Radio Ham interviewed about Fractal antenna

[W1YW]

Lee,

Chip also did not cite such folks as Dyson, Mayes, Deschamps, DuHamel, and Isbell. However, a quick skim of the paper authored by Hohlfeld and Cohen indicates that the two pioneers of the frequency-independent concept (Rumsey and Mushiake) are cited. As a past reviewer of technical papers, I find no fault with the references cited in Chip’s paper. (BTW, Kraus has a brief history of this subject in the second edition of his Antennas textbook.)

I must also point out that W8JI’s technical pronouncements are far from infallible. Two quick examples come to my mind: how to measure the time delay of a large coil and how to measure the occupied bandwidth of a CW transmitter. W5DXP has been trying for years to help W8JI understand his misconception regarding the time delay issue and I tried very hard several years ago to help him understand the definition of occupied bandwidth as defined by the FCC, the ITU, and in the professional/EE literature.

73, K5MC

As Mickey mentions, there was no need to cite additional references in this peer reviewed (now said twice) paper, other than so listed. It is not a history paper.


Just for general information, Isbell and Duhamel are the inventors of the frequency independent LP. They have their own section in a sidebar in the first fractal antenna article,in August Comm Quart, published in 1995. Log periodics are indeed described as fractal. As for patents, log periodics are obviously prior art, and anyone who spends 5 seconds looking at my patents will find Isbell and DuHamel cited as such, in context, and not in any way claimed as novel nor new.

73, and pleasure to see you here Mickey!
Chip W1YW

[W1YW]

Anyone who's actually interested in fractal antennas for ham radio should just design some themselves. That's the take-home I get from here.

Then you missed quite a bit N3OX. We build antennas to solve a problem. If you don't start with 'what problem am I trying to solve', then you're wasting your time. I don't care what antenna type you use.

Why is it the TECH s get it? They are VERY SPECIFIC about what problems they would like solved--and are asking me to provide designs to help. Actually I am very happy to see that the techs get it. It makes me upbeat about the potential for ham radio in the future.

Cordially,

W1YW

[K4WGE]

Actually I am very happy to see that the techs get it. It makes me upbeat about the potential for ham radio in the future.

Churchill said about the Germans

"They are always at your feet or at your throat."

Somehow the happy "upbeat" talk reminds me of that

[K3GAU]

GA All,

First let me say I am sorry to N3OX for getting you embroiled in this controversy. Like yourself, all I was looking for was some info that might help me play with fractal antennas and their design. BTW, everytime I try to get an unclutered version of that 10 antenna article my computer goes squirrelly. I've tried in on two different computers with the same results. Frustrating!!

As two whether a log periodic or zig zag antenna is a 'fractal' antenna or not, may depend on whether you are from "The glass is half full." group or from "The glass is half empty." group. What you choose to call them doesn't change any measurable characteristic of the antenna. Calling them a 'fractal' antenna and looking at them from that point of view just gives you a different perspective on how to deal with them.

If you watched the PBS video, the man being interviewed was trying to draw mountains and landscape with a computer. Using fractals he was able to do it, before that, NO! Men and women had been drawing mountains and landscape for millenia before him, they just never did it with a computer. So, by looking at the problem from a 'different' perspective, (using fractals) he was able to do what no one had done before. That's the point!! If using fratalization helps you to do something you need to do with an antenna or improve its performance, so be it! It's a tool for Pete's sake!!

I use to work for a company that made antennas. We made one particular antenna that was quite popular and seemed to work well by most accounts. The company owner / inventor of the antenna (my direct boss) and I went round and around for many hours on the theory of how certain parts of it worked. (BTW, we always kept it friendly.) In the end, the exact correct theory really didn't matter. What mattered was that the antenna worked and it sold well!!

So, if I can get a copy of the 73 article or find some other info on the proper design of fractal antennas I will first model them and then maybe built a couple of them that look promising to play with.

Dave K3GAU

[WN9HJW]

Lee, apparently Chip ignored your post i quote from below, but I'll answer some of this because it may leave a incorrect impression of how and why scientific work is published.

1) What scientific or engineering society accepted the cited paper for publication.

That's usually on the cover page of the article somewhere, if you're interested I can look it up for you if you'll give me the citation.

Conference status will NOT do.

Why not? There's a lot of excellent work presented at conferences and published in conference proceedings. Science would be very hard and slow to do and very hard and slow to get right without conferences.

2) Please identify who the peers were who reviewed this paper, and provide links to their submitted, accepted discussions, critiques, etc., of the paper.

