What's all this fractal stuff? Show me the money...
Michael Tommasi
I am sure that some very new antenna designs can be found and proven to
be effective. Put the word fractal on it and it conjures up all kinds of
freaky stuff, but at bottom fractals are real science and one has only
to look at fractal compression techniques to find a valid and serious
application.
What is at issue here is something else. The tone of the debate, and,
judging from the postings, the fact that whoever FRACTENNA is can spend
his entire day answering his critics on the internet, immediately turns
one off from taking this stuff seriously. I am not judging the validity
of his claims, just his sense of priorities.
If his antenna is so great, let him submit it to QST, who will certain
ask hams to review the claims before publishing any article on it. If it
does what is claimed, then QST would be crazy to keep it from us.
I looked at the web site for Fractal Antenna. Why is it so defensive and
paranoid from the first paragraph on? Even before I have any objection I
start looking for trouble!
- When I read "It is inappropriate to write a complete history of
fractal as antennas here, although one would be devoid of completeness
to leave it out", it makes one cringe and laugh, not because it is bad
science, it's just bad prose.
- When I read "Fractals are not a mere convenience of description but a
necessity", this is one of those shrill hysterical claims that remind me
of the fuzzy logic people (guys, control systems worked just fine with
PID loops, long before you carved your niche! One could even achieve
smooth control before the fuzz appeared!).
Log periodics can possibly benefit from a fractal treatment, but we did
just fine with classical methods. Many of the claims for the fractal
loops proposed are also true of simple long wires and dipoles or quads
or rectangular loops, there are many resonances but few are useable.
The news items shown make a big deal of ham contacts done with a fractal
beam antenna on a tower with 1W. I regularly contact my friend W4GXT in
North Carolina with a 70 cm whip and 10W in my car on the highway, yet I
never wrote to the papers to tell them. I even did Diego Garcia from
downtown Milan with the same setup.
At any rate, the claims for wide bandwidth are not very useful to a HAM,
unless the antenna can cover 80-40-30-20-17-15-12-10-6 with good
directionality and no special tuning devices, which it cannot in its
simple fractal Yagi form. The fractal quad may perform nicely enough on
10m, but a cubical quad, though larger, is better, easier to build, and
hold up to high winds, no matter how much you scream. A shrunken quad of
around 2 feet per side can be tuned to 28 MHz with less complication
than all those bends, and will probably give similar gain and F/B to
those claimed for the fractal.
I like looking at fractal science, I respect it and love to read about
it. But I object to those who endorse it as a party line and go around
saying that they can go where nobody has gone before. No wonder journals
reject you. Look at the patronizing emails you send back to them and
then publish for all to see! Keep your dirty laundry private, please, do
not use the Web or a public forum.
FINALLY, show me a fractal antenna covering all the HF bands without
special tuning devices and achieving good results on a small footprint,
and then we can keep talking. If it works and is that much better than,
say, what DJ2UT does, I'll place my order.
Bye all
F5UFL
Fractenna
>
>I am sure that some very new antenna designs can be found and proven to
>be effective. Put the word fractal on it and it conjures up all kinds of
>freaky stuff, but at bottom fractals are real science and one has only
>to look at fractal compression techniques to find a valid and serious
>application.
>
>What is at issue here is something else. The tone of the debate, and,
>judging from the postings, the fact that whoever FRACTENNA is can spend
>his entire day answering his critics on the internet, immediately turns
>one off from taking this stuff seriously
And yet, you spend quite a bit of time constructing a false picture.
I am in the lab, with the internet on. If there is a post, and it takes a
minute to answer, I do so. Simple. I am hardly pinned to the computer. It runs
in the background, a diversion when I am waiting for the soldering iron to heat
up, or the glue to dry, or whatever, If you object to my use, my answer is: so
what? Do you really think you are my number one priority?
. I am not judging the validity
>of his claims, just his sense of priorities.
>
..and yet that is now exactly what you discuss.
>If his antenna is so great, let him submit it to QST, who will certain
>ask hams to review the claims before publishing any article on it.
I have published articles in: 73; Comm Quarterly; DX magazine; and so on. Steve
Ford asked me to write a fractal antenna article for QST and I told him no. I
do not like working with them, based on previous experience, well documented
here on this NG.
QST is no big deal, my friend. The web site gets 25K plus hits a month on the
ham page. Lately its got over 40K.
If it
>does what is claimed, then QST would be crazy to keep it from us.
>
I simply will not give it TO them. Why should I?
>I looked at the web site for Fractal Antenna. Why is it so defensive and
>paranoid from the first paragraph on? Even before I have any objection I
>start looking for trouble!
>
>- When I read "It is inappropriate to write a complete history of
>fractal as antennas here, although one would be devoid of completeness
>to leave it out", it makes one cringe and laugh, not because it is bad
>science, it's just bad prose.
I will be happy to rewrite based on your suggestion. What would you suggest?
>- When I read "Fractals are not a mere convenience of description but a
>necessity", this is one of those shrill hysterical claims that remind me
>of the fuzzy logic people (guys, control systems worked just fine with
>PID loops, long before you carved your niche! One could even achieve
>smooth control before the fuzz appeared!).
>
But absolutely accurate.
>Log periodics can possibly benefit from a fractal treatment, but we did
>just fine with classical methods.
We did? Are you saying that ignorance of what makes an antenna freq indepndent
is better?!
> Many of the claims for the fractal
>loops proposed are also true of simple long wires and dipoles or quads
>or rectangular loops, there are many resonances but few are useable.
So, what's your point. YOU said: "many 'claims'. What other claims are thus
applicable?
>
>The news items shown make a big deal of ham contacts done with a fractal
>beam antenna on a tower with 1W. I regularly contact my friend W4GXT in
>North Carolina with a 70 cm whip and 10W in my car on the highway, yet I
>never wrote to the papers to tell them. I even did Diego Garcia from
>downtown Milan with the same setup.
>
That's nice. There is only one such piece, and it makes it very clear WHY this
was a press release.
>At any rate, the claims for wide bandwidth are not very useful to a HAM,
>unless the antenna can cover 80-40-30-20-17-15-12-10-6 with good
>directionality and no special tuning devices, which it cannot in its
>simple fractal Yagi form.
Or any other antenna. You may define that as your criteria of you wish. I;m not
interested in meeting it.
> The fractal quad may perform nicely enough on
>10m,
It sure does!
>but a cubical quad, though larger, is better,
By about 1.5 dB. And M U C H larger.
<easier to build,
Not true. Gary, KF7BS was surprised how easy it was to build the 10M FQY and
was so happy with it he wrote his own article. Others are also doing so; stay
tuned.
and
>hold up to high winds, no matter how much you scream
Your hot air is obvious. The 10M FQY sustained at least a 90-100 MPH TORNADIC
WINDS on 6 July, 1999. An F1. It required -NO- repair. I used it today to work
DX. Trees 7 feet away lost limbs 6 inches across. two trees 40 feet away
snapped with 14-17 inch trunks
> A shrunken quad of
>around 2 feet per side can be tuned to 28 MHz with less complication
>than all those bends, and will probably give similar gain and F/B
That speculation is incorrect. It will be down by at least 5 to8 dB from the
10M FQY.
to
>those claimed for the fractal.
They are not claims they are statements of fact.
>I like looking at fractal science, I respect it and love to read about
>it. But I object to those who endorse it as a party line and go around
>saying that they can go where nobody has gone before.
Excuse me? WHAT journals reject me?!
No wonder journals
>reject you. Look at the patronizing emails you send back to them and
>then publish for all to see! Keep your dirty laundry private, please, do
>not use the Web or a public forum.
>
This is exactly what you are doing.
>FINALLY, show me a fractal antenna covering all the HF bands without
>special tuning devices and achieving good results on a small footprint,
>and then we can keep talking. If it works and is that much better than,
>say, what DJ2UT does, I'll place my order.
No you won't. I am not afilliated with a company that sells ham antennas.
>Bye all
>
>F5UFL
73
Chip N1IR
>
>
>
>
>
Tom W8JI
It may be a glue problem, or a hot iron placed in the wrong holder,
that causes responses like this......
Tom W8JI
<mic...@tommasi.org> wrote:
>Guys,
>
>I am sure that some very new antenna designs can be found and proven to
>be effective. Put the word fractal on it and it conjures up all kinds of
>freaky stuff, but at bottom fractals are real science and one has only
>to look at fractal compression techniques to find a valid and serious
>application.
Hi Mike(?)
