On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:45:35 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Actually they could have gain that low and still be directional.
....
Heck, I bet someone here may have even done something like it for some
reasonable engineering design.

.... tsk, tsk, tsk. Such a fall from grace for the fractal antenna.
Gone, and long forgotten.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 13 Jun, 23:01, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:45:35 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:



Actually they could have gain that low and still be directional.
...
Heck, I bet someone here may have even done something like it for some
reasonable engineering design.

... tsk, tsk, tsk. Such a fall from grace for the fractal antenna.
Gone, and long forgotten.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

If Fractus is the Fractal antenna business then it is still doing
well.
That was another antenna that amateurs tried to remove from the
face of the earth because it provided a new aproach to antennas.
Seems like professionals in the antenna industry are not made
from the same mold as the self styled amateur experts that
deride the new from their couch as they slowly pass away.
When they become silent keys any lock that they may have had
on the new decays in lock step with their gutless frames
Art

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:35:39 -0700, art wrote:

On 13 Jun, 23:01, Richard Clark wrote:
... tsk, tsk, tsk. Such a fall from grace for the fractal antenna.
Gone, and long forgotten.

That was another antenna that amateurs tried to remove from the
face of the earth because it provided a new aproach to antennas.

Hi Arthur,

Your soap box would carry more weight if you actually contributed to
the design.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 14 Jun, 09:37, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:35:39 -0700, art wrote:
On 13 Jun, 23:01, Richard Clark wrote:
... tsk, tsk, tsk. Such a fall from grace for the fractal antenna.
Gone, and long forgotten.
That was another antenna that amateurs tried to remove from the
face of the earth because it provided a new aproach to antennas.

Hi Arthur,

Your soap box would carry more weight if you actually contributed to
the design.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

My point is that it is not "gone and long forgotten" despite
the venom from you and Roy in you attempts to devalue the idea.
Here we are twenty years on and the antenna survives as a
new technology. Just shows that you can't stop science when
the shrill of your voices runs out of puff. Fractal antennas
are now in the books signifying that the efforts of you and Roy
was all for naught and could not overcome the test of time.
Now your efforts are concentrated anew where again you will fail
despite the shrillness of your wailing. Ideas are for the books
and your venom doesn't count for inclusion.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:24:18 -0700, art wrote:

My point is that it is not "gone and long forgotten" despite
the venom from you and Roy in you attempts to devalue the idea.

Hi Arthur,

Unfortunately you don't understand the technology, so you lack the
authority to make this anything more than a sentimental statement.

My website contains more than 300 pages of results from real Fractal
antennas and it remains the largest website in the world devoted to
that topic alone. It even supports examples of fractal designs that
you couldn't beat.

Care to compare examples? Mine will be far more length efficient than
anything you could offer. They will be non-planar. They will offer a
better turning radius than yours.

No, comparison would quickly reveal all this and thus I will leave you
with the last gasping denial. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 14 Jun, 14:35, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:24:18 -0700, art wrote:
My point is that it is not "gone and long forgotten" despite
the venom from you and Roy in you attempts to devalue the idea.

Hi Arthur,

Unfortunately you don't understand the technology, so you lack the
authority to make this anything more than a sentimental statement.

My website contains more than 300 pages of results from real Fractal
antennas and it remains the largest website in the world devoted to
that topic alone. It even supports examples of fractal designs that
you couldn't beat.

Care to compare examples? Mine will be far more length efficient than
anything you could offer. They will be non-planar. They will offer a
better turning radius than yours.

No, comparison would quickly reveal all this and thus I will leave you
with the last gasping denial. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Do you think I didn't realise what direction you was heading?
Look at mine not at his!
I remember after you did that work you turned on Chip and
everything he had to say. Heck it then got worse when the
group found out that he was jewish. That was mana for the
group and finally got the job done to get rid of him.
No matter how much shame you feel that will be part of
you forever. Can you remember the last time you said
something nice? That should take a week or so to think about.
You are such a miserable person, always pushing good aside
for the benefit of evil.If your page is the only thing
you can point to as to what you have achieved in the
last twenty years you are indeed in a sorry state.