At least in the various professional physics and materials science journals that I am familiar with, have published in, am on the editoral board of, have edited issues for, or have reviewed papers for, the reviews are blind. The authors do not know who the reviewers are (unless the reviewers wish to contact the authors and make themselves known). This customary review practice both both good and bad aspects, but that's another whole discussion.

The point is that Chip in all likelihood has no idea who reviewed his papers.

A conference paper can be "dropped off" on the table during a conference and does not have the same standing as does a paper accepted for technical transactions.

Not always. At least not in physics or materials science, the fields I am most familiar with. Conference papers that are collected and published as part of a special issue or otherwise incorporated into an "archival journal" typically do go through the same peer review and must meet the same standards as a non-conference paper.

Some other conferences that only put out CDs or monographs of their proceedings don't go through that much trouble.

You can usually tell which ones have undergone peer review by information on the first page' i.e., when a paper has been reviewed will have a "Date Submitted" and a "Date Accepted" indicated, and often if there were revisions necessary as a result of the review, there will be a "Date Revised" indicated.

One more thing. Please provide cites of any and all papers you have submitted and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Antennas and Propagation Society has accepted, peer reviewed, and published, given transactions status on the subject of fractal antennas.

Well, Chip is not running a university research lab, he's running a business. A very successful one by all indications. What that means is that publishing a lot of papers is not necessarily valuable to the business.

I have no relationship with Chip or his business, and no professional interest in antennas, fractal or otherwise, and I do not run a small business, so I can't say for sure how he decides whether to publish or not. But I have worked professionally with a number of businesses of all sizes on other topics, and what is almost universally true is that they do not publish their best stuff in scientific or technical journals, because they want to protect their intellectual property and keep their competitive edge.

So the point I'm getting at is that if he's not publishing oodles of scientific research papers in IEEE journals, so what? That's not what he's in business for.

However, if it is evidence of the scientific interest in fractal antennas you're looking for, that is provided by the fact that a lot of other people have been publishing about them. If you want I can eamil you a list of citations with title and reference of about 125 papers published just in IEEE journals. There are also another 550 or so papers published in other journals that I did not mark and download.

[WN9HJW]

Anyone who's actually interested in fractal antennas for ham radio should just design some themselves. That's the take-home I get from here.

I'd say Go For It. Why not? You probably learn something, whether it works well or not; and maybe it would be a starting point that will lead to something else.

I've been kind of eyeing that nice fractal dogwood tree in my front yard . . . wondering if I wrap it all up with aluminum foil maybe I can load it up on 160 meters?

[W1YW]

Lee, apparently Chip ignored your post i quote from below, but I'll answer some of this because it may leave a incorrect impression of how and why scientific work is published.



That's usually on the cover page of the article somewhere, if you're interested I can look it up for you if you'll give me the citation.



Why not? There's a lot of excellent work presented at conferences and published in conference proceedings. Science would be very hard and slow to do and very hard and slow to get right without conferences.



At least in the various professional physics and materials science journals that I am familiar with, have published in, am on the editoral board of, have edited issues for, or have reviewed papers for, the reviews are blind. The authors do not know who the reviewers are (unless the reviewers wish to contact the authors and make themselves known). This customary review practice both both good and bad aspects, but that's another whole discussion.

The point is that Chip in all likelihood has no idea who reviewed his papers.



Not always. At least not in physics or materials science, the fields I am most familiar with. Conference papers that are collected and published as part of a special issue or otherwise incorporated into an "archival journal" typically do go through the same peer review and must meet the same standards as a non-conference paper.

Some other conferences that only put out CDs or monographs of their proceedings don't go through that much trouble.

You can usually tell which ones have undergone peer review by information on the first page' i.e., when a paper has been reviewed will have a "Date Submitted" and a "Date Accepted" indicated, and often if there were revisions necessary as a result of the review, there will be a "Date Revised" indicated.



Well, Chip is not running a university research lab, he's running a business. A very successful one by all indications. What that means is that publishing a lot of papers is not necessarily valuable to the business.

I have no relationship with Chip or his business, and no professional interest in antennas, fractal or otherwise, and I do not run a small business, so I can't say for sure how he decides whether to publish or not. But I have worked professionally with a number of businesses of all sizes on other topics, and what is almost universally true is that they do not publish their best stuff in scientific or technical journals, because they want to protect their intellectual property and keep their competitive edge.

So the point I'm getting at is that if he's not publishing oodles of scientific research papers in IEEE journals, so what? That's not what he's in business for.

However, if it is evidence of the scientific interest in fractal antennas you're looking for, that is provided by the fact that a lot of other people have been publishing about them. If you want I can eamil you a list of citations with title and reference of about 125 papers published just in IEEE journals. There are also another 550 or so papers published in other journals that I did not mark and download.

Because we do a fair amount of government work here, I rarely publish anymore. Simple as that. I think Ron understands the reasons why.

Lotsa patents though.

Also, there will be a paper on the invisibility cloak.

Have you seen it OM's?

;-)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JpMJTJXf28

73,
Chip W1YW

[W6EM]

......It seems like anything I say that's less than "I have spent hours of my spare time and finally agree that they are better in all ways" is going to launch a lot of extra discussion. And If I were to say that, I doubt it would go over well here.

So if I say anything more, it'll be with regard to a built antenna.

I'll apologize at this point for having dared you to supply your design criteria. You have done so. Thanks.

Even I, skeptic that I am, may indeed try building one at some point.

However, it bugs the stuffing out of me that someone would be so self centered as to ostensibly purchase or demand the copy and copyright to an amateur magazine article. A sad testament for amateur radio. Especially if it was done to attempt to prevent the use by amateurs in building an antenna.

Thanks for your work.

73.

[W6EM]

As Mickey mentions, there was no need to cite additional references in this peer reviewed (now said twice) paper, other than so listed. It is not a history paper.

If it was peer reviewed, your web-based publishing site does not indicate who the peers were, what their vitae are, or where it was presented.

As I said before, if it wasn't transactions of the IEEE A&P, it's a 'table top' submittal.

As I said, I searched the IEEE database. Five conference or syposium submittals. Those, as I remember, don't require formal peer review. Just drop them off on the table as you waltz in.

Interesting abstract about using genome algorythms. Sounds really more like a subject for a conference on optimization. Was that an inspiration from chasing/star gazing for extra terrestrial intelligence?

[W6EM]

Why not? There's a lot of excellent work presented at conferences and published in conference proceedings. Science would be very hard and slow to do and very hard and slow to get right without conferences.

My point, Ron, was as I recall IEEE protocol, only the speaker and the topic are accepted at conferences and symposia.

Thus, speakers show up with a pile of papers. Those are later assembled in a catalog of proceedings.

When IEEE professional societies publish transactions, they are, in fact peer reviewed. Papers are submitted to the representative technical committee of competent peers in the specific subject matter.

The committee assigns the paper for review, and depending upon the committee/reviewer's evalutation, it is then accepted or rejected for presentation. Presentation then allows, in advance, peers to read and prepare formal critique and commentary. That commentary is also presented following the presentation of the paper, and is published and in the record.

None of the five papers in the IEEE Explore record indicate any separate discussion submittals that would document peer review and commentary.

At least in the various professional physics and materials science journals that I am familiar with, have published in, am on the editoral board of, have edited issues for, or have reviewed papers for, the reviews are blind.

The committee review is blind, or used to be, at IEEE. But the members are known. And, when the committee speaks, it does so as a body.

The authors do not know who the reviewers are (unless the reviewers wish to contact the authors and make themselves known). This customary review practice both both good and bad aspects, but that's another whole discussion.

As noted above, the real meat is in the formal discussion of presented research.

Some other conferences that only put out CDs or monographs of their proceedings don't go through that much trouble.

Used to be exactly this way at IEEE. I can only assume it still is.

Well, Chip is not running a university research lab, he's running a business. A very successful one by all indications. What that means is that publishing a lot of papers is not necessarily valuable to the business.

I have no relationship with Chip or his business, and no professional interest in antennas, fractal or otherwise, and I do not run a small business, so I can't say for sure how he decides whether to publish or not. But I have worked professionally with a number of businesses of all sizes on other topics, and what is almost universally true is that they do not publish their best stuff in scientific or technical journals, because they want to protect their intellectual property and keep their competitive edge.

Being "in the business" offers a side that is particularly revealing. It's called "free marketing" of one's widgetry.

What better advertisement is there than "I presented this at an antenna conference."

Not everyone who attends symposia are fellow researchers. Many are consumers of the widgetry. Conferences and symposia offer ideal marketing opportunities to sell one's wares.

However, if it is evidence of the scientific interest in fractal antennas you're looking for, that is provided by the fact that a lot of other people have been publishing about them. If you want I can eamil you a list of citations with title and reference of about 125 papers published just in IEEE journals. There are also another 550 or so papers published in other journals that I did not mark and download.

This is redundant as you've already said that before. When one expands fractality to include all dimensions of periodicity, the numbers aren't surprising.

I guess if I can find the time, I'll go searching for the fractal antenna patent, and see exactly what it's claims are. And, if prior art is cited. And, if there truly IS something new and unique to Chip's fractals that was not out there before.

I find the sheer number of attempts to kabosh amateur use of fractal or periodic antennas really annoying. But, that's my opinion. Others may feel that Chip has every right to protect what he claims to be his property.

73.