I've been trying to find a clear concise explaination of what
advantage fractals have over non-fractal systems, but so far nothing
has been offered that ties shape into performance.
All antennas work on a few very basic concepts. They are transmission
lines as well as radiators. They follow rules of conventional
circuits, as well as rules of mutual coupling and rules that govern
radiation.
Everything I find on fractals (there are some good web pages, but the
Fractenna page is not one of them) shows that the primary idea behind
fractals is they pack a lot of wire in a small area.
Unfortunately, that isn't a desirable thing for radiation, unless we
are talking about heat radiation.
For loaded antennas, as a general rule we want to use the LEAST folded
or coiled conductor area we can to load an antenna. As a general rule,
we want to have the current carrying area as long and straight as
possible, and have it carry the most uniform current possible with the
LEAST capacitance possible shunting any inductance used to load the
antenna.
From what I see, most of the "fractal advantages" are caused by two
effects:
1.) The fractal antenna is unfairly compared to a standard system with
less overall spatial or dimensional area.
2.) The fractal antenna is folded in a way that causes it to behave a
series of elements that radiate with directivity.
In either case, there has always been a non-fractal design of
comparable or superior performance IF the non-fractal is allowed the
same latitude for spatial area and number of current points.
I also wonder, and have wondered for a long time, what all the crowing
is about. It seems like straight answers are impossible to get.
So far, there is nothing that has been posted on this newsgroup or is
readily available on any other page that illustrates any clear
advantage to packing as much wire in a given area as possible.
I hope this helps.
By the way, I hope anyone who feels obligated to respond confines
himself to direct answers that DO NOT require a search through
thousands and thousands of meaningless posts. I also hope any response
is direct and factual, and contains all the information necessary to
be considered a response.
73 Tom
Fractenna
personally. Of course, in reading it, I STILL look like a first-class jerk, as
is his intent. But given the three years of history behind Mr. Rauch's abuse,
we shouldn't be surprised that he pretends that the answers to his questions
have not been profferred--let alone compellingly.
I will repeat, Mr. Rauch, that these issues are an excellent means for you to
enter into debate. They sound confident; assured; authoritative. Of course, the
fact that you have been shown wrong--in print--by myself and others on these
issues --seems to be something you just can't face up to.
Considering how high the stakes are--which is watching my career voluntarily
evaporate IF I'm wrong--I would think you would welcome this opportunity.
Surely there are others reading the mail that wonder why--if what you say is
so--I am so confident about engaging you in a public, civil, concise, and
objective debate. What is the downside for you Mr. Rauch, other than an
apology? Are you fearful that your crank approach will be further exposed for
everyone interested to see?
Again, I actively encourage readers of this NG to write e-mail to Tom and tell
him to go for it.
I tell you what: I will fund a special web page--personally-- to show the
vugraphs of the two debaters so that all can share with everyone after the
fact.
Time to do your homework, Mr. Rauch.
You now have another hour and 1/2 to answer whether you are planning to debate.
Your comments here are compelling--IF they are correct. I will most assuredly
be happy to --once again--answer any of your questions within the debate
context. I will, most assuredly, no longer answer any of your fractal antenna
questions unless you do.
73,
Nathan 'Chip' Cohen, Ph.D.
N1IR
Larry Benko
Larry, W0QE
K1BQT wrote:
>
> >Of course, the fact that you have been shown wrong--in print--by myself and
> others on these issues --seems to be something you just can't face up to.<
>
> Forget the love taps. Present your evidence, Chip. If Tom's wrong, explain
> WHY and HOW he's wrong--as honestly and directly--if you can.
>
> >Considering how high the stakes are--which is watching my career voluntarily
> evaporate...<
>
> Stop whining...this is a recreational amateur antenna forum only--and perfect
> for resolving these issues. Only a fool would bet their house on a
> recreational poker game or demand a public spectical to make a point. How
> over-dramatic and silly can you get?
>
> >Your comments here are compelling...<
> Tom's given you two very clear and compelling issues to respond to.
>
> >I will, most assuredly, no longer answer any of your fractal antenna
> questions unless you...(debate publicly)<
>
> What's your fear? If you're theories are any good at all and if you're half as
> smart as you insist, you need nothing more than this forum to clearly present
> and defend the integrity of fractal loading. That's why the NG is here--and, I
> presume that's why you'd elect to be on it.
>
> New leaf, new day, no trolling for torts, no farting around. Stand and
> deliver, Chip, N1IR, if you're able.
>
> Rick K1BQT
Fred Hambrecht
meaningless. You manage to out "IS IS" Clinton. I personally have given up
trying to get any meaningful information from you.
I am in the process of building a fractal quad modeled at 440 megahertz. I
have a standard antenna of known gain for comparison purposes. The computer
will control the A/B switching on the received end. (Using the fact that all
antennas have reciprocity) the received signal will be synchronously
switched between two D/A converters while the transmitting dipole mounted
1200 feet away will be moved in 6" increments from 5ft to 70 ft. this will
give me the information I am after. It was the method I had planned to use
as a beta tester had you been so inclined. Your comment that my "mischief on
the NG made me unworthy simply ticked me off enough to do this on my own. In
spite of the multi thousand hits on your website, I think the people on here
are due some answers rather than hype.
I plan to post the results along with the methodology and let my fellow hams
determine the worthiness of the results.
I have truly tried to see your side of the story, but your defensive
attitudes and redefinition of words has frustrated me beyond belief. I wish
you well in your venture,
and am sorry we cannot communicate.
73's ____
Fred W4JLE
Ralf K. Buschner
Fractenna wrote in <19990829171654...@ng-fl1.aol.com>:
> QST is no big deal, my friend. The web site gets 25K plus hits a
> month on the ham page. Lately its got over 40K.
I also looked to your website, that doesn't say that i'd agree with you.
> > A shrunken quad of
> >around 2 feet per side can be tuned to 28 MHz with less complication
> >than all those bends, and will probably give similar gain and F/B
>
> That speculation is incorrect. It will be down by at least 5 to8 dB
> from the 10M FQY.
That strictly depends from the measuring methods, are these 5 to 8dB a
calculated, simulated or a measured number?
cu, Ralf
--
Was fuer 'ne Signatur?
Fractenna
>That strictly depends from the measuring methods, are these 5 to 8dB a
>calculated, simulated or a measured number?
>
>cu, Ralf
>
MEASURED.
NC
K1BQT
Fractenna
I applaude your efforts to build and test a fractal quad. However, making one
out of wire is probably not a good idea on 440 if you want to scale it.
As stated clearly on the fractalantenna@onelist archives, you need to scale the
wire width, which I doubt you'll do. Ask yourself what a #10 wire on 28 MHz
scales to on 440.
Of course, you can indeed use, say #10 or #14 wire (for that matter) but the
size will be bigger. I encourage you to experiment.
You were turned down as a beta tester for the following --2-- reasons, and I
quote the e-mail to you:
---------------------------------
The web page is very explicit about reporting. Mischief on a NG (your latest
with some mammarial reference) is not appropriate for objective beta critique.
Also, the ham page web site has seen 20,000 plus hits a month and is likely
to hit 40 or 50K when the critiques are posted. That far exceeds any limited NG
readership. NG is the wrong venue.
You still have not stated -- how --you plan to do A/B type comparisons. Nor did
you do so originally. We plan to amend the web page to make this point clear.
But based upon our previous NG correspondence you are aware of the issues, and
with a second shot still have not articulated how you'd do so.
We respectfully decline your request based on these two reasons.
With Best wishes,
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
CTO
Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc.
----------------------------------------------
Talking about your wife's bra and chest in the context of a fractal antenna is
not something that I, among others, want to have anything to do with. Here's
what you said on this publicly accessed NG on Aug 25 and on:
--------------------------------------------
Are you saying that if I make a contact loading the wire in my wife's
underwire bra it would be a new record? Watts per mile has been around
as long as I can remember. At no time did it ever specify a particular
antenna, although normally the antennas are mentioned for informational
purposes.
73's Fred W4JLE
------------------------------------------------------
and then later that day:
-----------------------------------
It was a hypothetical <Grin> If I got anywhere near the Gazongas with a
piece of coax she would be setting records for the milliwats per millimeter
with a protruding part of my anatomy. Hi Hi
73's Fred W4JLE
-------------------------------------------
Also, you STILL have not told us how you plan to do the A/B comparison
Computers and A to D converters are hardly the issue. Earlier on I discussed
two methods available to radio amateurs.
I suspect that if you get past your silliness--noting, independent of this
'bra' episode, your earlier, bizarre 'story' on fractal antennas-- you may have
something worth contributing on fractal antenna's by hams. But I can't help you
with it given the above. I will be happy to critique after the fact on this NG.
73,
Chip N1IR
R. L. Measures
<mic...@tommasi.org> wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I am sure that some very new antenna designs can be found and proven to
> be effective. Put the word fractal on it and it conjures up all kinds of
> freaky stuff, but at bottom fractals are real science and one has only
> to look at fractal compression techniques to find a valid and serious
> application.
>
> What is at issue here is something else. The tone of the debate, and,
> judging from the postings, the fact that whoever FRACTENNA is can spend
> his entire day answering his critics on the internet, immediately turns
> one off from taking this stuff seriously. I am not judging the validity
> of his claims, just his sense of priorities.
>
> If his antenna is so great, let him submit it to QST, who will certain
> ask hams to review the claims before publishing any article on it. If it
> does what is claimed, then QST would be crazy to keep it from us.
>
> I looked at the web site for Fractal Antenna. Why is it so defensive and
> paranoid from the first paragraph on? .........
€ ... psychohistory
>........
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734. www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
R. L. Measures
frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
> >Guys,
> >
> >I am sure that some very new antenna designs can be found and proven to
> >be effective. Put the word fractal on it and it conjures up all kinds of
> >freaky stuff, but at bottom fractals are real science and one has only
> >to look at fractal compression techniques to find a valid and serious
> >application.
> >
> >What is at issue here is something else. The tone of the debate, and,
> >judging from the postings, the fact that whoever FRACTENNA is can spend
> >his entire day answering his critics on the internet, immediately turns
> >one off from taking this stuff seriously
>
> And yet, you spend quite a bit of time constructing a false picture.
>
> I am in the lab, with the internet on. If there is a post, and it takes a
> minute to answer, I do so. Simple. I am hardly pinned to the computer. It runs
> in the background, a diversion when I am waiting for the soldering iron
to heat
> up, or the glue to dry, or whatever, If you object to my use, my answer is: so
> what? Do you really think you are my number one priority?
>
€ when I said that the fractal Web site was strange, within 2-hours I
received a telephone call from a person who represented himself as Nathan
Cohen.
>
> . I am not judging the validity
> >of his claims, just his sense of priorities.
> >
> ..and yet that is now exactly what you discuss.
>
> >If his antenna is so great, let him submit it to QST, who will certain
> >ask hams to review the claims before publishing any article on it.
>
> I have published articles in: 73; Comm Quarterly; DX magazine; and so
on. Steve
> Ford asked me to write a fractal antenna article for QST and I told him no. I
> do not like working with them, based on previous experience, well documented
> here on this NG.
€ Unlike the rest of the ham magazines, QST has a technical review
board. This is basically why you don't see any articles about "cold
fusion" and other delusions. . And in "73"?
> QST is no big deal, my friend. The web site gets 25K plus hits a month on the
> ham page. Lately its got over 40K.
>
>
>
> > If it does what is claimed, then QST would be crazy to keep it from us.
> >
>
> I simply will not give it TO them. Why should I?
>
€ Because of the risk of rejection by QST's technical review board?.
>.........
R. L. Measures
W8JI) wrote:
.............
> By the way, I hope anyone who feels obligated to respond confines
> himself to direct answers that DO NOT require a search through
> thousands and thousands of meaningless posts. I also hope any response
> is direct and factual, and contains all the information necessary to
> be considered a response.
>
€ Good luck, Tom
R. L. Measures
frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
> >
Tom Rauch wrote:
> >Hi Mike(?)
> >
> >I've been trying to find a clear concise explaination of what
> >advantage fractals have over non-fractal systems, but so far nothing
> >has been offered that ties shape into performance.
> >
............
> Surely there are others reading the mail that wonder why--if what you say is
> so--I am so confident about engaging you in a public, civil, concise, and
> objective debate.
€ Sabre rattling
>What is the downside for you Mr. Rauch, other than an
> apology? Are you fearful that your crank approach will be further
exposed for
> everyone interested to see?
>
> Again, I actively encourage readers of this NG to write e-mail to Tom
and tell
> him to go for it.
>
€ Tom: There are some people that are undebateable. In my opinion, this
is one. Fidel Castro is another.
R. L. Measures
frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
> >
> >Chip, I can understand why someone might find a debate with you somewhat
> >meaningless. You manage to out "IS IS" Clinton. I personally have given up
> >trying to get any meaningful information from you.
> >
> > I am in the process of building a fractal quad modeled at 440 megahertz. I
> >have a standard antenna of known gain for comparison purposes. The computer
> >will control the A/B switching on the received end. (Using the fact that all
> >antennas have reciprocity) the received signal will be synchronously
> >switched between two D/A converters while the transmitting dipole mounted
> >1200 feet away will be moved in 6" increments from 5ft to 70 ft. this will
> >give me the information I am after. It was the method I had planned to use
> >as a beta tester had you been so inclined. Your comment that my "mischief on
> >the NG made me unworthy simply ticked me off enough to do this on my own. In
> >spite of the multi thousand hits on your website, I think the people on here
> >are due some answers rather than hype.
> >
> >I plan to post the results along with the methodology and let my fellow hams
> >determine the worthiness of the results.
> >
> >I have truly tried to see your side of the story, but your defensive
> >attitudes and redefinition of words has frustrated me beyond belief. I wish
> >you well in your venture,
> >and am sorry we cannot communicate.
> >
> >73's ____
> >Fred W4JLE
> >> Surely there are others reading the mail that wonder why--if what you say
> >is
> >> so--I am so confident about engaging you in a public, civil, concise, and
> >> objective debate. What is the downside for you Mr. Rauch, other than an
> >> apology? Are you fearful that your crank approach will be further
> >exposed for
> >> everyone interested to see?
> >>
> >
>
> I applaude your efforts to build and test a fractal quad.
€ yeah, right
>However, making one
> out of wire is probably not a good idea on 440 if you want to scale it.
>
€ The preliminary defense against a somewhat unspectacular showing in
Fred's test.
>.......
Mike Lucas W5CHR
R. L. Measures wrote
>€ when I said that the fractal Web site was strange, within 2-hours I
>received a telephone call from a person who represented himself as Nathan
>Cohen.
>>
I can top that, Richard. I received an email from Fractenna, signed by
Chip's wife!!! Only thing is, she misspelled her own name.Makes one wonder,
eh???
Mike Lucas W5CHR
Memphis, Tenn.
Tom W8JI
<luca...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>I can top that, Richard. I received an email from Fractenna, signed by
>Chip's wife!!! Only thing is, she misspelled her own name.Makes one wonder,
>eh???
>Mike Lucas W5CHR
>Memphis, Tenn.
It could be related to excessive cold fusion.
Was she looking for a new babysitter?
73 Tom
Bob Headrick
> ? Unlike the rest of the ham magazines, QST has a technical review
> board. This is basically why you don't see any articles about "cold
> fusion" and other delusions. . And in "73"?
I can't speak for recent articles, since I let my subscription lapse after the
second time they ran the article on the little inverter circuit you connected to
your ankles to purify your blood and cure AIDS and a host of other ailments.
Looks like a good place for snake oil articles.
- Bob W7OV
Mark Keith
> ---------------------------------
> The web page is very explicit about reporting. Mischief on a NG (your latest
> with some mammarial reference) is not appropriate for objective beta critique.
> Also, the ham page web site has seen 20,000 plus hits a month and is likely
> to hit 40 or 50K when the critiques are posted. That far exceeds any limited NG
> readership. NG is the wrong venue.
I'm curious, if the NG is the wrong venue for beta test reports, with
low numbers in attendance, why would it be any better for a debate.
Seems to me it wouldn't matter where the reports went as long as they
were factual.
Also, I think you would be surprised as the numbers these NG's roll up.
Probably eat the average web page for lunch. There are many watching
that never post.
>
> You still have not stated -- how --you plan to do A/B type comparisons. Nor did
> you do so originally. We plan to amend the web page to make this point clear.
> But based upon our previous NG correspondence you are aware of the issues, and
> with a second shot still have not articulated how you'd do so.
Uh....Whats wrong with using a switch and A/B between two antennas on a
received signal? Sure , not exact, but will tell which is better.
Doesn't even need to transmit, as all is reciprical. Not much to telling
which of two antennas is better. For more exact results, he could always
use a step attenuator or whatever. A/B 'ing two antennas is not rocket
science. Not nearly as much as determining accurate gain numbers. Maybe
you should specify how you would want the antennas compared to
prospective testers as to avoid confusion. MK
--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k
Fractenna
>> ---------------------------------
>> The web page is very explicit about reporting. Mischief on a NG (your
>latest
>> with some mammarial reference) is not appropriate for objective beta
>critique.
>> Also, the ham page web site has seen 20,000 plus hits a month and is
>likely
>> to hit 40 or 50K when the critiques are posted. That far exceeds any
>limited NG
>> readership. NG is the wrong venue.
>
>I'm curious, if the NG is the wrong venue for beta test reports, with
>low numbers in attendance, why would it be any better for a debate.
EXACTLY. You need a public venue as I stated, such as a ham convention. Thanks
for stating an opinion that agrees with me.
>Seems to me it wouldn't matter where the reports went as long as they
>were factual.
It matters quite a bit as there is going to be quite a bit of visual info from
the beta tetsers. See: http://www.fractenna.com for the beta tester page,.
which will be updated in a few days.
>Also, I think you would be surprised as the numbers these NG's roll up.
>Probably eat the average web page for lunch. There are many watching
>that never post.
>>
Then Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc. is happy to deal with the more modest 40-50K
rate per month on its ham web page:-)
>> You still have not stated -- how --you plan to do A/B type comparisons. Nor
>did
>> you do so originally. We plan to amend the web page to make this point
>clear.
>> But based upon our previous NG correspondence you are aware of the issues,
>and
>> with a second shot still have not articulated how you'd do so.
>
>Uh....Whats wrong with using a switch and A/B between two antennas on a
>received signal? Sure , not exact, but will tell which is better.
Nothing. If your saw that post to Fred you recall I stressed that. That still
doesn't state how a relative gain is going to be determined.
>Doesn't even need to transmit, as all is reciprical. Not much to telling
>which of two antennas is better. For more exact results, he could always
>use a step attenuator or whatever. A/B 'ing two antennas is not rocket
>science. Not nearly as much as determining accurate gain numbers.
EXACTLY; Agree totally.
Maybe
>you should specify how you would want the antennas compared to
>prospective testers as to avoid confusion. MK
That's a good suggestion, but one already corrected. I can't get the web
material up when I want it, necessarily.
Thanks for your comments.
73,
Chip N1IR
>--
>http://web.wt.net/~nm5k
>
>
>
>
R. L. Measures
<bo...@proaxis.com> wrote:
€ It seem that Wayne is on the wane.
R. L. Measures
<luca...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> R. L. Measures wrote
>
> >€ when I said that the fractal Web site was strange, within 2-hours I
> >received a telephone call from a person who represented himself as Nathan
> >Cohen.
> >>
>
>
> I can top that, Richard. I received an email from Fractenna, signed by
> Chip's wife!!! Only thing is, she misspelled her own name.Makes one wonder,
> eh???
>
> Mike Lucas W5CHR
> Memphis, Tenn.
Did she have anything interesting to say?
Ralf K. Buschner
Hi, Tom
you wrote in <37c9b03f...@news.akorn.net>:
> All antennas work on a few very basic concepts. They are transmission
> lines as well as radiators. They follow rules of conventional
> circuits, as well as rules of mutual coupling and rules that govern
> radiation.
>
> Everything I find on fractals (there are some good web pages, but the
> Fractenna page is not one of them) shows that the primary idea behind
> fractals is they pack a lot of wire in a small area.
Right. So we can say, fractal antenna designs works not _because_ they
are fractals, but _although_ they are fractals... :-)
Ralf K. Buschner
Fractenna wrote in <19990829194607...@ng-cr1.aol.com>:
> 73,
> Nathan 'Chip' Cohen, Ph.D.
> N1IR
Meanwhile i found the following signs on your postings:
Chip, N1IR
Phil, N1ZKT
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
Nathan "Chip" Cohen, Ph.D.
and now
Nathan 'Chip' Cohen, Ph.D., N1IR
Would you agree, that at least Nathan and Chip are the same person?
Fred Hambrecht
one
> out of wire is probably not a good idea on 440 if you want to scale it.
> As stated clearly on the fractalantenna@onelist archives, you need to
scale the
> wire width, which I doubt you'll do. Ask yourself what a #10 wire on 28
MHz
> scales to on 440.
Why would you doubt it? In spite of the fact I only have a masters I can
read and follow directions. I suspect that once again you are planning for a
siege when none is called for. I am simply trying to get meaningfull data
that I can then use to make up my own mind on the validity of your claims. I
would have perfered to work with your guidence on this, however do not take
not working with you as working against you. I have no intentions of
ridiculing you, simply verifying your findings either negative or positive.
The rest of the nonsense below is specious and has nothing to do with my
technical or professional abilities. But! You already knew that didn't you.
My Very best to you
Fred W4JLE
> ---------------------------------
> The web page is very explicit about reporting. Mischief on a NG (your
latest
> with some mammarial reference) is not appropriate for objective beta
critique.
> Also, the ham page web site has seen 20,000 plus hits a month and is
likely
> to hit 40 or 50K when the critiques are posted. That far exceeds any
limited NG
> readership. NG is the wrong venue.
Ralf K. Buschner
Fractenna wrote in <19990829211042...@ng-fl1.aol.com>:
> >That strictly depends from the measuring methods, are these 5 to 8dB
> >a calculated, simulated or a measured number?
>
> MEASURED.
Oh, i dont want to blame you, but after your descriptions about your
measurement conditions i am a bit afraid about the exactness...
Tom W8JI
wrote:
>Right. So we can say, fractal antenna designs works not _because_ they
>are fractals, but _although_ they are fractals... :-)
More exactly, SOME fractal designs work not because they are fractals
but in spite of the fact they are fractals. Many obviously don't work.
Fractenna
>
>read and follow directions. I suspect that once again you are planning for a
>siege when none is called for.
See? Even when some one compliments you you get huffy...
> I am simply trying to get meaningfull data
>that I can then use to make up my own mind on the validity of your claims.
What C L A I M S?
If you wish to verify STATEMENTS OF FACT then go ahead; what's been stopping
you--or others-- since October 1994, when I gave the first fractal antenna talk
, at the NE England ARRL Convention? Obviously it hasn't 'stopped' some
people:-)
Why don't you put the results on a web page so more people can see? I am going
to put up a critique of ham fractal antena web pages in October and will be
happy to review.
You also asked what your comments on your wife's breasts and bra have to do
with excluding you as a beta tester. Its simple: 6 people here read your
comments and said this was not something an antenna company wanted to affiliate
themselves with.
Perhaps you can find another antenna company that would welcome comments on
their antennas that incorporate language dealing with your wife's breasts and
bra.
I personally find your comments in very bad taste. Ask your wife what she
thinks.
I won't discuss this topic again. If you wish to defend your position--and the
right to publicly discuss your wife's breasts and bra in the context of
antennas- that's up to you. Please keep me out of it.
73,
Chip N1IR
Tom W8JI
>Why don't you put the results on a web page so more people can see? I am going
>to put up a critique of ham fractal antena web pages in October and will be
>happy to review
I wonder witch page will come out on top?
>I personally find your comments in very bad taste. Ask your wife what she
>thinks.
No one can argue with that, Chip is an expert in that area.
Fred Hambrecht
existent. My wife for info purposes found the comparison amusing. Had I said a wet
noodle would have that been more acceptable? I have NO animosity toward you. Why
are you acting as if I do? Get off your supercilious high horse and deal with the
questions. Your paranoia is a result of your own expectations of how others will
treat you. The fact that you find it necessary to out PH.D. after everything speaks
volumes for your estimation of your self worth.
I suspect that if every one who posted were to append degrees and accomplishments
to their signature you may find that your down the totem pole further than you care
to be. Why do you make it impossible to deal with you? Your statement that no
antenna company would want someone who discussed breasts as a beta tester is
ridiculous. A beta tester should be neither a representative nor a cheerleader for
the product being tested. I want to be your friend, so get past the paranoia and
start with the assumption that as a fellow ham I am interested in what you have to
say right or wrong. Stop finding reasons to avoid communicating real information. I
am in contact with a Spanish company that manufactures Fractal Antennas that are
much more informative. My preconceptions on the fractal at this point are that the
wide bandwidth makes it an ideal candidate for low power frequency hopping broad
band applications where efficiency is not a factor. I.e. data communications to
handheld computers etc. Does it compare to a standard antenna other than taking up
less space. My gut reaction is that it does not. Having an open mind and no hidden
agenda, I plan to see if my preconceived notions are correct or not. So Please. get
over the bull crap and treat me as you would like to be treated. This advice works
well in all phases of life....
Again my very best
Fred W4JLE
Fractenna wrote:
> Fred W4JLE said:
>
> >
> >read and follow directions. I suspect that once again you are planning for a
> >siege when none is called for.
>
> See? Even when some one compliments you you get huffy...
>
> > I am simply trying to get meaningfull data
> >that I can then use to make up my own mind on the validity of your claims.
>
> What C L A I M S?
>
> If you wish to verify STATEMENTS OF FACT then go ahead; what's been stopping
> you--or others-- since October 1994, when I gave the first fractal antenna talk
> , at the NE England ARRL Convention? Obviously it hasn't 'stopped' some
> people:-)
>
> Why don't you put the results on a web page so more people can see? I am going
> to put up a critique of ham fractal antena web pages in October and will be
> happy to review.
>
> You also asked what your comments on your wife's breasts and bra have to do
> with excluding you as a beta tester. Its simple: 6 people here read your
> comments and said this was not something an antenna company wanted to affiliate
> themselves with.
>
> Perhaps you can find another antenna company that would welcome comments on
> their antennas that incorporate language dealing with your wife's breasts and
> bra.
>
> I personally find your comments in very bad taste. Ask your wife what she
> thinks.
>
Fractenna
You don't do well with rejection; treating such an obvious decision as whimsey
on my part is really not a good reality check.
Fred, i was TOLD not to allow you to be a beta tester, based on these reasons.
I agree with them, but any company would say the same thing.
As I said, I applaude your effort to build a fractal quad, and will be happy to
critique once you make your comments publicly available.
73,
Chip N1IR
Ralf K. Buschner
Tom W8JI wrote in <37cb4847...@news.akorn.net>:
> More exactly, SOME fractal designs work not because they are fractals
> but in spite of the fact they are fractals. Many obviously don't
> work.
ACK!
IMHO are that fractal designs of the chiptenna [(c) dl5mhk] only a way
to get the most amount of wire in the smallest possible area. We can
compare it to the fractal description of a borderline. In real, the
chiptenna is not a fractal: If you look closer to a part of the
chiptenna, you will not find smaller and smaller parts...but exactly
this would we find in a real fractal.
It only looks like a fractal on the first view...! But there is a small
difference...
I think, it's rather a kind of a quad...and because it has less area, it
has less gain.
That's all.
Tom W8JI
wrote:
>
>It only looks like a fractal on the first view...! But there is a small
>difference...
>
>I think, it's rather a kind of a quad...and because it has less area, it
>has less gain.
Hello Ralf,
The Chiptenna(c) group claimed every frequency independent antenna was
a fractal, or at least that is what everyone THOUGHT he was saying.
Frackenstein (TM) simply makes a lot of noise saying things that
really mean absolutely nothing. That way the reader makes his own
conclusions and Chiptenna(c) can always say "that isn't what I said".
I can show you three pages of text, where all three pages and perhaps
a thousand words are used to only say "the antenna seems to radiate
and have a good SWR".
Ralf K. Buschner
Tom W8JI wrote in <37cc80a1...@news.akorn.net>:
> The Chiptenna(c) group claimed every frequency independent antenna
> was a fractal, or at least that is what everyone THOUGHT he was
> saying.
:-) So my dummy load is a fractal too, but with very bad radiation.
What hot stuff in my shack...i never thought...hi.
OTOH is not important what the chiptenna(c) Gang claims, if they don't
prove that, isn't?
> Frackenstein (TM) simply makes a lot of noise saying things that
> really mean absolutely nothing. That way the reader makes his own
> conclusions and Chiptenna(c) can always say "that isn't what I said".
Yes, i don't find any real clear statements on that website...
> I can show you three pages of text, where all three pages and perhaps
> a thousand words are used to only say "the antenna seems to radiate
> and have a good SWR".
They should go for politicians.... :-)))
Fractenna
>>a thousand words are used to only say "the antenna seems to radiate
>>and have a good SWR".
>>
>
>
IF what you are referring to is written by me, I grant you permission to
reproduce that text here--with appropriate listed reference and (c)--for all to
see.
Do us a favor and show EXACTLY how I ramble; what a poor writer I am; how I
deceive and mislead--and ultimately say almost nothing in these three pages you
refer to. Surely such a mass and crass deception is readily apparent to any
and all, with major and serious repercussions against the writer.
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
Tom W8JI
>>>I can show you three pages of text, where all three pages and perhaps
>>>a thousand words are used to only say "the antenna seems to radiate
>>>and have a good SWR".
>>>
>>the show us all (quote sources buddy!)
Read the Communications Quarterly articles, in particular the one
about loading up rocks. (There is no way I can scan that text into
this newsgroup.) Chip spends several pages to say rocks, when wrapped
with aluminum foil, can radiate and have a reasonable SWR on some
frequency where they happen to be resonant.
> IF what you are referring to is written by me, I grant you permission to
>reproduce that text here--with appropriate listed reference and (c)--for all to
>see.
I don't need permission to reprint anything published in order to ask
questions or make a point about what was written. I can quote the text
as I see fit in fair use, copyright or not.
>Do us a favor and show EXACTLY how I ramble; what a poor writer I am; how I
>deceive and mislead--and ultimately say almost nothing in these three pages you
>refer to. Surely such a mass and crass deception is readily apparent to any
OK, but those are separate issues you are rolling into one.
There are two issues:
1.) You use or have used obscene language in your posts, like the F
word, while you jump on other people for using the word "bra".
2.) You contradict yourself, often just weeks or months apart. That's
true whether on the subject of antennas, or people.
I did a search for author "fractenna" and the bracket keywords for
only a one month period (April 99,) so I wouldn't have to sort through
thousands of Fractenna postsFrom Search Deja news. Chip incorporated
the "F" word in at least 8 posts, as part of the name of his antenna
(Fxxxtenna) in only a one month period.
He incorporated the "A" word at least 11 times, most often refering
to himself as " Dr. A**".
Since you asked, let's look at Fractal Antenna System's CTO closely:
On 20 Aug 1999 02:06:38 GMT, frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
>point of the media picking up on it. That's irrespective of the damage you
>have
>attempting to inflict upon me, and Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc. [NOTE: Mr.
>RAUCH WORKS for MFJ Enterprises, a major maker of antennas.]
In that post Dr. Nate Cohen clearly "claims" he knows where I work,
and my dislike for him is rooted in what he claimed was my employment
at MFJ.
In response to another claim a few weeks later by Chip I worked at a
different company, I said......
>>A few weeks (now months) ago you claimed you didn't know where I worked.
Then the CTO of Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc said.......
>Nope. Not true. Why not post this? You won't because you can't. As usual.
Well, I didn't post it. I didn't because it just didn't mean that much
to me. But since Chip keeps harping on the subject, here it is.
He has a totally different position on the same issue just a few
months earlier.....
>Subject: Re: Fractals
>Date: 1999/03/12
>Author: Fractenna <frac...@aol.com>
>I know nothing about Tom's employment, nor have any interest in such.
>Its an expression Peter; are you implying that this refers to a
>--specific--company?
>73
>Chip N1IR
A few months later, Fractenna Antenna Systems CTO (or one of his
alternate ID's posting from Fractenna) claimed I worked for Hygain.
>Rick Littlefield and Tom Rauch work for HyGain
When I pointed out that he claimed earlier he didn't know or care
where I worked, he denied saying he DIDN'T know where I worked. A few
weeks later, he said he did know. A few more weeks, and he said he
didn't know.
When someone changes his position every week, and has used the F word
in his posts as part of an antenna description and refers to himself
in some posts as Dr. A**, how can anyone take anything he says as
serious work? At any minute, he might flip-flop and claim he was
"just kidding" or launch into a swearing fit.
In suspect Chip's real job is coaching Bill Clinton on giving
"straight answers" to hard questions.
As the phrase goes, how can you tell when he is lying? His lips are
moving.
73 Tom
K3BU
>2.) You contradict yourself, often just weeks or months apart. That's
>true whether on the subject of antennas, or people.
>
Thats what happens when the brain gets frucktalized. If one knows the stuff, it
is always the same. If one dunno - then ....
I gave up on Freak after few exchanges, no use, just reading the stuff for
entertainment value (mostly by others).
Sayonara!
BU/m
Fractenna
>about loading up rocks. (There is no way I can scan that text into
>this newsgroup.) Chip spends several pages to say rocks, when wrapped
>with aluminum foil, can radiate and have a reasonable SWR on some
>frequency where they happen to be resonant.
>
>> IF what you are referring to is written by me, I grant you permission to
>>reproduce that text here--with appropriate listed reference and (c)--for all
>to
>>see.
>
>I don't need permission to reprint anything published in order to ask
>questions or make a point about what was written. I can quote the text
>as I see fit in fair use, copyright or not.
>
>>Do us a favor and show EXACTLY how I ramble; what a poor writer I am; how I
>>deceive and mislead--and ultimately say almost nothing in these three pages
>you
>>refer to. Surely such a mass and crass deception is readily apparent to any
>
>OK, but those are separate issues you are rolling into one.
>
>There are two issues:
>
>1.) You use or have used obscene language in your posts, like the F
>word, while you jump on other people for using the word "bra".
>
Absolutely. If it is necessary to point out that this is unacceptable behavior
I will use them in quoted context. Just as my relatives have used pictures of
Nazi gas chambers and bodies therein to point out their reality and that they
are wrong.
>2.) You contradict yourself, often just weeks or months apart. That's
>true whether on the subject of antennas, or people.
>
A lie.
>I did a search for author "fractenna" and the bracket keywords for
>only a one month period (April 99,) so I wouldn't have to sort through
>thousands of Fractenna postsFrom Search Deja news. Chip incorporated
>the "F" word in at least 8 posts, as part of the name of his antenna
>(Fxxxtenna) in only a one month period.
>
I did no such thing.
>He incorporated the "A" word at least 11 times, most often refering
>to himself as " Dr. A**".
>
I did no such thing. I NEVER refer to myself that way. You are a sick
individual.
>Since you asked, let's look at Fractal Antenna System's CTO closely:
>
>On 20 Aug 1999 02:06:38 GMT, frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
>>point of the media picking up on it. That's irrespective of the damage you
>>have
>>attempting to inflict upon me, and Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc. [NOTE: Mr.
>>RAUCH WORKS for MFJ Enterprises, a major maker of antennas.]
>
>In that post Dr. Nate Cohen clearly "claims" he knows where I work,
>and my dislike for him is rooted in what he claimed was my employment
>at MFJ.
>
Mr. Rauch, you work for MFJ Enterprises, a major manufacturer of antennas.
>In response to another claim a few weeks later by Chip I worked at a
>different company, I said......
>
No Mr. Rauch, you said you are self-employed. Employment has nothing to do with
it.
>>>A few weeks (now months) ago you claimed you didn't know where I worked.
>
Nope. I know where you work. Never said that . You are lieing.
>Then the CTO of Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc said.......
>
>>Nope. Not true. Why not post this? You won't because you can't. As usual.
>
>Well, I didn't post it. I didn't because it just didn't mean that much
>to me. But since Chip keeps harping on the subject, here it is.
>
>He has a totally different position on the same issue just a few
>months earlier.....
>
>>Subject: Re: Fractals
>>Date: 1999/03/12
>>Author: Fractenna <frac...@aol.com>
>
>>I know nothing about Tom's employment, nor have any interest in such.
>>Its an expression Peter; are you implying that this refers to a
>>--specific--company?
>>73
>>Chip N1IR
>
Again, where one is employed is not the issue. You work for MFJ Enterprises.
>A few months later, Fractenna Antenna Systems CTO (or one of his
>alternate ID's posting from Fractenna) claimed I worked for Hygain.
>
>>Rick Littlefield and Tom Rauch work for HyGain
>
Nope. THIS IS A LIE. REPRODUCE THIS POST IN TOTAL. This is NOT what I said.
>When I pointed out that he claimed earlier he didn't know or care
>where I worked, he denied saying he DIDN'T know where I worked.
I know that you work for MFJ Enterprises. yes.
A few
>weeks later, he said he did know. A few more weeks, and he said he
>didn't know.
>
I said I don't know who your employer is.
>When someone changes his position every week, and has used the F word
>in his posts as part of an antenna description and refers to himself
>in some posts as Dr. A**, how can anyone take anything he says as
>serious work? At any minute, he might flip-flop and claim he was
>"just kidding" or launch into a swearing fit.
>
IF what you say is correct, thenyou are obligated to bring this to Mr. Jun's
attention. But since you ditort and LIE this will not happen. I will post a
separate post to remind you and others on this.
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
Tom W8JI
>IF what you say is correct, thenyou are obligated to bring this to Mr. Jun's
>attention. But since you ditort and LIE this will not happen. I will post a
>separate post to remind you and others on this.
>
>Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
Hi Nate.
I don't understand the word "ditort", but if you ask nicely I'm sure
someone will copy the worse examples of your posts from reflectors and
newsgroups and forward them to BU. Just say the word.
I know I'd be happy to please you.
I'm sure you honestly feel everything wrong with your lack of success
and the overwhelming dislike that surrounds you is the fault of
others. That's why I'd clearly like to have your permission to respond
as you suggest, so you later can't say it was my fault.
73 Tom
R. L. Measures
(Hawke) wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 15:16:07 GMT, 2w...@contesting.com (Tom W8JI)
> wrote:
>
> >Read the Communications Quarterly articles, in particular the one
> >about loading up rocks. (There is no way I can scan that text into
> >this newsgroup.) Chip spends several pages to say rocks, when wrapped
> >with aluminum foil, can radiate and have a reasonable SWR on some
> >frequency where they happen to be resonant.
> >
> so? and whats your point?
>
€ Rock antennas?
Fractenna
>Hi Nate.
>
>I don't understand the word "ditort", but if you ask nicely I'm sure
>someone will copy the worse examples of your posts from reflectors and
>newsgroups and forward them to BU. Just say the word.
>
>I know I'd be happy to please you.
>
>I'm sure you honestly feel everything wrong with your lack of success
>and the overwhelming dislike that surrounds you is the fault of
>others. That's why I'd clearly like to have your permission to respond
>as you suggest, so you later can't say it was my fault.
>
>73 Tom
>
>
Frankly,my attorney is surprised that you have not done that already. He
speculated that this was part of your plan and/or the plan of an organized
attempt to discredit me without reason.
Anticipating this, I made my dean copies of some of last Spring's best posts.
He is aware of the attacks I have been privy to.
I am sure that my attorney would find the university counsel's opinion helpful
in planning the lawsuits under consideration. It certainly would speed up the
process--as it would provide compelling evidence of intent-- and not require a
resolution of the EQUALIZER's IDENTITY. Especially since we now know, for
example, TANYAA's identity.
Let me know if I can assist you in any way.
Cordially,
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
Fractenna
>>about loading up rocks. (There is no way I can scan that text into
>>this newsgroup.) Chip spends several pages to say rocks, when wrapped
>>with aluminum foil, can radiate and have a reasonable SWR on some
>>frequency where they happen to be resonant.
>>
>so? and whats your point?
>
>>questions or make a point about what was written. I can quote the text
>>as I see fit in fair use, copyright or not.
>In order to quote more than a sentence or 2, you MUST acquire
>permission to do so IN WRITING from the author (or his agent)..
>
>>
>>>Do us a favor and show EXACTLY how I ramble; what a poor writer I am; how I
>>>deceive and mislead--and ultimately say almost nothing in these three pages
>you
>>>refer to. Surely such a mass and crass deception is readily apparent to
>any
>>
>>OK, but those are separate issues you are rolling into one.
>
>>
>>There are two issues:
>>
>>1.) You use or have used obscene language in your posts, like the F
>>word, while you jump on other people for using the word "bra".
>
>>
>>2.) You contradict yourself, often just weeks or months apart. That's
>>true whether on the subject of antennas, or people.
>
>>
>>I did a search for author "fractenna" and the bracket keywords for
>>only a one month period (April 99,) so I wouldn't have to sort through
>>thousands of Fractenna postsFrom Search Deja news. Chip incorporated
>>the "F" word in at least 8 posts, as part of the name of his antenna
>>(Fxxxtenna) in only a one month period.
>
>>
>>He incorporated the "A" word at least 11 times, most often refering
>>to himself as " Dr. A**".
>
><mass ramblings removed to conserve bandwidth>
>
>>As the phrase goes, how can you tell when he is lying? His lips are
>>moving.
>
Mr. Rauch--
You have already been told not to use copyright material by myself or Fractal
Antenna Systems, Inc. You are hereby publicly told to CEASE AND DESIST any
reproduction of copyrighted material to Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc., or to
myself, Nathan 'Chip' Cohen.
Signed,
Nathan Cohen
Tom W8JI
> This is a public forum Mr. Rauch. All my comments are tailored to that.
>
>Frankly,my attorney is surprised that you have not done that already. He
>speculated that this was part of your plan and/or the plan of an organized
>attempt to discredit me without reason.
You need a doctor, not a lawyer.
73 Tom
Tom W8JI
> Mr. Rauch--
>
>You have already been told not to use copyright material by myself or Fractal
>Antenna Systems, Inc. You are hereby publicly told to CEASE AND DESIST any
>reproduction of copyrighted material to Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc., or to
>myself, Nathan 'Chip' Cohen.
>
>Signed,
>Nathan Cohen
Fractal Antenna Systems Inc does not even appear to be a working
corporation. It is reported to be deactivated for failure to file a
yearly report.
I don't understand why you are so upset. You clearly asked that I find
and copy certain data, and I did. If you don't want me to do
something, tell me that. Don't ask me to do something and then go
bannanas when I comply with your request.
73 Tom
Fractenna
>Fractal Antenna Systems Inc does not even appear to be a working
>corporation. It is reported to be deactivated for failure to file a
>yearly report.
>
>I don't understand why you are so upset. You clearly asked that I find
>and copy certain data, and I did. If you don't want me to do
>something, tell me that. Don't ask me to do something and then go
>bannanas when I comply with your request.
>
>73 Tom
>
That is a lie. Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc. indeed filed a yearly report. It
is active.
Why wouldn't it be?
The deadline for Florida companies to file yearly reports is 15 September, 1999
Mr. Rauch. EVEN if your concern was genuine, you would be in no position to
even hint at such a statement until after that deadline.
I continue to pass your outrageous and incorrect prevarications onto the
company's corporate counsel.
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
CTO
Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc.
Fractenna
>> This is a public forum Mr. Rauch. All my comments are tailored to that.
>>
>>Frankly,my attorney is surprised that you have not done that already. He
>>speculated that this was part of your plan and/or the plan of an organized
>>attempt to discredit me without reason.
>
>You need a doctor, not a lawyer.
>
>73 Tom
>
Without a doubt, Mr. Rauch, you need an attorney.
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
R. L. Measures
frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
> Mr. Rauch--
>
> You have already been told not to use copyright material by myself or Fractal
> Antenna Systems, Inc. You are hereby publicly told to CEASE AND DESIST any
> reproduction of copyrighted material to Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc., or to
> myself, Nathan 'Chip' Cohen.
€ Chip barks commands at Tom like an army general. Meanwhile, Chip's
"attorney" seems to be suspiciously unfamiliar with the "fair use"
provision in current copyright law. . What a delightsome laugher.
Tom W8JI
wrote:
>> You have already been told not to use copyright material by myself or Fractal
>> Antenna Systems, Inc. You are hereby publicly told to CEASE AND DESIST any
>> reproduction of copyrighted material to Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc., or to
>> myself, Nathan 'Chip' Cohen.
>
>€ Chip barks commands at Tom like an army general. Meanwhile, Chip's
>"attorney" seems to be suspiciously unfamiliar with the "fair use"
>provision in current copyright law. . What a delightsome laugher.
Travel and lodging expenses for the long awaited trip to Macon,
Georgia may be half what normal people pay.
73, Tom PdH
Robert (Bob) McGwier
etc. you simply have no right to stop anyone from reproducing these selfsame
words for the purposes of scholarly discussion. You have never had such
rights. Go back and read the permissions you have given to the publishers
of any scholarly works you have done when you submitted them to the journal.
Otherwise, no journal would print your work. They understand that students,
scholars, etc. must have the right to reproduce this selfsame work. You don't
have a leg to stand on in your demand.
Now if you are claiming that Mr. Rauch is distorting what you have written
or is publishing the work as his own, or is doing so without repeating the
copyright OWNED BY THE JOURNAL (not yourself), then that is another
matter and it is between your attorneys and his if it is distortion or between the
legal representation for the journal and Mr. Rauch if he is not reproducing the
copyright. I would suggest to Mr. Rauch that he should give us quoted
material, to which he may add comments as he wishes in his scholarly discussion.
He must give clear reference to where the quotation comes from as this
consitutes fair rights for the publisher and the scholar.
Bob
Fractenna wrote:
> You have already been told not to use copyright material by myself or Fractal
> Antenna Systems, Inc. You are hereby publicly told to CEASE AND DESIST any
> reproduction of copyrighted material to Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc., or to
> myself, Nathan 'Chip' Cohen.
>
> Signed,
> Nathan Cohen
Robert (Bob) McGwier
Hawke wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 15:16:07 GMT, 2w...@contesting.com (Tom W8JI)
> wrote:
>
> >Read the Communications Quarterly articles, in particular the one
> >about loading up rocks. (There is no way I can scan that text into
> >this newsgroup.) Chip spends several pages to say rocks, when wrapped
> >with aluminum foil, can radiate and have a reasonable SWR on some
> >frequency where they happen to be resonant.
> >
> so? and whats your point?
>
> >I don't need permission to reprint anything published in order to ask
> >questions or make a point about what was written. I can quote the text
> >as I see fit in fair use, copyright or not.
> Care to read the copyright l;aws again, buddy?
> In order to quote more than a sentence or 2, you MUST acquire
> permission to do so IN WRITING from the author (or his agent)..
This is totally and complete false. You may copy any portion of, or all
of a scholarly work for the purposes of discussion, etc. so long as the
copyrights are contained in the copies made. This bit of law is as old
as scholarly research. When a scholar gives away their work by publishing,
they EXPECT it to be copied and used. They can, and often do, retain
the implementation rights or if it is entirely new art, discovery rights in
basic patents, etc. About all that is prohibited is selling copies of the
articles for your enrichment. Furthermore, the author, in any reputable
journal, SIGNS OVER the rights concerning reproduction of the written
material etc. to the publisher or they would never publish the work. These
are called "fair rights".
R. L. Measures
<rwmc...@home.com> wrote:
> Hawke wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 15:16:07 GMT, 2w...@contesting.com (Tom W8JI)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Read the Communications Quarterly articles, in particular the one
> > >about loading up rocks. (There is no way I can scan that text into
> > >this newsgroup.) Chip spends several pages to say rocks, when wrapped
> > >with aluminum foil, can radiate and have a reasonable SWR on some
> > >frequency where they happen to be resonant.
> > >
> > so? and whats your point?
> >
> > >I don't need permission to reprint anything published in order to ask
> > >questions or make a point about what was written. I can quote the text
> > >as I see fit in fair use, copyright or not.
> > Care to read the copyright l;aws again, buddy?
> > In order to quote more than a sentence or 2, you MUST acquire
> > permission to do so IN WRITING from the author (or his agent)..
>
> This is totally and complete false. You may copy any portion of, or all
> of a scholarly work for the purposes of discussion, etc. so long as the
> copyrights are contained in the copies made.
€ indeed, Bob, indeed. Any competent attorney would know this.
Fractenna
>magazines,
>
>etc. you simply have no right to stop anyone from reproducing these selfsame
>words for the purposes of scholarly discussion
This is not relevant to the context in which the comments were presented.
Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc holds copyright on the works so listed.
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
R. L. Measures
frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
€ According to current copyright law, an original work is automatically
copyrighted when published, even if no filing is made.
Fractenna
>> >For any journal articles, or any articles you have published in popular
>> >magazines,
>> >
>> >etc. you simply have no right to stop anyone from reproducing these
>selfsame
>> >words for the purposes of scholarly discussion
>>
>> This is not relevant to the context in which the comments were presented.
>> Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc holds copyright on the works so listed.
>>
>€ According to current copyright law, an original work is automatically
>copyrighted when published, even if no filing is made.
>
>--
>- Rich... 805.386.3734. www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
>
>
The assignee to the aforementioned copyrights is Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc.
This statement is clear; definitive; and correct.
If you wish to dispute said copyrights and their holders, then please give me
your attorney's name and address and I will arrange for a discussion with
R. L. Measures
R. L. Measures
(Hawke) wrote:
> RL,
> if he is clueless, then you have got to be the worlds dumbest idiot!
>
> Anyone worth their salt knows that is you are seeking legal advice, a
> lawyer is generally the best place one can go to get said advice.
>
€ no lawyer would have given such advice about "fair use" quotes.
