility, and had no access to the AO computer
or the array processor. Your public statement here is intentionally
libelous, but is true to your character, as all of us can see. The AO
computer crashed repeatedly because of the experimental email system
that the observers used to interrupt each other's screens, of which you
were a primary player. You're simply trying to displace your
accountability for own mischief, just as with your having being removed
from the reflector.
Nice try.
Fractenna
>who
>: managed to crash the AO computer--hacking as it were-- during my observing
>run?
>: Of course--you were not observing at the time. Correct me if I am wrong:
>did
>: you or did you not crash the AO computer back then?
>
> Your memory is just as bad as the rest of your character. I
>was not there to do observing, but to design the antenna for the
>Ionospheric Modification Facility, and had no access to the AO computer
>or the array processor. Your public statement here is intentionally
>libelous, but is true to your character, as all of us can see. The AO
>computer crashed repeatedly because of the experimental email system
>that the observers used to interrupt each other's screens, of which you
>were a primary player. You're simply trying to displace your
>accountability for own mischief, just as with your having being removed
>from the reflector.
>
No Chris;
I did not say you were an observer. I said I was an observer. But you were
such an active user of the computer that you crashed it during observing runs.
I never crasjed the computer. Ever.
Chris, t hat affected the observing of many individuals, including myself. I
remember you were reprimanded for this. I presume that is why you have some axe
to grind, which is most unfortunate.
> Nice try.
>
Chris, I am on the list, even now. I was not banned from the list. You need to
make distinctions, just as you failed to do with the above.
In any case, I have no personal nedetta here; I now understand where you are
coming from. Now: I cordially invite you to discuss log periodics, as I have
said in a separate post.
Regrads,
NC
Fractenna
>: For your information, I checked into the antenna reflector this morning and
>: have the received posts to prove it. I left again: hate mail. As I told
>you, I
>: will not tolerate it.
>
>
> This is incredible! Anyone who has access to the antenna
>reflector digest can read the posting made by the moderator where he
>states that one of the reasons for permanently removing YOU from the
>reflector was because HE would not tolerate YOUR behaviour. You did
>not leave voluntarily, you were permanently removed. Do you have any
>idea at all that the entire community here can readily see exactly
>what your level of credibility is?
>
I am well aware that I have made a simple and verifiable, factual statement,
which you call me a liar on. I offered to send you copies of the posts I
received on the antenna reflector yesterday, because I am on it.
> You did not check into the antenna reflector this morning,>
Sure did.
> and in
>fact have not been heard from since your participation was terminated by
>the moderator. Good riddance. You can now feel free to self-destruct
>someplace else.
>
Chris, if this is truly the case, then just let it happen. I have made it very
clear WHAT my motivation for sacrificing my time is: educate those on fractal
antennas. As you have a master's thesis on log periodics--fractal antennas--
you should consider my offer to debate. If I am wrong, then won't that be
sufficient 'self destruction'? If I am right then everyone wins by new
knowledge.
Tell you what: IF you debate me, and --I-- am shown, objectively, to be wrong
on the scientific comments on this thread, then I will STAY OFF this NG.
Surely , from your perspective, you 'do the community' a service in this
regard, if I am self destructive, don't you think?
As I said before; now I understand the nature of your 21 year old grudge, and
am inviting you to see beyond it.
Notice, Chris, that not ONE individual has posted on the ORIGINAL THREAD here.
Not one. Why IS that Chris? I suspect that's because the emphasis--the
resentment--is to push ME rather than the science, attempting to discredit the
SCIENCE by attempting to discredit the MESSENGER. That's truly unfortunate.
Mr. Lemke was correct in assessing these individuals as 'attackers'.
>: Weren't you the grad student from Penn State, oh, those many years ago,
>who
>: managed to crash the AO computer--hacking as it were-- during my observing
>run?
>: Of course--you were not observing at the time. Correct me if I am wrong:
>did
>: you or did you not crash the AO computer back then?
>
> Your memory is just as bad as the rest of your character. I
>was not there to do observing, but to design the antenna for the
>Ionospheric Modification Facility, and had no access to the AO computer
>or the array processor. Your public statement here is intentionally
>libelous, but is true to your character, as all of us can see. The AO
>computer crashed repeatedly because of the experimental email system
>that the observers used to interrupt each other's screens, of which you
>were a primary player. You're simply trying to displace your
>accountability for own mischief, just as with your having being removed
>from the reflector.
>
> Nice try.
>
As Yoda says, Chris: ' do or not do. There is no try:-)'.
Cordially, NC
Fractenna
>idea at all that the entire community here can readily see exactly
>what your level of credibility is?
I would say my level of credibility is very high, and , indeed, is raised by
the findings which are the subject of this thread, findings published in a
prestigious, peer-reviewed journal.
Are you trying to make me look bad? If so, why?
>
> You did not check into the antenna reflector this morning, and in
>fact have not been heard from since your participation was terminated by
>the moderator. Good riddance. You can now feel free to self-destruct
>someplace else.
>
>: Weren't you the grad student from Penn State, oh, those many years ago,
>who
>: managed to crash the AO computer--hacking as it were-- during my observing
>run?
>: Of course--you were not observing at the time. Correct me if I am wrong:
>did
>: you or did you not crash the AO computer back then?
>
> Your memory is just as bad as the rest of your character. I
>was not there to do observing, but to design the antenna for the
>Ionospheric Modification Facility, and had no access to the AO computer
>or the array processor.
Chris, the Arecibo Observatory had 2 computers in use back then. One was one
soley devoted to data TAKING and telescope TRACKING; the other for all other
functions, including telescope scheduling and data reduction. It is the latter
that you used.
I have a distinct recollection of you being on this computer; whenever I saw
you you were on this computer. In fact, by crashing the computer you prevented
me and others from scheduling the telescope.
This use of two computer systems was an integral and necessary process for
gaining scientific data from the 303M dish, which was my assigned task for most
of that Summer of 1978.
I am sorry that this single, principle impression--how your actions had
interfered with the mission of the observatory, is one of my few memories of
you, but you will recall that this was the very first thing I asked you when
you e-mailed me: were you the grad student from Penn State that spent a lot of
time on the computer?
Now I know why you would not answer my question.
> Your public statement here is intentionally
>libelous, but is true to your character, as all of us can see. >
No Chris; I am recalling a rather minor incident from 21 years ago, based upon
your prodding. I am stating facts, which, frankly, had minor impact then and
certainly none in the present.
> The AO
>computer crashed repeatedly because of the experimental email system
>that the observers used to interrupt each other's screens, of which you
>were a primary player.
...and yet you have just told us that you didn't use the computer. You
obviously recall more details then I do. C'mon Chris; the observers didn't
crash the computer. Certainly I didn't. The reason: observers understood what a
vital link this was. I distinctly recall Peter Shamas asking observers to keep
this type of activity to a minimum. As you were not an observer you may have
not got the lecture.
> You're simply trying to displace your
>accountability for own mischief, just as with your having being removed
>from the reflector.
>
I must confess that was a challenging Summer; I got sun poisoning; dengue; and
I had weeks of observing and learned a lot. But I never got involved in
anything that amounts to mischief.
My fondest recollection was spending hours in the library reading astronomy
journals and planning new observing sessions. It was really fun.
My ol' mentor and good friend is still alive and very much kickin'. In fact,
he has been a constant source of encouragement as I develop the new field of
fractal antennas. Why don't you give him a call and see if I ever got into any
mischief at AO? His name is Frank Drake. He was Director of the observatory
back then, and later my thesis advisor.
Better yet, let's discuss antennas Chris; I am quite confident you know a lot
about them. No doubt, as you post in this thread, you have at least some
interest in discussing these new findings.
73
Chip N1IR
Mike Lucas W5CHR
>Are you trying to make me look bad? If so, why?
>
>This use of two computer systems was an integral and necessary process for
>gaining scientific data from the 303M dish, which was my assigned task for
most
>of that Summer of 1978.
>
>I must confess that was a challenging Summer; I got sun poisoning; dengue;
and
>I had weeks of observing and learned a lot. But I never got involved in
>anything that amounts to mischief.
>
the focal point of the array, while they were transmitting!!! That would of
course explain his behavior on this ( and FORMERLY on the antennas
reflector ) NG.
Mike Lucas W5CHR
Memphis, Tenn
Fractenna
>the focal point of the array, while they were transmitting!!! That would of
>course explain his behavior on this ( and FORMERLY on the antennas
>reflector ) NG.
>
>Mike Lucas W5CHR
>Memphis, Tenn
>
Mike--
What do you hope to accomplish with such comments?
I remind you that last month you said:"I've read his papers and he is a
horse's ass". When I politely asked you to discuss your critique, you didn't
respond.
If you feel my papers are incorrect, then please tell --us-- what the problem
is. If there is no problem, then ask yourself if abusing an individual in this
way is worth the price.
Aren't you the least bit embarrassed to attack someone publicly like this? Do
you really think that people like to see others abused in this way? Would you
do this to your child? Your wife? A neighbor?
Why is it ok to do this to a stranger?
Return to topic: if you have comments to make ON the thread, then feel free to
do so.
73
Chip N1IR
Tom W8JI
>Date sent: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:43:34 -0500
>To: ante...@qth.net
>From: Larry Wilson <lwi...@cyberportal.net>
>Subject: [Antennas] MODERATOR's NOTE
>Send reply to: Larry Wilson <lwi...@cyberportal.net>
>First, let me apologize for the recent outbursts on the list.
>When I arrived home and saw an unusually large number of message in my
>[antennas] box, I feared the worst. I took immediate action:
>1) The address Frac...@aol.com has been permanently removed from this list.
Fractenna
>From: 2w...@contesting.com (Tom W8JI)
>Date: 4/3/99 1:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3704e9c2...@news.akorn.net>
Tom, I am on the antenna reflector.
If Mr. Wilson is concerned about his duties as moderator, that is his concern.
I am waiting for him to respond to my query.
Now: given the fact that this has already been mentioned; and yet I am still on
the antenna reflector; and you feel that this was worth repeating (do you think
this was missed by some? Is that the reason?) I ask you:
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE THREAD!
Hmmm?
Rturn to the thread please.
73
Chip N1IR
Fractenna
Hello Ed;
What this has to do with freq. indepndent antennas is....
73
Chip N1IR
Christopher Trask
: >Subject: Re: FRACTALS and RUMSEY'S PRINCIPLE: New Antenna Insights
: >From: 2w...@contesting.com (Tom W8JI)
: >Date: 4/3/99 1:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
: >Message-id: <3704e9c2...@news.akorn.net>
: >
: >This says it all....
: >
: >>Date sent: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:43:34 -0500
: >>To: ante...@qth.net
: >>From: Larry Wilson <lwi...@cyberportal.net>
: >>Subject: [Antennas] MODERATOR's NOTE
: >>Send reply to: Larry Wilson <lwi...@cyberportal.net>
: >
: >>First, let me apologize for the recent outbursts on the list.
: >
: >>When I arrived home and saw an unusually large number of message in my
: >>[antennas] box, I feared the worst. I took immediate action:
: >
: >>1) The address Frac...@aol.com has been permanently removed from this
: >list.
:
: Tom, I am on the antenna reflector.
No, you are not. Your subsequent attempt to resubscribe to the
reflector by using another name was discovered and cancelled, and your
attempted posting was not forwarded to the list. You have been perma-
nently removed from the reflector. Tom's quote from Larry's posting to
the reflector is exact and to the point, and your removal is final.
Your recollection of me at Arecibo is equally tainted. I had
very little time to make use of the AO computer, even if it had been
made fully available. The majority of my time was spent making impedance
measurements on a scale model of the antenna element in a field about 15
miles from the observatory proper, and only during the daytime. The
rest of my time was spent in either keeping the surplus M-61 truck
running or collating measured data with Veldhuis.
Your mental vision of me spending countless hours at the computer
is pure fiction. Must be your mental image of yourself hacking away at
the email system. Your observation problems may very well have been the
result of someone retaliating against you for interrupting their work.
And since most of that was done at night, that leaves me out of your
claims. Except for the first few weeks, my evenings were spent in the
observatory's apartment in Arecibo, wher I shared a room with the
obervatory's telephone switch and microwave link.
There are no "conversations" to recount from that time. Due to
your immature behaviour, myself and most of the summer student staff kept
a good distance from you. And it doesn't appear that you've matured much
since then.
Fractenna
>reflector by using another name was discovered and cancelled, and your
>attempted posting was not forwarded to the list.>
----------------
Yes; I got on with Chip...@aol.com; not exactly 'another name'. My post on
Landstorfer antennas --asking if anyone had one up--was , apparently cancelled.
But, as in many things in the real world, Chris, things are more complex--and
more reasonably handled--than some would like us to believe. I am well
aware--which you should also be-- that anyone on the qth.com lists is a guest,
subject to the reasonable rules of the owner. It is up to his discretion on how
he would like to proceed; I will say your information is inaccurate, and one
wonders exactly what your motivation is--but there is more than you are aware
of, and calmer heads prevail.
Your AO summer sounds like a lonely one. I assume you were asked to leave the
VSQ and get an apartment off site. That was typical for most 'summer' junkets
of grad students. I was allowed the privilege of staying on site all summer and
learned a tremendous amount from it.
Believe me; if I had been mischiefous, I would have been up, over, and out and
banned from the facility, rather than staying there 24 hours a day, with few
exceptions. I never crashed the computer or slowed it down. And although on
rare occasions I sent e-mail--then a very exotic notion--ask yourself to
account for the following inconsistency: if everyone thought I was immature and
didn't want to have anything to do with me then---who would I have sent ANY
e-mails to? And how would I have crashed the computer with volumes of e-mail.?
E-mail was a 'server only' network on site back then. But why am I telling you
this? You spent hours and hours on it--at least, as you say, until you left the
VSQ on site for the town.
I am trying to get you to stop being so vengeful--concentrate on something to
indicate that your interest lies beyond some bizarre personal vendetta, without
basis. It does not do you justice.
Let us tap into your expertise, and let's discuss the topic of this thread.
------
> You have been perma-
>nently removed from the reflector. Tom's quote from Larry's posting to
>the reflector is exact and to the point, and your removal is final.
>
> Your recollection of me at Arecibo is equally tainted. I had
>very little time to make use of the AO computer, even if it had been
>made fully available. The majority of my time was spent making impedance
>measurements on a scale model of the antenna element in a field about 15
>miles from the observatory proper, and only during the daytime. The
>rest of my time was spent in either keeping the surplus M-61 truck
>running or collating measured data with Veldhuis.
>
> Your mental vision of me spending countless hours at the computer
>is pure fiction. Must be your mental image of yourself hacking away at
>the email system. Your observation problems may very well have been the
>result of someone retaliating against you for interrupting their work.
>And since most of that was done at night, that leaves me out of your
>claims. Except for the first few weeks, my evenings were spent in the
>observatory's apartment in Arecibo, wher I shared a room with the
>obervatory's telephone switch and microwave link.
>
> There are no "conversations" to recount from that time. >
But you have made some very concrete statements pertaining to my grandiose
imagination and lack of reality. How would you know this if our interaction
was virtually limited to a discussion we had regarding loss of observing time
from a systems crash--of your doing?
---
> Due to
>your immature behaviour, myself and most of the summer student staff kept
>a good distance from you. And it doesn't appear that you've matured much
>since then.
>
I've got crow's feet and a bit too much weight. I enjoy overseeing my 130
students at a major university; conducting research with colleagues; starting a
new field; building a company. Family and other obligations, and so on. I am
happy to report that some modicum of maturity is part of the requirements for
such.
I can clearly see that you are saying that the debate of science is indicative
of immaturity--well, if this is the case, I will agree with the statement that
scientists are 'peter pans' who don't lose that sense of exploration and
wonder, that everyone was born with.
It does seem odd that you described me as immature when in fact I was quite
precocious in 1978. I've seen this before though--I remember one of my
girlfriends at Radcliffe who was really intellectually precocious. I asked my
(jealous) friends what they thought of her and they said she was "immature".
I'm sure there is a psychological term for this--describing someone as the
opposite that their impression makes--but I am ignorant of the word.
Can we now return to the thread?
Thanks!
73
Chip N1IR
Jason Beens
I am a subscriber to the Fractal antenna mailing list. I subscribed mostly
out of doubts in the technology and the methodologies used to obtain the
characteristics desired in a given antenna design. When Chip posted that
there was to be a debate, I was very excited to hear some coherent
discussions between two well educated individuals. Unfortunately, it is
frustrating that the two parties involved cannot place their pasts aside to
begin a factual debate. I know nothing of past events on the reflector, and
quite honestly... I don't care. This is the perfect forum to either support
or expose fractal antennas.
Please, Please, Please!!! get on with the discussions.
Jason Beens
KB0CDN
Design Engineer
ATX Technologies Inc.
Jason Beens
YOU
>feel if a bunch of people ganged up on you in a world-accessible forum.
Think
>about what it takes to weather that and try to focus it into a scientific
>debate.)
Chip,
I do think about this every time I post, so I limit my postings to topics
that I feel strongly about.
My point is that I am very interested in any discussion of tangible
scientific data that will persuade or dissuade me in believing in the
usefulness of fractal antennas. It cheapens you, Mr. Trask, and antenna
designers in general to banter about past wrongs here in this forum. In my
humble opinion such a debate is a fine use of this newsgroup, but he-said
she-said type dialogue between you and Mr. Trask will only discredit the
subject of fractal antennas... as fractal antennas and you are currently
synonymous in many people's eyes.
Reg Edwards
certainly not any quantitative, numerical, or even factual
information has been made available in this lengthy thread.
Fractals appears to be a topic similar to magloops versus
fat folded dipoles, or cross-field antennas. Do they all
have in common, wishful-thinking, imaginative Ph.D's who
managed to pass the amateur radio licensing examinations
somewhere in the background ?
--
Reg.
Fractenna
>KB0CDN
>Design Engineer
>ATX Technologies Inc.
>
want to debate, then let him assign an alternate. The alternate must have at
least a master's thesis on frequency independent/log periodic antennas. No; if
you published a paper on a HF LPDA for Ham Radio, that's not good enough.
Someone who has done a thesis has really thought about this and the background
behind it.
I'm not holding this up. And I can tell you right now: hundreds of people will
be interested in the posts.
I will say that , although there is a perception that I shouldn't be respected
(and you can imagine how this makes ME feel), I will not let my time be wasted.
If there's no debate set up by Tuesday, forget it; I have time-defined
priorities at school and for my customers who are discussing just the
technology to be be debated.
The debate should run over a maximum of 10 posts apiece, over a time scale of
three days max. Beyond that people lose track of what was said and when. I
would suggest a beginning on Saturday at 2300 UTC.
I am doing this for the education of everyone. Again: the debate/discussion
is:
** What are the geometric criteria for a Frequency independent antenna?**
Can we FINALLY get this 'personal attacks against Chip' stuff over with? It's
really not productive. And after someone's been called (to paraphrase when not
exact):" a horse's ass", "dog vomit"; "mischief(ous)", "Sybil
(schizoprenic)";"charlatan"; "' hocus pocus (fraud)";" liar";"immature";"overly
imaginative", and oh so many more, one understands that these set of attributes
could ONLY be ascribed to a supernatural evil entity--one with cloven hoofs and
horns.
Or do I also have to give convincing evidence that I'm not that?
Think about it. (and, while you're at it, think about how this would make YOU
feel if a bunch of people ganged up on you in a world-accessible forum. Think
about what it takes to weather that and try to focus it into a scientific
debate.)
I will wait until Tuesday night. After that, well, history will take care of
the rest. I will have done my duty to inform.
I will not answer questions on this thread until the offer to debate is
publicly--on this NG-- accepted or rejected. So all you 'Chip haters'--plan
your strategy and get in touch with Chris.I would love to see you use your
talents constructively in exploring this question.
I repeat-- Chris is under no obligation to do this, and you'll certainly see no
negative posts from me about him if he doesn't. I think Chris is aware of the
issues and is more than capable of discussing them.
73
Chip N1IR
Reg Edwards
Please describe, in quantitative terms, to this newsgroup,
using not more than 300 words, what is a fractal antenna,
its purpose and its advantages, if any, over the more
conventional sorts of antenna. Avoid replying to the
effect that the info has already been published. Because
it hasn't !
If you can't comply then its time to pull down the shutters
and retire. Everyone is waiting expectantly . . . . . .
--
Reg.
Fractenna
Your comment--from the onset--is predicated on dis-respect.
I have published that information. Others have published that information.
STAY ON THE THREAD topic please! Or go away. At this point there are dozens, if
not hundreds of people interested in this debate and I won't let your petty
annoyances--meant to make me look like I have never provided such information--
mess it up.
Chip N1IR
Christopher Trask
: >Your subsequent attempt to resubscribe to the
: >reflector by using another name was discovered and cancelled, and your
: >attempted posting was not forwarded to the list.>
: ----------------
: Yes; I got on with Chip...@aol.com; not exactly 'another name'. My
: post on Landstorfer antennas --asking if anyone had one up--was ,
: apparently cancelled.
No,it was not. Instead, it was an attempt at continuing your
confrontation with me and others, which is part of what got you removed
from the reflector permanently.
: Your AO summer sounds like a lonely one.
Still more fiction. Just where do you come up with this stuff?
: I assume you were asked to leave the VSQ and get an apartment off site.
We were all, except you, told to move to the observatory's
apartment in Arecibo to make room for visiting observers. You were
left at the observatory proper because of your behaviour. You simply
did not fit in with the rest of the summer staff.
: I was allowed the privilege of staying on site all summer and
: learned a tremendous amount from it.
It was not a "priviledge". It kept you out of further trouble.
Fractenna
>: post on Landstorfer antennas --asking if anyone had one up--was ,
>: apparently cancelled.
>
> No,it was not. Instead, it was an attempt at continuing your
>confrontation with me and others, which is part of what got you removed
>from the reflector permanently.
>
>: Your AO summer sounds like a lonely one.
>
> Still more fiction. Just where do you come up with this stuff?
>
>: I assume you were asked to leave the VSQ and get an apartment off site.
>
> We were all, except you, told to move to the observatory's
>apartment in Arecibo to make room for visiting observers. You were
>left at the observatory proper because of your behaviour. You simply
>did not fit in with the rest of the summer staff.
>
>: I was allowed the privilege of staying on site all summer and
>: learned a tremendous amount from it.
>
> It was not a "priviledge". It kept you out of further trouble.
>
Chris, this is the last post in which I will allow you to be off topic.
You have been asked to engage in a debate. I respectfully request that you
consider it, weigh the options, and get back to the NG.
Thank You,
Chip N1IR
Fractenna
Chris Trask sed (to my initial comment):
>>my post on Landstorfer antennas --asking if anyone had one up--was ,
>>: apparently cancelled.
>>
>> No,it was not. Instead, it was an attempt at continuing your
>>confrontation with me and others, which is part of what got you removed
>>from the reflector.
Nope. I have no interest in "continuing your confrontation with me and others."
I just want to see who's out there using Landstorfer antennas.
Here it is,and here's what I want to know:-) Thanks for prodding me to also
post here. A bit behind I guess.
-------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Landstorfer Antennas
Date: 4/1/99 6:52:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Fractenna
To: ante...@qth.net
Hi All--
I am looking for users of Landstorfer antennae. Send me e-mail ; would be
appreciated.
73
Chip N1IR
--------------------------------------------------
73
Chip N1IR
Arrow146
Chip N1IR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why don't you just answer the question ? Instead of saying you have published
that information in the past.
What about all the NEW readers of this newsgroup, that have no idea what a
Fractal Antenna is ?
Why does it have to always be an argument (debate) ?
73 Al Lowe N0IMW
Fractenna
>From: arro...@aol.com (Arrow146)
>Date: 4/5/99 12:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <19990405124240...@ng-ba1.aol.com>
Reg knows the answer; I've given it here many times; it is available through
dejanews; it is on the fractenna web page (down for a few days for repairs); is
published many places; and could just as easily be posed on the fractal antenna
reflector where that question has not been specically posed.
73
Chip n1IR.
Fractenna
>>published
>>that information in the past.
>>What about all the NEW readers of this newsgroup, that have no idea what a
>>Fractal Antenna is ?
>>Why does it have to always be an argument (debate) ?
>>
>>73 Al Lowe N0IMW
>>
>Because, Al:
>
> Reg knows the answer; I've given it here many times; it is available through
>dejanews; it is on the fractenna web page (down for a few days for repairs);
>is
>published many places; and could just as easily be posed on the fractal
>antenna
>reflector where that question has not been specically posed.
>
>73
>Chip n1IR.
>
Sorry; also need to add the obvious: it has LITTLE TO DO with this thread. In
fact, save for the first posting, NOT ONE poster has alluded to the thread.
And why not?
Chip
Don
>
> I am a subscriber to the Fractal antenna mailing list. I subscribed mostly
> out of doubts in the technology and the methodologies used to obtain the
> characteristics desired in a given antenna design. When Chip posted that
> there was to be a debate, I was very excited to hear some coherent
> discussions between two well educated individuals. Unfortunately, it is
> frustrating that the two parties involved cannot place their pasts aside to
> begin a factual debate. I know nothing of past events on the reflector, and
> quite honestly... I don't care. This is the perfect forum to either support
> or expose fractal antennas.
>
> Please, Please, Please!!! get on with the discussions.
>
> Jason Beens
> KB0CDN
> Design Engineer
> ATX Technologies Inc.
What is needed here is not a debate. Rather, a duel in the style of
nineteenth century France. The largest problem will be to figure out who
insulted who. Without that piece of information, we shan't be able to
decide who gets to choose the weapons.
Don
W6RCecilA
> What is needed here is not a debate. Rather, a duel in the style of
> nineteenth century France. The largest problem will be to figure out who
> insulted who. Without that piece of information, we shan't be able to
> decide who gets to choose the weapons.
How about fractal rapiers? :-)
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.bigfoot.com/~w6rca
Fractenna
>nineteenth century France. The largest problem will be to figure out who
>insulted who. Without that piece of information, we shan't be able to
>decide who gets to choose the weapons.
>
>
Hi Don--
I have thick skin.
But what puzzles me is how so MANY people can send so MANY posts, all unrelated
to a given thread.
I repeat: kindly allude to the thread in question. Thanks.
73
Chip N1IR
JerryL
your arrogant attitude towards everyone that doesn't have a PHD in front
of their name. If you were a little more polite and dazzled folks with
your brilliant work, I suggest you would have quite a following of folks
interested in what you are doing.
Frankly, at this point, I doubt if you could prove your Fractal antennas
had 10db gain over a dipole that anyone would give a damm..
I'm just an ordinary person, no PHD, but lots of interest in radio
stuff! One of the guys I used to yak with for over 15 years, had a PHD
that I didn't find out about until he died. I had been to his home and
talked with him in detail about radio subjects that he worked on, and
considered him quite interesting. I always thought he was pretty sharp
and to me, he showed 'real class' about not trying to 'win' arguements
based on his obviously superior education. He showed physical results
and shared the info with anyone. And yes he got into flaps with people,
over certain details of design etc, but he never said 'call me Dr.XX'
and I'm right! What a bummer, ugh!
Slow down, quite arguing, make friends with some folks, and try help a
few people that are interested in what you are doing but are put off by
some of your answers. I bet you and they would have a heck of a lot
more fun..
JerryL
pmarkham
Rumsey thread, but certainly did not abuse Chip, is quoted below. Chip's
primary response with increasing animosity, continues through the thread. I
view it as a personal attack showing a possible hallmark of frac...@aol.com.
You might note that previous and subsequent posts, many with the ubiquitous
fractenna in the source address, claim unjustified assaults on a (the?)
business and its personnel.
On the rec.radio.amateur.antenna newsgroup, I associate the name
frac...@aol.com, and associated aliases, with ugly personal posts that may
define the author and the business with which he is associated. I think that
the author and the business would, perhaps, gain more by enhancing overall
knowledge of fractal antennas. It appears to me, often, that posts of personal
animosity, from frac...@aol.com, and related aliases, are more important
than those of claimed first principles of fractal antenna theory.
It is quite possible that I may be so ignorant and incapable of comprehending
that which I read, that I have misconstrued many of the posts. Is it due to my
fog of ignorance and stupidity that I conclude, mistakenly, that other
posters, with professional credentials and affiliations, must have missed some
mandatory courses in personal development and technical writing? Too many of
them appear to conduct debate and discussion in a civil manner.
Pete/wa4hei
In article <19990402221908...@ng-ft1.aol.com>, frac...@aol.com
(Fractenna) wrote:
>>John,
>> Thank you for going to the trouble of posting this follow-up to
>>the claim that fracta...@aol.com had left the antenna reflector
>>volutarily. I was about to post such a message myself.
>>
>> BTW: Welcome back to the reflector. You can almost hear a PIN
>>diode drop.
>>
>
>Perhaps,, Mr. Trask because of the lack of constructive discussion of
>innovative ideas.
>
>For your information, I checked into the antenna reflector this morning and
>have the received posts to prove it. I left again: hate mail. As I told you, I
>will not tolerate it.
>
>As I was saying...after reviewing your resume I DO recall who you are,
>although my impression is minor and not positive.
>
>Weren't you the grad student from Penn State, oh, those many years ago, who
>managed to crash the AO computer--hacking as it were-- during my observing run?
>Of course--you were not observing at the time. Correct me if I am wrong: did
>you or did you not crash the AO computer back then?
>
>And perhaps you would do well to recollect some of our alleged
>conversations--tell us what you recall. That would be helpful
>
>Also, since this is THREAD, Mr. Trask, kindly tell us what you wish to
>contribute to it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
Fractenna
Peter, I must confess I do not understand what you are tryimg to say.
However, I gather that your comments have nothing to do with the thread. Please
restrict your comments to the thread.
73
Chip N1IR
Fractenna
Thank you for your advice.
73
Chip N1IR
Mike Lucas W5CHR
Fractenna wrote
>
>Can we FINALLY get this 'personal attacks against Chip' stuff over with?
It's
>really not productive. And after someone's been called (to paraphrase when
not
>exact):" a horse's ass", "dog vomit"; "mischief(ous)", "Sybil
>(schizoprenic)";"charlatan"; "' hocus pocus (fraud)";"
liar";"immature";"overly
>imaginative", and oh so many more, one understands that these set of
attributes
>could ONLY be ascribed to a supernatural evil entity--one with cloven hoofs
and
>horns.
>
Only a first class idiot would repost names that he had been called,
such as the above. In another post, Chip says he has thick skin. Seems as if
the thickest skin covers his head.
Chip has asked what I find wrong with his "Fractal Antenna Papers".
Well, the truth is simply that the articles in Communications Quarterly were
written to arrive at enough pages to make a neat sum of money. I found the
article(s) boring, poorly contrived,and FULL of BAFFLEGAB. My xyl, W4ZOR,
doesn't like those deep technical papers all that much, either, but she does
think that some of the postings on the RRAA newsgroup are hilarious.
I realize that we've pretty well covered the "frequency Independent"
aspect of Fractal antennas; so why don't we tackle the " Crossed Field
Fractal" perhaps for a design frequency of 14.313 ?
