Radio Ham interviewed about Fractal antenna

Erratum

Maybe that should read

 

That's funny. Both statements are logically true.

"All branching in nature is fractal" is a false statement. so "All branching in nature is not fractal" is true.

 

Really? Not on my shoulder, on the ground in the pasture. I'll try to avoid it.

 

And if I see you in the pasture, I'll try to avoid you.

 

Even IF the net gain over a dipole were 3.6dBd, (it isn't) a second element on a collinear would be much simpler and no rotator required. As I and others have said, QRM from this side of "the pond" isn't a problem. Build one for 20M.

Gee, all of that performance data was obtained while working DX. Simply amazing!! Was that the antenna that you said was "sabotaged?"

As to the Figure 2. EZNEC photo attached, it is courtesy of CQ Magazine and the author, not Fractenna. Did you obtain their permission?

 

His problem is solved. He doesn't need another problem.

See Ya.

 

Hello Heath,

I would be much obliged if you did not characterize me nor my comments in a false light.

First, I am not selling anything here. Although I am delighted that this thread is up, I had no knowledge of that before hand, nor desired it. See my Zed bio. I do not sell ham antennas, and frankly, I am worried that many of our fellow hams are going out of business in the ham antenna market, in 2011.

Second, some of your questions really do indicate that you do not understand the basics, and it is prudent for you to learn more. As I said, I really do not have the time nor physical presence to assist you on that.

Finally, I have asked you to present an example of a BETTER ANTENNA than the FQY that met my needs. My needs really were those of just about every ham who wants to keep the antenna small as possible, and work DX on 10M. Go thru that list again. I articulated what those needs were. Note that that includes azimuthal unidirectionality.

N3OX, for the sake of example, tried to show one in the form of an H antenna. It has worse gain and F/B; needs coils an a matching unit; and is more problematic with windload and mechanicals. I have yet to see a better one, given the needs articulated.

The antenna world is rapidly changing, and fractals are a big part of that change. Ten years ago, there was really no interest in any ham antenna innovation, and thus my attempts at helping hams with fractals was not a good use of time. You can see that in 10 years, nothing has changed. The world has; the antenna world has; but ham antennas have not. In other words, ham radio does not actively encourage antenna innovation--as evinced by the very absence so stated.

I think that's a shame, and encourage others to turn that around.

I have also agreed to reconsider that by writing another ham article--my first in 13 years.

I am perplexed why I am being projected so, well, --evilly-- on this thread. It really is not the ham radio I came into, but I want you to be encouraged to practice that radio amateur's code, which unfortunately I found lacking here at times.

73 and God Bless,
Chip W1YW

 

Chip , I partially regret starting one recent threads from watching the PBS , because of all negative responses .
But there also has been some good discussion , even on both sides of this subject .
So over all it would seem that its on the upside as far as I'm concerned .
Be watching for the book / articles , so that I can try to get enough info to do some of my own limited testing .
Thanks for hanging in there , it's a lot like alternative energy , change & new things can be difficult to get out there .
Thanks
It also helps from those that have more knowledge than I [ that's easy ] on antennas the critical debate , for learning purposes .
The QRM , that's another story .

 

Hello Heath,

If you spend any time talking with fellow hams, you will understand that hams commonly refer to the gains of their antennas relative to dipoles. Are you debating the existence of that convention? Or the ubiquity of its use? Really Heath, this is a very odd thing to bring up. It's like saying hams should not say '73', or call each other 'hams'.

N3OX has presented a very good example of another small 10M unidirectional antenna--which is WORSE than the FQY. The following table--again-- (you must have missed it) shows the fractal advantages in this case. The fact that these advantages were elicited by bending a wire--JUST BENDING A WIRE--, in this case in a fractal shape, is the paradigm shift you seem to have debates about. That paradigm shift began with Landstorfer and Sacher's book" OPTIMISATION OF WIRE ANTENNAS--JWiley, 1985. Again, may I kindly suggest that you investigate what that means: "paradigm shift", by going back to the source--STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS --by Thomas Kuhn, NAL, 1962. You seem to confusing 'paradigm shift' with 'pseudoscience'. of course, none of that which i present here is 'pseudoscience'.

I am also, once again, showing an azimuthal power plot provided by Fractal Antenna Systems,Inc (c) 1998)) The quote below it is from Gary's (KF7BS) 73 Magazine article and is fair use. Do you have a tiny beam that does better? Please build it, test it, put it up in the air for 3 years, and show it to us.

==============================================
FRACTAL 2 el compared to End loaded H 2 el
--------------------------------------------------------------
PARTS NEEDED Fractal only needs bent wire. No coils or matching system like the H.

COMPONENTRY/ECONOMY OF DESIGN Fractal has no parts. slamDUNK!

COSTS Fractal was made for peanuts. H costs likely to be far higher because of its mechanical support system

FRONT TO BACK Fractal has a 30 dB F/B (see below). The H? Nothin even close.

GAIN Fractal has no insertion loss of a matching system or real-world ( QF <<500) coils, so gain likely to be roughly 2 dB higher than 'H'

MECHANICALS/WIND LOAD Peripheral support required by ' H' gives higher torque/wind load

BANDWIDTH If both system allowed to use a matching system, fractal can use multimodes for far wider bandwidth

And, by the way, N3OX finds a 90% efficiency with aluminum wire. shrink the area 4 times. nice added bonus.

 

N3OX 'H' antenna

Just so the conventional "H' antenna is fresh on our minds, Here is N3OX's image of it, presented under fair use for educational purposes.

Note the 'pregnant' back lobe, 4 coils, and low drive impedance, requiring a matching system.

It is a lot more to make work than the bending of a wire--and it doesn't work as well.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

I am grateful for your kind words OM

I don't understand why I have to be made out as some evil quack. Maybe its jealousy. But ironically I am actually on here to ENCOURAGE you guys to experiment and have fun. I'd like to see LOTS of you take that path. I am at the age where I take responsibility for setting an example.

Hope to work you on the air and best in 2011!

73,
Chip W1YW

 

The amateur radio community is very pragmatic, often to a fault. There needs to be some sort of compelling reason to try a new type of antenna, such as reduced size, economical construction, and/or increased performance. The fractal is an interesting novelty, but considering the geometry of it, it would be difficult to build one for HF bands to replace a typical tri-bander or five band yagi or quad. On VHF and UHF it would seem easier to construct, but there's much less of a need for reduced size antennas on these bands. And it would seem that the fractal performs similarly to other classic size reduced antennas. Perhaps the fractal offers distinct benefits for handheld devices, but that's not really where it's at in amateur radio.

In recent years amateur radio has adopted new technology such as SDR, digital voice, and new digital modes. The StepIR, while not a new type of antenna technology and not turning physics on its ear, is a clever innovation. I think it's misguided to blame amateur radio for the lack of adoption of the fractal antenna. Necessity is the mother of invention. It appears to me the fractal is interesting, but for amateur radio it doesn't solve a problem, therefore uptake is going to be limited to those wishing to try a novelty antenna and not those really wanting to use it in a major way in everyday operations.

 

Interesting points. The question is: what ARE the antenna problems for hams? Looking at it objectively from someone in the industry, who was off the air for a while, brings a different perspective.

The fact is that after I pulled the ham articles and files, there was, and is, really no good info for hams to go by. So your response makes sense, although its purely because I chose to , essentially, pull it. A decade ago. Again, remember the times: 9/11. What's changed since, is the commonality of fractal antennas in commercial uses and the fact that the actual state of the art for fractal antennas, has gone way beyond that known to hams in, say, 1999.

I think there is a side here that you may NOT be aware of--and that is outside HF antennas are actually on the decline, not the increase. A big part of this is the graying of the US ham poulation, which, frankly, says they want new antennas, but really doesn't implement that. I am not saying those needs aren't good or valid--I am exactly what that graying describes, and I have fractal antennas in my trees for dxing this very minute-- what I am saying is the need, in a relative way, really isn't there. How many Hex beams have been sold in the last 2 years? That's a nice solution, and although bigger than a fractal, is very nice sized and performance wise.

The main needs, based on the feedback I get from email, are for 2m and higher DIY--and apartment dwellers at MF/HF (many of those are actually in assisted living, which is a landlord problem in itself--and they want the antennas iNSIDE). The latter is problematic for antennae, because of nearfield RF exposure (and potential future lawsuits) and housing materials, which are lousy for RF , period. Fractals certainly help on these apartment antennas, but the two other issues are not trivial, for any antenna.

Maybe someone can guide me to some recent articles on HF/MF apartment antennas? Like to see a baseline for comparison, and I haven't read ham mags for ages.

Thanks for the helpful comments.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

IMO, the biggest antenna problem facing hams these days is HomeOwners Associations restrictions. HOAs won't even allow simple verticals or dipoles in many cases.

Right now the only solutions seem to be to i) put up the antenna anyway and hope nobody notices it, ii) temporary antennas you only can use at night and hope the nosey neighbors are not watching, iii) string the antenna in the attic where performance suffers, iv) move to a non-HOA neighborhood.

So - questions:

* Are there compact HF antenna designs that can fit into an attic, or even on the ceiling or walls in a room, that can outperform an attic dipole?

* Is there an HF antenna design that can fit in an attic that has some directional gain, and that can be "steered" without actually physically turning it?

* Is there a compact HF antenna design that can be placed outside, that does not look like an antenna?

On the latter, I've actually been playing around with using a deck umbrella as an antenna, basically as a short top-loaded vertical with variable loading (how open the umbrella is tunes it)

But is there some better way to use the area of the umbrella fabric?

How about a flexible antenna that can be sewn into the fabric of one of those retractable awnings?

Notice that I'm not imposing any conditions that they be fractals or not. Maybe fractals would help with these problems. Maybe not. I'm posing problems and asking for solutions, not posing solutions and asking for the corresponding problems.

 

Attic yes; but pitch shingles and wood are crappy for hF/MF. Performance will be house-dependent. On walls, ceiling. Youch! Lloss alert! Don't do this.

Sure, if you want to add the delay lines for each freq.

You mean hides in a tree (not palm)? Yes. I have these.

That's essentially a Hex or Moxon type platform and reasonably large to start with. But since you are locking the platform and it is large, these would probably work well.

Try the Hex. And don't forget the launch angle will depend on the height, so a low height umbrella / awning is a NVIS antenna at HF.

IS EVERYONE OUT OF THE NEARFIELD? You don't want someone (allegedly)claiming lymphoma or leukemia from this...

?