> So, I dare say, it is you who are "clueless".
>
€ I have read the new copyright law.
Fractenna
Mr. Measures--
Our attorney did indeed provide that advice; understands and advised me on fair
use; defined for me when a quote is fair use and not fair use. My statement
then, as now, is based on his counsel.
If your incorrect statements lure others into illegal activities, then you are
on public record as being informed that you run the risks associated with them.
I note a huge number of times you have been profoundly incorrect--always
veering on the side of the unlikely; the illegal; the deceptive.
The most absurd one to date was your assessment (during my friendly phone
conversation) that the 10M fractal quad Yagi was a fake--because you couldn't
see the wire in the photos (everyone else can), and radio shack ground wire
couldn't be bent to hold a shape. According top you, any attempt to do this
would produce a drooping mess in minutes. Yet the antenna exists, is well used,
and has been up for 13 months. Furthermore it has survived an F1 tornado;
various ice storms; and the pinching-velcro effect of pesky oaks (when being
raised/lowered).
This antenna is a survivor, is what is stated, and should be an inspiration for
hams to try it and experiment. If that disagrees with you then too bad.
The 10M FQY can be seen on the ham page of :
The world is not a big conspiracy meant to test your gullibility Mr. Measures.
If it was, I sure wouldn't want to be around it.
Chip N1IR
R. L. Measures
frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
€ Mr. Rauch's embarrasin' quotes were clearly fair use. Read 'em and
weep. Sue Rauch and you may wind up with little to keep.
>
> If your incorrect statements lure others into illegal activities, then you are
> on public record as being informed that you run the risks associated
with them.
>
€ sabre rattling.
> I note a huge number of times you have been profoundly incorrect--always
> veering on the side of the unlikely; the illegal; the deceptive.
>
> The most absurd one to date was your assessment (during my friendly phone
> conversation)
€ Friendly? A guy that I do not know calls me on the telephone and
queries me about my health.
>that the 10M fractal quad Yagi was a fake--because you couldn't
> see the wire in the photos (everyone else can), and radio shack ground wire
> couldn't be bent to hold a shape. According top you, any attempt to do this
> would produce a drooping mess in minutes. Yet the antenna exists, is
well used,
> and has been up for 13 months. Furthermore it has survived an F1 tornado;
> various ice storms; and the pinching-velcro effect of pesky oaks (when being
> raised/lowered).
>
> This antenna is a survivor, is what is stated, and should be an
inspiration for
> hams to try it and experiment. If that disagrees with you then too bad.
>
> The 10M FQY can be seen on the ham page of :
>
> http://www.fractenna.com
>
> The world is not a big conspiracy meant to test your gullibility Mr. Measures.
> If it was, I sure wouldn't want to be around it.
>
€ [chortle] . The tornado is certainly a new Twist. // If you are
around next month we supposedly get to see a drawing of the 30m fractal
antenna in use at your station.
- later, Chip
"The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children." -- Henrick Ibsen.
Fractenna
>€ Friendly? A guy that I do not know calls me on the telephone and
>queries me about my health.
It WAS an unusual greeting; here it is:Q:" HOW ARE YOU?" A: "I MIGHT BE DYING
OF CANCER."
In 44 years that's a new one on me...
>
>>that the 10M fractal quad Yagi was a fake--because you couldn't
>> see the wire in the photos (everyone else can), and radio shack ground wire
>> couldn't be bent to hold a shape. According top you, any attempt to do this
>> would produce a drooping mess in minutes. Yet the antenna exists, is
>well used,
>> and has been up for 13 months. Furthermore it has survived an F1 tornado;
>> various ice storms; and the pinching-velcro effect of pesky oaks (when
>being
>> raised/lowered).
>>
>> This antenna is a survivor, is what is stated, and should be an
>inspiration for
>> hams to try it and experiment. If that disagrees with you then too bad.
>>
>> The 10M FQY can be seen on the ham page of :
>>
>> http://www.fractenna.com
>>
>> The world is not a big conspiracy meant to test your gullibility Mr.
>Measures.
>> If it was, I sure wouldn't want to be around it.
>>
>€ [chortle] . The tornado is certainly a new Twist.
It is? I seem to rcall posts on it before...
// If you are
>around next month
Where am I going?
we supposedly get to see a drawing of the 30m fractal
>antenna in use at your station.
>
No; I'm not planning to put that one up. Why would you thinkk so.
>- later, Chip
>
>"The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children." -- Henrick Ibsen.
>
That's a horible philosophy.
Chip N1IR
JerryL
especially if it could be 'scaled' up or down to fit into 40 & 20 meter bands..
You talk a lot about ten meters, and thats ok, but I don't really know many
people that are all that interested in 10, or even operate there. This is not
meant to criticize you or anyone else, but just my opinion...
Fractenna <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> Where am I going?
>
> we supposedly get to see a drawing of the 30m fractal
> >antenna in use at your station.
> >
> No; I'm not planning to put that one up. Why would you think so.
( Wishful thinking perhaps?)
> >- later, Chip
> >
R. L. Measures
frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
> >
> >€ Friendly? A guy that I do not know calls me on the telephone and
> >queries me about my health.
>
> It WAS an unusual greeting; here it is:Q:" HOW ARE YOU?" A: "I MIGHT BE DYING
> OF CANCER."
>
> In 44 years that's a new one on me...
>
€ So get a new shtik. Inquiring about a stranger's health is
unthinkingly bad manners.
> >
> >>........
> // If you are
> >around next month
>
> Where am I going?
>
> we supposedly get to see a drawing of the 30m fractal
> >antenna in use at your station.
> >
> No; I'm not planning to put that one up. Why would you thinkk so.
> € Because you said you would post the drawing of your 30m fractal antenna.
>
> >- later, Chip
> >
> >"The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children." -- Henrick Ibsen.
> >
> That's a horible philosophy.
>
€ It is not a philosophy. It happens as surly as the Sun Rises. // Do
you ever copy-edit before you hit the Send button, Chip?.
--
Fractenna
>DYING
>> OF CANCER."
>>
>> In 44 years that's a new one on me...
>>
>€ So get a new shtik. Inquiring about a stranger's health is
>unthinkingly bad manners.
You are RIGHT: No one should ever ask Rich measures anything; such as 'how are
you'?
>> >
>> >>........
>
>> // If you are
>> >around next month
>>
>> Where am I going?
>>
>> we supposedly get to see a drawing of the 30m fractal
>> >antenna in use at your station.
>> >
>> No; I'm not planning to put that one up. Why would you thinkk so.
>
>> € Because you said you would post the drawing of your 30m fractal antenna.
>
Yes; but that's not the one I'm using now.
>>
>> >- later, Chip
>> >
>> >"The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children." -- Henrick
>Ibsen.
>> >
>> That's a horible philosophy.
>>
>€ It is not a philosophy. It happens as surly as the Sun Rises. // Do
>you ever copy-edit before you hit the Send button, Chip?.
>
Do you have a callsign Richard?
Chip
R. L. Measures
frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
> >> It WAS an unusual greeting; here it is:Q:" HOW ARE YOU?" A: "I MIGHT BE
> >DYING
> >> OF CANCER."
> >>
> >> In 44 years that's a new one on me...
> >>
> >€ So get a new shtik. Inquiring about a stranger's health is
> >unthinkingly bad manners.
>
> You are RIGHT: No one should ever ask Rich measures anything; such as 'how are
> you'?
>
€ I receive many phone calls from stock brokers that I do not know who
ask this inane question. You weren't interested in anything other than
trying to get me to back off. .
> >> >
> >> >>........
> >
> >> // If you are
> >> >around next month
> >>
> >> Where am I going?
> >>
> >> we supposedly get to see a drawing of the 30m fractal
> >> >antenna in use at your station.
> >> >
> >> No; I'm not planning to put that one up. Why would you thinkk so.
> >
> >> € Because you said you would post the drawing of your 30m fractal antenna.
> >
>
>Yes; but that's not the one I'm using now.
>
€ [guffaw]. . . Rauch has gotta be psychic. Congrats, Tom.
> >>
> >> >- later, Chip
> >> >
> >> >"The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children." -- Henrick
> >Ibsen.
> >> >
> >> That's a horible philosophy.
> >>
> >€ It is not a philosophy. It happens as surly as the Sun Rises. // Do
> >you ever copy-edit before you hit the Send button, Chip?.
> >
> Do you have a callsign Richard?
>
€ Go ye to the Web site listed in my sig. and it will be revealed to thee.
--