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 14 Jun, 14:35, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:24:18 -0700, art wrote:
My point is that it is not "gone and long forgotten" despite
the venom from you and Roy in you attempts to devalue the idea.

Hi Arthur,

Unfortunately you don't understand the technology, so you lack the
authority to make this anything more than a sentimental statement.

My website contains more than 300 pages of results from real Fractal
antennas and it remains the largest website in the world devoted to
that topic alone. It even supports examples of fractal designs that
you couldn't beat.

Care to compare examples? Mine will be far more length efficient than
anything you could offer. They will be non-planar. They will offer a
better turning radius than yours.

No, comparison would quickly reveal all this and thus I will leave you
with the last gasping denial. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Do you think I didn't realise what direction you was heading?
Look at mine not at his!
I remember after you did that work you turned on Chip and
everything he had to say. Heck it then got worse when the
group found out that he was jewish. That was mana for the
group and finally got the job done to get rid of him.
No matter how much shame you feel that will be part of
you forever. Can you remember the last time you said
something nice? That should take a week or so to think about.
You are such a miserable person, always pushing good aside
for the benefit of evil.If your page is the only thing
you can point to as to what you have achieved in the
last twenty years you are indeed in a sorry state.

Hey you two, stop it,
this is my thread about EZNEC modeling and Flag antennas. :-)
Mike

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:24:43 -0700, art wrote:

No, comparison would quickly reveal all this and thus I will leave you
with the last gasping denial. ;-)

Do you think I didn't realise what direction you was heading?
Look at mine not at his!

Hi Arthur,

Now, if you want us to look at yours, let's compare with something
real and not just your stale boasting that is short on technology:

First point - non planar (you can't beat this)
design fits within a box with a volume of 0.122 by 0.196 by 0.210
wavelength.

Second point - greatest length efficiency (you can't beat this either)

Third point - best TOA in comparison at 10 degrees (you certainly
can't beat that) and at less than 1/8th wave of the highest tip off
the ground!

Fourth point - more than 10dB F/B (you don't even come close)

Fifth point - a fractal! You don't know how to do it, do you?

Home Run!

And now for the full details:
http://www.qsl.net/kb7qhc/antenna/fr...r/k2/index.htm
(hint, this stuff is so old, it is going on 10 years). Even the EZNEC
file is found here.

Now, you are up to bat. Going to bunt for a sacrifice at first base?

Gasp out another denial and save us a comparison with your pale
designs retread from what Gauss forgot to do. Modern analysis wins
over your grave robbing through books every time. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 13 Jun, 23:01, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:45:35 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:


snip

... tsk, tsk, tsk. Such a fall from grace for the fractal antenna.
Gone, and long forgotten.

Make up your mind. I'll now change it back to
"It is NOT gone and NOT forgotten"

It will be exhibited at the antenna exposition in Denver this year.
Maybe your name will be mentioned as the one that knew about it
all the time.And you tell me that you are heavily sought after
by entropreneurs to oversee technical propositions before
a committment is made? Brevity is not your strong point, 400
pages of index is way to much, 300 pages on a fractal
is also way to much. Remember your attempt at a patent,
to large to fit into a "shoe", to large to fit in any cabinet
thus placed on the floor never to be found or read and where
pages were sucked in by passing vacuum cleaners.
Hark the phone is ringing again, maybe it is IBM begging you again.



73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:56:29 -0700, art wrote:
"It is NOT gone and NOT forgotten"
this is simply passing gauss.

Hi Arthur,

When was the last time you SAW one in front of you, and not simply in
a book or on the screen? When was the last time you USED one? Have
you ever BUILT one? Do you REMEMBER how one works? :-0

Offer us something that could beat my page's 10 year old example that
fits within the defined bounds, at a nearly zero height, and
demonstrate yours has a better efficiency, smaller turn radius, is
non-planar, and the rest....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC