On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:22:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

I also see
this as another example where people talk down on this antenna
as a way of resisting change.

Resisting is a complex problem, that includes imaginary parts. Any
reactance introduced into your change will convert your resistance
into an impedance. Think of it as people impeding change, not
resisting change.

Hi Jeff,

You have quoted one of Art's more cryptic statements, especially when
he hasn't the vaguest notion of what a fractal antenna is and has
talked it down on many occasions when I suggested he visit a site with
more 300 pages of modeling and measured results:
http://www.qsl.net/kb7qhc/antenna/fractal/index.htm

This stuff is over a decade to 15 years old, and possibly contains
(long) prior Art now found in (new) patents claiming to be original
work. ;-)

I worked out a general rule for fractal design, but it is of academic
interest only, and is distinguished in that role by its lack of
discussion here. ;-)

In fact, I can well imagine Art, in high dudgeon, would furiously
refuse to go there. I mention this only because that vaudevillian act
is so outré as to be camp Art.

The test for this distinguished role follows from it being discussed
hereafter, or the language of this posting. :-0
(I vote for Artré.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC