Radio Ham interviewed about Fractal antenna

Chip, it is difficult to banter with you. The term "sell" does not always indicate the exchange of goods for money. If I go for a job interview, for instance, I am selling MYSELF, my talents, my work history. I am trying to "win someone over". To say that you are here "Selling" something is to say that you are here on QRZ trying to convince your peers that the fractal antenna is a new paradigm in antenna theory and technology.

 

Chip, I never once implied that your antenna SHOULDN'T be compared to a dipole. I fully understand that the dipole is a standard reference. I also understand that an isotropic source is another reference. What I am saying to you is that if you want us to believe that you have discovered the magic pixie dust that makes the perfect antenna, one that accomplished everything hams want with with no sacrifice, then you are going to have to compare apples to apples. If you want to prove that a fractalized beam antenna is superior in performance to a more contemporary antenna, it would be more honest to compare it to a yagi or a quagi. Show how it has gain over a conventional design, show where the loss is less, where the construction is worth the effort.

You are claiming a new paradigm. A new paradigm is not constituted by a half dB of gain. A new paradigm is not constituted by this half dB in gain coming at the price of construction, cost, weight, bandwidth, loss, etc. If there are sacrifices to making this antenna work well, then it isn't a new paradigm. Its just another antenna.

Thats the whole point, and I will continue to beat that drum until I see where the new paradigm is hidden.

On edit, I see that you have this other posters antenna reference, I didn't really read your entire post.

OK, how about others? I would hardly stop at this one antenna as the final word. Lets see where the paradigm lies, prove that fractalized antennas are superior to every possible conventional design. And you are claiming that bending wire to achieve a result is the new paradigm. Darn, I have antennas all over the place where I've bent them for one reason or another, I had no idea that it was a paradigm shift that I was participating in.

 

A paradigm shift is a new understanding that causes all of the theories and concepts of the "old understanding" to be tossed by the wayside. It is a revolution, truly. When the Czarist Russians were overthrown by the Marxists, there was a new paradigm in world governments. One thing was totally replaced by the other.

Typically, this new paradigm is justified by the previous regime being outdated or past its due. Czarist Russia was ready for a change and the Marxists were there to fill the void.

Where is the void that fractals will fill, Chip? What advantage is offered by fractals that is so compelling? Moreover, what theoretical revolution will fractals bring? Just what law of nature will be rewritten by fractalization?

I see that another poster has demonstrated a comparison, and thats good. Where in this comparison is fractalization proving to be a paradigm shifter?

 

Some of the postings in this thread especially the past several pages are way beyond mere confirmation bias that one typically runs into when suggesting something new. This topic has triggered "fight or flight" behavior for some reason I cannot figure out.

What is so terrifying about a possible new technology that it cannot even be discussed without ad hominem attack ?

What is it about this topic that is so threatening that it gives rise to the outright aggressive hostility we're seeing?

 

Then it would be of some edification if you read what has been written Keith.;-)

It's not a 1/2 dB of gain, as you say. You ignored the ADDITIONAL insertion losses unique to the conventional (that's what N3OX called it) antenna.

The fractal has at least 10-15 dB more F/B, 2+ more dB of gain (when including realistic coil and matching losses for the H), and is partless. No matching system.

Made from BENT SHAPED WIRE AnTENNA. It is plug and play.

The fractal has greater ECONOMY OF DESIGN--the guiding rule of electronics --because it has lower parts count and lower insertion loss.

The element is a fractal folded dipole which is down by about 0.2 dB compared to a conventional dipole-- that is 4 times bigger.

0.2 dB of additional LOSS for 4 times SMALLER.

How can you expect others to help you out when you don't read what's there?


By the way, as I type up this and go about my business, which paradigm describes the world I live in? Netwonian mechanics or Einstienien (GR)? the answer is: both. One absorbs the other. The distinct difference happens in the presence of gravitational fields and high velocities. In other words, one is a little more accurate in my world, but near a star or at high velocities, it is only one that applies.

So what advantage does Einsteinian mechanics have for me, here in this cloud Belmont day, watching cars buzz down the highway. Answer: none. It's 'advantages' do not apply in a practical sense. So why do we need a paradigm shift? Think that one through.

Yet, in an absolute sense, the Newtonian paradigm is just plain wrong.

Anyway, I am sorry but your point seems to be to tie me up in typing and repeating the clear and objective, compelling answers to your questions. Several times, in fact. I regret that as I get older, I understand when others are abusing my time. This seems to be the case here, at this point. Best of luck to you.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

Fact or Fiction?

Ron: I don't see agressive hostility, only doubt of validity. Questions asked (for design data), nothing provided.

Question asked to validate claim of peer review, nothing provided. (And, not astrologist peers, thanks.)

Here's a link to a paper that does show that the planar fractal patern didn't fare that well as compared to a plain old meandering wire.

Here's some comparative information from an old post. Worth a look as it examines Euclidian and non Euclidian fractals. (And, it's linked from a noteworthy physics department!!)

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mc...l_2_197_03.pdf


The "M2" is the October 1999 10M FQY design element pattern.
__________________

 

w6em , comes up as error not found .
With near 250 post and multiple threads its getting hard to find good info .
Much like one of the precepts of propaganda - " if you can not hide the truth , mix it with so many lies no one will ever figure it out " .
Chip , you seem to need to have direct answers in a copy / paste , and drop on occasion , because of the high post numbers , its just hard to go back through and gather .
OldFarters , just can't remember where I left it .

 

Your link is broken. Here is the correct one:

Steven Best Paper 2003

Just a link. Princeton didn't author it and it doesn't mean they endorse it. The author himself was from Hanscom air force base, MA. Out of the some 650 scientific papers about fractal antennas that I've found, he published a few about 6 to 8 years ago naysaying the concept. 6 papers against, out of 600+ published, doesn't necessarily constitute Truth.


Also, it's interesting what is NOT included in his articles.

 

I have no idea, Ron.

I think part of I might be the culture we, as physicists, come from, versus others.

I didnt ask to be on Zed in such a thread, and I had hoped I could get a better sense of what hams might need from better antennas from it. You and a few others have been very helpful that way.

I am seriously thinking about 'in house' antennas, but I want to make something that's better than what's out there. What would help me is: "I tried a such and such in my clay shingled attic and it was too big for my 20 by 10 by 3 foot crawl space. " Or, as you suggest "I have to put up an umbrella. Can I make it better"?

Right now, the only viable antenna for in-house is an isotron. The isotron is not efficient (its lossy) but has the virtue of going where most other antennas do not. And raising it at good heights gives pretty decent launch angles, which compensates practically for the ohmic loss.

AEA used to have a tuned loop. Needs a control box, juice, and cable for control. Pricey. What happened to that?? MFJ seems to still have one, but one would assume that if this was meeting such a huge need that we'd see lots and lots of articles and other companies doing that? I happen to like that antenna.

Can anyone proffer comments on why the tuned loop is not ubiqitous?

Again, look at this as someone from outside trying to understand what hams really need as opposed to what they really want.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

Actually Steve did me a tremendous favor. First, the best examples are covered by my patents, so I don't have any problem with him saying that they are only marginally different from one another. From the point of view of an ADVANTAGE, that's a terrific selling point. He essentially proves the benefit, but makes the mistake (in either this or the earlier paper) of saying that 'geometry doesn't matter in antenna(s)'.

To wit, quoting directly from Steven Best: "Differing antenna geometries, fractal or otherwise, do not, in a manner different than other geometries, uniquely determine the EM behavior of the antenna."

Gulp! Too general and 'asserted but not shown '!

Obviously I disagree with Steve on this, but it would be wrong to interpret this as a 'diss' of the person. I defend his right to say this, just pointing out it is very wrong.

Case in point-- in 1999, there was the frequency invariance article that says, for example, that GEOMETRY MAKES A DIFFERENCE in how to make such antenna. IOW, geometry VERY MUCH MATTERS! Here's that peer-reviewed paper, discussed in the NOVA PBS show:

http://www.mssu.edu/math/glathrom/fractal_antennae_paper.pdf

Anyway, as you point out, there are hundreds of post-2003 articles on fractal antennas. I have a list of some interesting ones that give clear advantages of the superiority of the technology, for reasons that are evident from this thread: some people continue to insist in ignoring the truth. These are essentially 'double blind' : I had no idea these researchers were checking out my technology. I have the list in installments (links at bottom of that web page), each month. Two more going up in a couple of weeks. I will probably stop at, oh, 24 or 30.

RESEARCHERS PAPERS SHOWING FRACTAL SUPERIORITY IN ANTENNAS AND FILTERS :

http://fractenna.com/FractalAdvantage.html

73,
Chip W1YW

 

That's why I have posted that table 3 times;-)

Or is it 4?

Can I go now;-)?? I'd really like to ragchew on 17M with some of you guys....

73,
Chip W1YW

 

Notice the 'more intricate' antennas do work better-- all those are described by the claims of my patent(s).

73,
Chip W1YW

 

I need repetition , thanks .

 

My pleasure. Hope to catch you OTA

 

A Simple Fact

To any who want to think about a simple, basic point in all of this plethora of sales pitch.

First off, gain is the name of the game. No matter what the reference.

To a ham, a strong signal is important. A claim of 3.6 dbD is made for a 2-element quad antenna that is difficult, at best, to build, has to be rotated to realize its advantages, and appears physically flimsy when compared to other popular designs.

Now, 3.6 dBD. What does that amount to on an S-meter for all that effort?
About 1/3 of an S-unit, folks.

If size is an issue, construct a 2 or 3 element collinear vertical and stick a flag on top. Looks better anyway, and your flag will do the only rotating needed.

When an argument is mere boasts and salesmanship, emotions become elevated because people get frustrated. Home brewer instincts seek dimensions.

Then after elevated emotions, in comes the professional fraternity of physicists to try to defend boastmanship.

IEEE's Antennas and Propagation Society is IT, folks, for antenna theorists in the US. Submit and get peered reviewed for a TRANSACTIONS PAPER and that's noteworthy. As are recorded discussions by noteworthy peers. Not Internet publishing houses.

All is well that ends well. Sell, sell, sell. Lots of cars to hype.