Regards,
Fractenna
>such as the above. In another post, Chip says he has thick skin. Seems as if
>the thickest skin covers his head.
> Chip has asked what I find wrong with his "Fractal Antenna Papers".
>Well, the truth is simply that the articles in Communications Quarterly were
>written to arrive at enough pages to make a neat sum of money. I found the
>article(s) boring, poorly contrived,and FULL of BAFFLEGAB. My xyl, W4ZOR,
>doesn't like those deep technical papers all that much, either, but she does
>think that some of the postings on the RRAA newsgroup are hilarious.
> I realize that we've pretty well covered the "frequency Independent"
>aspect of Fractal antennas; so why don't we tackle the " Crossed Field
>Fractal" perhaps for a design frequency of 14.313 ?
>
>Regards,
>Mike Lucas W5CHR
>Memphis, Tenn
>
>
>
"horse's ass" and "idiot", thus continuing your personal attacks.
It is rude of you to continue in this vein, and I hope you will see that the
thread is not about personal attacks. If you wish to contribute to it, you are
welcome. Consider, however, how distastetful your personal attacks are, for
those who read this thread not today, but next week, or next year, or whatever.
I can gaurantee there will be many.
73
Chip N1IR
Tom W8JI
>I have not been "banished from the antenna reflector". I signed on this
>morning, but was so disgusted by the reaction I left.
You have been booted off two reflectors that I know of. While you
might change names and get back in for a short stint, at the first
post you are gone again.
73 Tom
Tom W8JI
wrote:
>My point is that I am very interested in any discussion of tangible
>scientific data that will persuade or dissuade me in believing in the
>usefulness of fractal antennas. It cheapens you, Mr. Trask, and antenna
>designers in general to banter about past wrongs here in this forum. In my
>humble opinion such a debate is a fine use of this newsgroup, but he-said
>she-said type dialogue between you and Mr. Trask will only discredit the
>subject of fractal antennas... as fractal antennas and you are currently
>synonymous in many people's eyes.
>
>Jason Beens
Hi Jason,
I've been watching this stuff for years. To date, Chip has never
offered a reason WHY fractal shapes have some advantage over other
geometric shapes. Many people have asked, yet Chip never responds.
Reg asked nicely for a pointed description of the great
"fractal-advantage", as many other have.
I'd like to see that also.
Chip, can you describe WHY fractal antennas have some advantage over
other geometric shapes? Just a few clear sentences would be
appreciated.
73 Tom
Marty Duplissey
Fractenna wrote in message <19990405221301...@ng32.aol.com>...
>>You have been booted off two reflectors that I know of. While you
>>might change names and get back in for a short stint, at the first
>>post you are gone again.
>>
>>73 Tom
>>
>
>Wrong. I am on two reflectors: antennas and fractalantennas. There is some
>present discussion about a -second- ante...@qth.net reflector which I
>believe you are not privy to. I respect the list owner, and his committment
to
>it and will thus respect his privacy and not repeat his e-mail to me. I
will
>say that cool heads reach reasonable decisions.
>
>I have never joined any other reflector, or amateur radio list. Thus I have
not
>been booted off.
>
>Now: why are you continuing this? Through the years you have spoken of me
and
>my work as "voodoo science"; "mentally unstable"; "ebonics" and many,many
>others. It was intended only to degrade and not critically question.Hate.
Hate
>hate hate. Don't you have something positive working in your life that you
can
>foccus on?
>
>I am presenting a reasonable issue which you obviously have the capacity to
>discuss and learn from. It's this thread. Concentrate on the THREAD Tom,
and
>you'll either learn something or get rid of me.
>
>I am willing to take that risk to further your education.
>
>73
>Chip N1IR
Jason Beens
>
>I am a subscriber to the Fractal antenna mailing list. I subscribed mostly
>out of doubts in the technology and the methodologies used to obtain the
>characteristics desired in a given antenna design. When Chip posted that
>there was to be a debate, I was very excited to hear some coherent
>discussions between two well educated individuals. Unfortunately, it is
>frustrating that the two parties involved cannot place their pasts aside to
>begin a factual debate. I know nothing of past events on the reflector,
and
>quite honestly... I don't care. This is the perfect forum to either
support
>or expose fractal antennas.
>
>Please, Please, Please!!! get on with the discussions.
>
>Jason Beens
>KB0CDN
>Design Engineer
>ATX Technologies Inc.
>
>
I am not sure what the official "thread" was, but in an effort to spur some
meaningful dialogue, I offer the following pseudo-on-topic questions:
Is there a clear definition of a fractal antenna?
Even a single line like a dipole could be considered a zero iteration
fractal. When is an antenna structure not considered fractal?
How do you know which type of fractal to use to achieve a given set of
design criteria?
What types of design criteria are better satisfied by the use of a fractal
element over a more conventional element?
If I recall a post on the OneList fractal antenna list, Chip referred to Log
periodics as a type of fractal antenna. How is this so?
How can a fractal element be matched to a given impedance?
What is a typical range of input impedance bandwidths for some simple types
of fractal antennas?
What is a typical range of pattern bandwidths for some simple types of
fractal antennas?
Are three dimensional fractal antenna structures in existence?
Can circular polarization be generated from a fractal structure?
Please, do follow up with answers to these questions, or better yet more
provocative questions stemming from these questions.
I understand that these questions are pointed more at fractal antennas in
general and are not necessarily aimed at frequency independent antennas.
Please feel free to twist these questions into why a fractal antenna is
better at... or Why a fractal antenna is less desirable than...
I understand that these are merely questions and not points for debate.
Perhaps some strong answers to the above questions will serve for points of
debate.
Chip, please understand that some of us do not have ready access to back
issues of your publications, so if you do refer to a publication, please
give at least an overview of the article contents and its relevance.
Fractenna
>other geometric shapes? Just a few clear sentences would be
>appreciated.
>
>73 Tom
>
Certainly. In the published examples of Minkowski loops (Cohen and Hohlfeld,
CommQuart, Winter 1996), and Koch monopoles
(Puente et al. IEE Electronics Letters, Jan 1998)the perimeter constitutes an
electrically long structure which introduces loading and phasing: the current
is far from uniform even though the structure may have largest physical
dimension of 1/10 of a wave or less. The fractal structure cancels in one
polarization and adds in the other, producing a power pattern virtually
identical to that expected from a 'straight line', loaded short antenna. The
field strength exceeds that of other loading methods in most practical uses.
As said many times here and elsewhere, when very electrically small this
advantage is no longer realized.
When slightly larger, the fractal structure introduces phased echelon/collinear
effects which give additional gain (this property is shared by Landstorfer
antennas, which are larger I might add).
In the case of truly optimized antennas--random fractal antennas--Landstorfer
has shown WHY this is advantageous. I will not attempt to do better in my
explanation.
In the case of frequency independent antennae, this advnatage is well-known.
And it is impossible to make truly frequency independent antenna without a
self similar--fractal-- structure.
Chip
Tom W8JI
>
>Chris, this is the last post in which I will allow you to be off topic.
Allow?
How can you control others when you can't even control yourself?
>You have been asked to engage in a debate. I respectfully request that you
>consider it, weigh the options, and get back to the NG.
How can anyone debate you? You have offered nothing at all for
information!
You have been asked to define why and how fractals have some property
that makes them especially useful in antenna designs. Why not save
time and BW and cut to the chase.
Exactly what is your point? What are you constantly crowing for a
debate about?
By the way, you don't need a lawyer to solve problems with getting
booted off reflectors. A therapist would be a much better choice.
73 Tom
Fractenna
Stay on the thread topic please. We are being watched by the curious and such
comments do not do well by you.
73
Chip N1IR
Fractenna
Fractenna
I am happy to repeat these answers for you Jason--within the constrainst I
mention at the end .
>Is there a clear definition of a fractal antenna?
>
A radiator that incorporates self similarity in its physical design.
