Dear Josechu

I saw these about a year ago.
How well do they work? How well could they work wrt to gain sensitivity
which I have just noticed in a cottage situation where reception was
most borderline and involved location phone in a unique spatial vector
postion. Would this antenna somehow be better in this situation re
short whip.

BTW I think there is a US patent on these, yes?



Josechu wrote:
I think that the tree antenna in:

http://www.josechu.com/moving_fractal/index.htm

would be good for cellphones, provided that the length of the (horizontal or
vertical) branches is a fraction of the wavelength.

Take into account that a grandson branch has exactly half the length of its
grandfather's length.


Josechu


"totojepast" wrote in message
om...

According to the July 1999 issue of Scientific American (available
online at


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...B7809EC588F2D7),

Motorola started using the fractal antennas inside its cellphones. Do
they still use them? And what about the other manufacturers?

"(....) Cohen, who founded Fractal Antenna Systems four years ago, is
now working with T&M Antennas, which makes cellular phone antennas for
Motorola. T&M engineer John Chenoweth says that the fractal antennas
are 25 percent more efficient than the rubbery "stubby" found on most
phones. (...)
Just why these fractal antennas work so well was answered in part in
the March issue of the journal Fractals. Cohen and his colleague
Robert Hohlfeld proved mathematically that for an antenna to work
equally well at all frequencies, it must satisfy two criteria. It must
be symmetrical about a point. And it must be self-similar, having the
same basic appearance at every scale--that is, it has to be fractal."