I strongly endorse that caution. A couple of years ago, Chip (Dr. Nathan
Cothen) of Fractenna posted a "$1000 Challenge", offering $1000 for a
design that could better his fractal design in specific properties he
specified. Steve Best produced several, along with EZNEC models, which I
posted on my web site. (They're still there -- you can download them
from ftp://eznec.com/pub/MI2/.) The result was a long series of threats
by Chip/Cohen, and postings on numerous newsgroups and private groups
accusing me of piracy and theft of intellectual property. I wouldn't
take Chip up on any offer without great caution. At least go to
groups.google.com and see how this now-calm and rational sounding
individual has reacted in the past to anyone who dares to publicly
suggest that fractal antennas just might not be the best thing since
canned beer.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Robert Hohlfeld won that challenge, Mr. Lewallen. It was not a "couple of years
ago". This and other information is available on google as you state. It is
also apparent from such postings that Steve Best did not enter the challenge.
Indeed, Steve's loop(s) weren't anywhere near the best, even if they had been
submitted.

Best did not enter and did not win.

For the FOM chosen, there are certainly better loops--fractal loops--than MI2,
which was the entire point of the challenge. That is also a matter which is
archived. The challenge has obviously succeeded in firing such investigations,
which means that 'I had impact' as they say. Nothing pleases me more.

The MI2 antenna is a very useful one in some applications. It has helped
inspire a breakthrough approach to antenna optimization, which Bob Hohlfeld has
championed, based upon some earlier (published) work by me in 1996/1997. The
system incorporates genetic algorithms; fractal coding; and a supercomputer
(grid) cluster made of off the shelf PC's. You and othersmay find a
description of the system at:

http://www.fractenna.com

under the FRAGO system.

The FRAGO system is working on a daily basis on antenna optimization,
successfully I might add. It has assessed over 2 million antennas a month. It
has also been described in several publications and conferences; indeed it will
be described at one this coming week.

With regards to the statements you have made above: In October, 2001 you had an
attorney send me a letter of complaint for defamation and issued a demand of
$50,000--based upon an alleged loss. You had counsel claim that such damages
were suffered from my statements regarding ownership of copyright.

You threatened to sue myself; Fractal Antenna Systems,Inc.; Boston University;
and others.

Certain matters regarding a potential counterclaim(s) were tendered to your
counsel, and compelling evidence regarding ownership of copyright files was
also provided. Incidentally, you did not provide any evidence of damages.

Regarding MI2: Steve Best has recently published an interesting paper--as you
know--and I am quite certain there are many here who will benefit from my
corrections of factual error; omissions of citation; and so on; which will be
presented in due time.

A very brief summary: Steve's paper confirms my statement that the Small Loop
Approximation is incorrect (at least for the regimes of antennas being
considered); Steve has shown other fractal loops that share the very high (over
90%) efficiency and dipole gain; and so on, thereby corroborating the advantage
of fractal in loops of that size and need.

Clearly I see no issue, Mr. Lewallen, with you or anyone else discussing
fractal antennas or any other sort of antenna. In fact, I never have. I
presume, however, that accuracy and fact are also of some merit in the
enterprise, and I invite you to strive for that; along with me and everyone
else, in future discussions.

With Best wishes to all,

Chip N1IR