>Even a single line like a dipole could be considered a zero iteration
>fractal
No. There is no inherent scaling--and hence self similarity--in a straight
dipole.
>. When is an antenna structure not considered fractal?
>
When it is not self similar to any degree.
>How do you know which type of fractal to use to achieve a given set of
>design criteria?
>
Through experimentation and modeling. Some groups are using genetic algorthms
to optimize designs using fractals.
>What types of design criteria are better satisfied by the use of a fractal
>element over a more conventional element?
>
You must like discrete components to ask this question:-)
>If I recall a post on the OneList fractal antenna list, Chip referred to Log
>periodics as a type of fractal antenna. How is this so?
>
A log periodic is a small subset of the fractal antennae which have a two
dimensions projection which is origin symmetric.
>How can a fractal element be matched to a given impedance?
>
Many are chosen based upon a requirement for 50 ohms, of example: no matching.
The UWB (ultrawide bandwidth) capabilities of many designs tend to have
characteristic impedances of approximately 350 ohms for dipole versions.
>What is a typical range of input impedance bandwidths for some simple types
>of fractal antennas?
>
Depends on resonance. Obviously the lowest resonances tend to have low
radiation resistances--but higher values than one encounters with conventional
antennas
.
>What is a typical range of pattern bandwidths for some simple types of
>fractal antennas?
>
No fractal antenna is 'simple':-) You can easily achieve dipole patterns from
single elements, if that's what you mean.
>Are three dimensional fractal antenna structures in existence?
>
Yes.
>Can circular polarization be generated from a fractal structure?
>
Oh yes.
>Please, do follow up with answers to these questions, or better yet more
>provocative questions stemming from these questions.
>I understand that these questions are pointed more at fractal antennas in
>general and are not necessarily aimed at frequency independent antennas.
Yes; that was how I answered them. I am not directing the comments towards 'log
periodics' or freq. ind. antennae per se. Everyone knows what a log periodic
does. I am asking you'all to consider WHY this is so.
>Please feel free to twist these questions into why a fractal antenna is
>better at... or Why a fractal antenna is less desirable than...
>I understand that these are merely questions and not points for debate.
>Perhaps some strong answers to the above questions will serve for points of
>debate.
No; these are not debate questions. the debate is focussed on a single issue:
The geometric requirements for frequency independent antennae.
I gave Mr. Rauch (W8JI) the opportunity to debate fractal antennas (as a class)
a month ago--to be discussed at Dayton--and he sidestepped the issue. I'm not
going to ask again.
>Chip, please understand that some of us do not have ready access to back
>issues of your publications, so if you do refer to a publication, please
>give at least an overview of the article contents and its relevance.
>
That's asking too much Jason. All of the above is on the
http://www.fractenna.com web page. I have accomodated these questions here
because the site is down for construction for another week or so.
I still feel it would be better for you to pose your questions on
fractal...@onelist.com. All the questions you have asked here have been
answered at various times already on this NG. I appreciate the fact that there
is a general misconception that I have plenty of time on my hands to conduct
"mischief". I do not do so and I do not have such time. Hence I am not usually
willing to repeat myself, nor summarize text which is available in libraries.
73
Chip N1IR
Jason Beens
Fractenna wrote in message <19990406064338...@ng98.aol.com>...
>
>I am happy to repeat these answers for you Jason--within the constrainst I
>mention at the end .
>
>>Is there a clear definition of a fractal antenna?
>>
>
>A radiator that incorporates self similarity in its physical design.
>
>>Even a single line like a dipole could be considered a zero iteration
>>fractal
>
>No. There is no inherent scaling--and hence self similarity--in a straight
>dipole.
>
>>. When is an antenna structure not considered fractal?
>>
>
>When it is not self similar to any degree.
>
Log
>>periodics as a type of fractal antenna. How is this so?
>>
>
>A log periodic is a small subset of the fractal antennae which have a two
>dimensions projection which is origin symmetric.
>
Given the above, I don't understand why a dipole is not considered a fractal
antenna. It indeed has two dimensional simularity about its origin if you
consider the center of the dipole the origin.
Fractenna
>>of fractal antennas?
>>
I'm sorry; I misread the question. usually 'bandwidth' MEANS impedance
bandwidth.
For a dipole shrunk by a fractal pattern by 40-70% in its largest dimension
its about 1-3% BW for the lowest resonance. Moderate to hi Q. For the higher
resonances--which actually merge to a UWB capability, the bandwidth is
octaves--with sufficient iterations. I wish to again destroy this myth--that I
never started or in any way stated-- that a fractal antenna gives a very broad
bandwidth on a very small size. The lowest resonances tend to be discrete and
moderate/hi Q and the higher ones are contiinuous and ultrawide band. If
someone tells you otherwise, ask them where they saw it and let me know. I'm
irritated that this persists and have seen sufficient grief from it.
Chip
Fractenna
>Given the above, I don't understand why a dipole is not considered a fractal
>antenna. It indeed has two dimensional simularity about its origin if you
>consider the center of the dipole the origin.
>
>Jason Beens
>KB0CDN
>Design Engineer
>ATX Technologies
Good point Jason; not quite right though..
Hohlfeld and Cohen actually use the dipole to show that it is a case of an
antenna which is origin symmetric--but it is not fractal. H&C then fractalize
the dipole to show what happens.
There is no generator applied on a dipole, hence no scaling. Electrically,
this produces the multiple current max'x along its length as the dipole is used
at higher frequencies, and becomes electrically large. Thus the CURRENT
DISTRIBUTION is not scaled with frequency.
A dipole--viewed as a straight line--may be fractalized by cutting it up in
self-similar bits. This is called a Cantor set. There are papers on Cantor
antenna arrays that have been published (not by me).
73
Chip
Fractenna
A fractalized dipole (that is a two dimensional structure)--which is origin
symmetric--is a freq. independent one, and this was the context in which
scaling the currents was discussed. Obviously there are many, many fractal
antenna designs which do not meet the criteria of origin symmetry and these
designs will NOT scale the current in a self similar way--and you won't get
frequency independence.
Simply put: a dipole has no multiples of physical scale so it cannot be used to
scale the current. A fractal dipole has multiples of physical scale and thus
can be used--when origin symmetric--to scale the current.
73
Chip N1IR
Fractenna
>Would you guys please take this pissing contest to e-mail.
>
Marty,
My preference is to have this abusive attacking end. Now.
However, your suggestion is NOT a good one.
Imagine waking up in the morning, grabbing a cup a joe, sitting down to a
little Mozart, and checking your e-mail.
NOW. Suddenly 50 e-mails have come through overnight. 23 are hate mail. Vicious
stuff; insults; threats; characterizations; all absolutely unmitigated in hate.
That's what I got last week on Friday. Its not the first time. Its all from
hams too.
Sending someone HATE MAIL IS not ACCEPTABLE. I have tried various ways to get
this stuff removed, but its clear the only way to stop it is to PUBLICLY CALL
people on it.
And it works.
Put simply: its not OK on a NG OR e-mail to be abusive. So sending someone off
into the e-mail route accomplishes nothing.
Just because only one person is reading it doesn't make it OK.
Clearly this thread has demonstrated the abuse cooked up by a few. And look how
they've conducted themselves.
Now you know what my e-mail is like and why this has to stop.
So: indicate your personal displeasure with these attacks. That might have some
impact.
73
Chip N1IR
ab...@my-dejanews.com
Mike,
How right you are.....
The only reason that the "Crossed Field Fractal" with an design frequency of
14.313 ? Did not come us so far in this News Group is due in part to the fact
That Chip has not been Abel to determine if he can lay claim to the fatherhood
Of the "Crossed Field Fractal”,
Have no Fear if and when paternity is finally Settled via generic fractal
modeling then he will start a thread on the "Crossed Field Fractal Antenna"
CFFA.
73'
AB2ET "I bet Two Extra Terrestrials"
AB2ET “I Bet Two Extra Terrestrials”
Copyright 1999
In article <#QhqZz6f#GA.69@upnetnews05>,
"Mike Lucas W5CHR" <luca...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> Only a first class idiot would repost names that he had been called,
> such as the above. In another post, Chip says he has thick skin. Seems as if
> the thickest skin covers his head.
> Chip has asked what I find wrong with his "Fractal Antenna Papers".
> Well, the truth is simply that the articles in Communications Quarterly were
> written to arrive at enough pages to make a neat sum of money. I found the
> article(s) boring, poorly contrived,and FULL of BAFFLEGAB. My xyl, W4ZOR,
> doesn't like those deep technical papers all that much, either, but she does
> think that some of the postings on the RRAA newsgroup are hilarious.
> I realize that we've pretty well covered the "frequency Independent"
> aspect of Fractal antennas; so why don't we tackle the " Crossed Field
> Fractal" perhaps for a design frequency of 14.313 ?
>
> Regards,
> Mike Lucas W5CHR
> Memphis, Tenn
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Gerald Schmitt
(Fractenna) writes:
>>
>>/John
>>
>
>Hi John--
>
>I am indeed on the list; glad we are both on it.. I am not banished
from any
>list; the moderator has not informed me from such; and, indeed, I
checked in
>this morning. Would you like me to forward some of the postings from
it?
>
>But your comment raises important questions, which I will forward to
my
>attorney, invoking important issues for the moderator and the list
owners.
>
>Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
>
>73
>Chip N1IR
>
Ooh Oooh Oooh someone said something bad about you and you're
calling your attorney Oooh Oooh. What a zero.
ab...@my-dejanews.com
If I remember a Rapier is a "straight" and thin device similar to a leg of a
dipole or Even a "wire" as used in antenna modeling.
I think that if you used "Fractal Rapiers" the bend iteration and angular
dimensioning may interfere in the pursuit of Smooth action.
In my opinion a better device may be a "Scimitar Fractal" or even Crossed
Saber Fractals" This way we all can decern the spatial displacement when they
are in action.
73's
AB2ET "I bet Two Extra Terrestrials"
Copyright 1999
In article <37090A...@ibm.net>,
w6...@ibm.net wrote:
> Don wrote:
> > What is needed here is not a debate. Rather, a duel in the style of
> > nineteenth century France. The largest problem will be to figure out who
> > insulted who. Without that piece of information, we shan't be able to
> > decide who gets to choose the weapons.
>
> How about fractal rapiers? :-)
> --
> 73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.bigfoot.com/~w6rca
>
AB2ET
Copyright 1999
Fractenna
>calling your attorney Oooh Oooh. What a zero.
>
>
Your insults do not show you in a good light. Please stay with the thread and
comment on that.
Chip
ab...@my-dejanews.com
my main AIM is to make truly frequency independent Ham antennas I am very
Interested in full understanding the "self similar"--fractal-- structural
Process.
Just a few Clear Sentences on this Structural Process, and the key word is
PROCESS would be appreciated.
73's
Steve
AB2ET
Copyright 1999
In article <19990405200543...@ng-da1.aol.com>,
frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
"SNIP Plonk Clank"
> In the case of frequency independent antennae, this advnatage is well-known.
> And it is impossible to make truly frequency independent antenna without a
> self similar--fractal-- structure.
>
> Chip
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Roy Lewallen
you'd say a few words about the pattern of the fractal dipole at the
higher resonances. Although most hams seem satisfied with
catch-as-you-can patterns with multiband antennas, an antenna that
maintains a more-or-less constant pattern with frequency (like a LP)
would seem to have more general application. Does the fractal dipole
pattern split into multiple lobes at the higher resonances like a
standard dipole, or is this effect less pronounced with the fractal?
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
pmarkham
Frac...@aol.com said in response to my last post:
>Peter, I must confess I do not understand what you are tryimg to say.
>
>However, I gather that your comments have nothing to do with the thread.
>Please restrict your comments to the thread.
>
>73
>Chip N1IR
It has everything to do with where this and so many other original threads go
that touch on the buzzword "fractal". I was saying, politely, that I conclude
you earn the "hate" mail you refer to below. Regardless of what "good"
fractenna, Chip, alias, .. etc. has achieved in life, it appears to be
corrupted by the mean spirited, personal, sniping, initiated or provoked by
the posts from those various identities. It is occurs to me (and many others?)
that regardless of what technical merit your posts may contain, in this
newsgroup you have earned the reputation of an adolescent bully/whiner, with a
PHD.
If you think that everyone else but you is at fault, yank your head out and
look around. No one creates the slings and arrows like you and no one
earns them like you. They are a hallmark of fractenna, Chip, N1IR, alias,..
etc.
Resistance to new ideas has little to do with the flack you generate. Most of
the "flack" around you is a consequence of perceived personal abuse and the
natural reaction to it. I perceive you generate the personal abuse, you foster
the personal abuse, you have become synonymous with personal abuse, and you
have earned the personal abuse.
You appear to revel in it. Enjoy your success and quit complaining.
Of course, everyone else may be at fault.
Do you understand my drift, now?
Pete/wa4hei
PS. My "pissing" is over. I have wanted to relieve myself for years. I hope I
have not dampened the spirit of others, too much. I expect no changes.
Your are the
In article <19990406105312...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, frac...@aol.com
Fractenna
>pattern split into multiple lobes at the higher resonances like a
>standard dipole, or is this effect less pronounced with the fractal?
>
The origin symmetric fractal dipole is frequency independent. With a handful of
iterations, those frequencies where you see the effect are NOT continuous and
can be chosen by the fractal design and iteration. Basically this is 'discrete'
frequency independence.
The analogy to a 'trap' dipole is a good one.
The effect of multiple lobes is is far less pronounced even for a few
iterations.
73
Chip N1IR.
Fractenna
>Do you understand my drift, now?
>
I understand that you, as several others are doing, consider me a focus for
your abuse.
It is embarrassing for you and unappreciated here.
Chip
Butch Magee
W6RCecilA wrote:
> Don wrote:
> > What is needed here is not a debate. Rather, a duel in the style of
> > nineteenth century France. The largest problem will be to figure out who
> > insulted who. Without that piece of information, we shan't be able to
> > decide who gets to choose the weapons.
>
> How about fractal rapiers? :-)
> --
> 73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.bigfoot.com/~w6rca
Fractal cannons Cecil, fractal rapiers could be loaded in the cannon barrell
and you could fractal the target to fractaleens!
Butch KF5DE
Jason Beens
>A fractalized dipole (that is a two dimensional structure)--which is origin
>symmetric--is a freq. independent one, and this was the context in which
>scaling the currents was discussed. Obviously there are many, many fractal
>antenna designs which do not meet the criteria of origin symmetry and these
>designs will NOT scale the current in a self similar way--and you won't get
>frequency independence.
When you talk about current scaling, does the current distribution stay
constant over a large set of frequencies? If so, then won't your radiation
patterns be forced to change? A Fourier transform performed on a current
distribution can describe a far field pattern. I am rusty on this stuff,
but isn't the Fourier transform dependant on frequency?
Or does the current find a "resonant" area of the entire fractal as
determined by the frequency currently in use?
Thanks,
Jason Beens
KB0CDN
Fractenna
alternate.
This opportunity has not been used; I will not provide another.
In the future I will only refer to published articles and not proffer
information on this topic--as described in this thread.
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
aka Chip N1IR
Fractenna
>When you talk about current scaling, does the current distribution stay
>constant over a large set of frequencies? If so, then won't your radiation
>patterns be forced to change? A Fourier transform performed on a current
>distribution can describe a far field pattern. I am rusty on this stuff,
>but isn't the Fourier transform dependant on frequency?
>
>Or does the current find a "resonant" area of the entire fractal as
>determined by the frequency currently in use?
>
>Thanks,
>Jason Beens
>KB0CDN
>
Hi Jason--
The current distribution scales--that is, as the frequency gets higher it
pull-in much like (surprised?) the active region on an LP.
Your analysis was right; your initial assumption was not correct; with this
correction, your comments follow:-)
73
Chip N1IR
Fractenna
Hate mail is never acceptable, even when you send it by mistake to the person
who is the subject of your unacceptable feelings.
I am posting this publicly with the INSISTENCE that the HATE MAIL stop.
If you want a suggestion follow Edison's lead--write your angry letter and then
use the waste basket as your mailbox.
NC
---------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: FRACTALS and RUMSEY'S PRINCIPLE: New Antenna Insights
Date: 4/6/99 6:19:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: jsj...@roava.net (Steve Jones)
To: frac...@aol.com (Fractenna)
Tom these kind of people have no real friends so the only thing they can do
is keep trouble stirred up so people will talk to them. Ignore this idiot
and he will be like a pile of dog do do and dry up and blow away with the
wind. 73, friend, Steve
______________________________________
Fractenna
Next week, for reasons that will be evident, there will be hundreds, if not
thousands of people searching the web for more info on fractals and freq.
independent antennas. Most will just be curious and not know anything about ham
radio, or hams.
Some non-trivial number will get on dejanews. They will find this thread, and
spend some time reading the posts.
What they will see makes CB at-its-worst look good, any day of the week.
My point: independent of efforts to make me personally look bad those of you
who posted off- thread send a very negative message to the public.
It is in ham radio's charter with the FCC that ham radio exist to spurn
innovation in the telecommunications art. That is exactly what fractal antennas
started out as, and what I have been encouraging for some time. And, granted,
there ARE many hams who , starting as negative, found out something new and
experimented themselves.
So, the next time you twirl your beam and twist the pretty knobs of your solid
state digital radio, think about the many hams through the generations who have
fought to expand the state of the art. Then ask yourself: by abusing an
individual who is making a difference, 'am I contributing to the state of the
art'?
This is not a trivial incident and has lasting policy implications for hams. I
will do the best I can to help, despite the abuse.
I am not asking you to be charitable; I am demanding that you review your
motivations and outlook for the better. I will continue to set an example for
this.
Thanks to the vast majority of those on this NG--including a majority who are
hams--who did not feel that ganging up and abusing an individual was an
acceptable activity.
73
Chip N1IR
K1BQT
>>I am demanding that you review your
motivations...<<
You might want to review your own. Those who douse themselves with gasoline
and set on fire to promote an idea usually only get one opportunity.
Rick K1BQT
Fractenna
>and set on fire to promote an idea usually only get one opportunity.
>
>Rick K1BQT
>
I am still alive,Rick--at least for a while. And while I am I will continue to
do what I have been provided the gifts of doing.
Chip
pmarkham
whining about the response, it is guaranteed to be more of the same. Ignore
the nasty personal sniping. When you contribute something of substance to the
community, I remember you for it. When you contribute, primarily, schoolyard
histrionics, I remember you for that, also, and all it implies.
I am looking forward to more antenna related postings from you. I have
found value in them. I hope that your post, edited below, portends a change.
Pete/wa4hei
In article <19990407052403...@ng-ft1.aol.com>, frac...@aol.com
(Fractenna) wrote:
Much deleted...
>This is not a trivial incident and has lasting policy implications for hams. I
>will do the best I can to help, despite the abuse.
>
>I am not asking you to be charitable; I am demanding that you review your
>motivations and outlook for the better. I will continue to set an example for
>this.
>
>73
>Chip N1IR
Fractenna
>I am looking forward to more antenna related postings from you. I have
>found value in them. I hope that your post, edited below, portends a change.
>
>Pete/wa4hei
Thank you for your kind words.
73
Chip N1IR
Tom W8JI
>I am not asking you to be charitable; I am demanding that you review your
>motivations and outlook for the better. I will continue to set an example for
>this.
So far I'm not impressed with your "example".
I had two motivations in replying to you.
1.) To encourage you to describe exactly what special attributes
fractals, or any other geometric shape, has for radiation or loading
of antennas.
With such a description, eveyone might learn why you proclaim that
function follows form, instead of the common view that form follows
function.
Without such an explaination, any contributions you might make to
state-of- the- art are moot.
2.) To gently pressure you into being civil to others and honest with
yourself.
Even if that takes professional assistance, your world would be much
happier if you didn't self-destruct every time someone asked you a
valid questioon or disagreed with you on a topic.
Technical conversations are much more rewarding than fist-fights, and
respect is earned...not available per demands in the style of a
whining two-year-old.
73 Tom
Fractenna
>
>1.) To encourage you to describe exactly what special attributes
>fractals, or any other geometric shape, has for radiation or loading
>of antennas.
>
I have done so to the best of my ability, as you previously requested, in a few
sentences. Would you like me to re-post?Beyond that I should like to recommend:
1) Hohlfeld and Cohen, "Self Similarity and the Geometric Requirements for
Frequency Independence in Antennas", Fractals, March 1999 (I don't have volume
here myself as it is slow to get to our library);
2. Peunte et al.,1997, "Fractal Antennas", in Fractals in Engineering (FE97),
ed. by Lutton et al., Kluwer New York.
3. Landstorfer and Sacher,1985, "Optimization of Wire Antennas", Wiley.
I will be happy to answer questions once you have availed yourself of these
articles.
73
Chip N1IR
Gerald Schmitt
I know I've asked this before but I can't recall getting an answer.
What school is that Ph.D from and in what field? This is not intended
to provoke you I just want to know how seriously to take you. TNX
JerryL
Cohen! Oh well...
Jerry
Fractenna wrote in message attributes
Fractenna
>to provoke you I just want to know how seriously to take you. TNX
>
I have a Bachelor's in physics and a Masters and Doctorate in Astrophysics. My
training is in radio astronomy in particular. My Ph.D. thesis was:
"Milliarcsecond Morphology of the Twin Quasar 0957+56A,B: The View Through a
Gravitational Lens". This was an observational thesis conducted using very long
baseline interferometry (that is, intercontinental non-phase locked, sparse
arrays). My graduate degrees are from Cornell University. Dr. Frank Drake was
my thesis advisor. I completed my doctorate in 1985.
Dr. Hohlfeld also has such degrees from Cornell.
73
Chip N1IR
Fractenna
>Cohen! Oh well...
>
>Jerry
>
Hi Jerry--
I offered to debate. That was the opportunity to discuss such issues in
heuristic detail--which appears to be what you allude to. In the absence of
that, the only thing that makes sense is to give pointers to info, which is
what I just did.
The first reference was made available--for free-- up until March 25. It was
posted here on this NG; and, indeed, Dr. Hohfeld received many requests for
reprints from it., suggesting that the cutoff date was appropriate.
I hope you will see that I have done my best to be helpful in this matter.
73
Chip N1IR
Tom W8JI
>Tom sed:
>>
>>1.) To encourage you to describe exactly what special attributes
>>fractals, or any other geometric shape, has for radiation or loading
>>of antennas.
>>
>
>I have done so to the best of my ability, as you previously requested, in a few
>sentences. Would you like me to re-post?Beyond that I should like to recommend:
Yes. Please re-post here.
Exactly what is behind claims fractals are superior to other geometric
forms?
73 Tom
Fractenna
>
>Exactly what is behind claims fractals are superior to other geometric
>forms?
>
>73 Tom
Hi Tom--
Dejanews confirms that my post made it; please have another look.
What is behind the statement of advantages of fractals is Maxwell's equations
and the properties of constructive interference and self-reactance, among
others.
I was happy to accomodate you in this way, but I sense that by asking me to
re-post, you are not interested in using my time effectively. (I am ill at
present.)
May I suggest you ask other colleagues regarding fractal antennas? Professor
Doug Werner has done quite a bit of work on them, for example. I've done the
very best I can for you Mr. Rauch, especially allowing you the opportunity to
publicly debate these issues in minute detail- of which you did not avail
yourself.
73
Chip N1IR