On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:26:54 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Ahh, I didn't know about your page.

No one actually cares about fractal antennas. Like the rest of the
tourists, our original poster has already moved on without a second
thought on the subject.

The one I was thinking about had an
actual picture and construction ideas.

No one actually builds them either, unless they were accidentally
"constructed" when left in the driveway and back over with a car.
We've had actual picture of Art's antenna left on a doorstep that Art
(like an unwed mother) has never acknowledged. Construction ideas
litter webspace like a toilet papered tree.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

No one actually cares about fractal antennas. Like the rest of the
tourists, our original poster has already moved on without a second
thought on the subject.

The one I was thinking about had an
actual picture and construction ideas.

No one actually builds them either, unless they were accidentally
"constructed" when left in the driveway and back over with a car.
We've had actual picture of Art's antenna left on a doorstep that Art
(like an unwed mother) has never acknowledged. Construction ideas
litter webspace like a toilet papered tree.

I saw that program on PBS (I think it was Nova). They actualy interviewed
the designer who used to post here all the time.

Frank

On Sep 29, 11:46*pm, "John Gilmer" wrote:
Hi:

A month or so ago I say a PBS piece on fractals. * The piece claimed that
the "technology" is used to make the antennas for cell phones.

Have any amateurs used "fractal technology" to form their antennas?

Also, I note that "they" market HDTV antennas that are about the size of a
book. * Do these things work? *What's inside them?

Yours,

JLG

I consider any balanced symmetrical antenna a fractal.
Even a dipole.
What many consider as a fractal antenna, I consider a linear
loaded antenna using "creative" linear loading.
Is creative linear loading superior to the usual linear loading
one might encounter? No one has ever proven this to be the
case.

They even held contests on this group to see who could
build the best "fractal" antenna. It was shown that even
random designs performed just as well or better than
the designs offered by the local fractal guru at that time.

Fractal antennas are a viable antenna to use in tight
spaces, but no one has ever proven that a fractal design
is any better than a random linear loading design.
Not even once that I can think of.

I could cover my eyeballs, and scribble out a symmetrical
design on a piece of paper, and most likely it would
perform just as well as a "guru" offered fractal design.
A few here have proven this to be the case.
What fractal antennas are really good for is when you
have DOD and government contracts that require very
small antennas, and need something which seems
"special" in order to win these contracts.
It doesn't really matter if the antennas are superior to
random design linear loading. All that matters is that
the ones that sign checks believe it to be the case.
Kind of like the government spending $342.95 for a
hammer. It doesn't matter that the expensive hammer
is no better than one you can buy at Home Depot for
a fraction of that price. The hype overrules the reality,
and clouds the minds of those that sign checks.
Needless to say, the ones that sign checks don't have
a clue whether fractal antennas are worth the money or
not. They could care less. They see it as redistributing
wealth. :/
To me it matters not. I use manly full sized antennas,
and I'll leave the little fractals to ones that want inferior
performance.
Heck, if I could sell boatloads of inferior antennas for
boatloads of money, I could probably live with inferior
antennas too. :/
I'd be laughing too hard on my way to the bank to
worry about having a decent antenna for my radios.
Or HDTV.. Another groaner for me. HDTV antennas..
What in the wide wide world of sports is an HDTV
antenna? Do digital signals follow different rules than
analog signals? Groan... Just another example of
getting people to write checks for something someone
claims as "special" when it's not.

On Oct 2, 1:18*pm, wrote:
On Sep 29, 11:46*pm, "John Gilmer" wrote:

Hi:

A month or so ago I say a PBS piece on fractals. * The piece claimed that
the "technology" is used to make the antennas for cell phones.

Have any amateurs used "fractal technology" to form their antennas?

Also, I note that "they" market HDTV antennas that are about the size of a
book. * Do these things work? *What's inside them?

Yours,

JLG

I consider any balanced symmetrical antenna a fractal.
Even a dipole.
What many consider as a fractal antenna, I consider a linear
loaded antenna using "creative" linear loading.
Is creative linear loading superior to the usual linear loading
one might encounter? No one has ever proven this to be the
case.

They even held contests on this group to see who could
build the best "fractal" antenna. It was shown that even
random designs performed just as well or better than
the designs offered by the local fractal guru at that time.

Fractal antennas are a viable antenna to use in tight
spaces, but no one has ever proven that a fractal design
is any better than a random linear loading design.
Not even once that I can think of.

I could cover my eyeballs, and scribble out a symmetrical
design on a piece of paper, and most likely it would
perform just as well as a "guru" offered fractal design.
A few here have proven this to be the case.
What fractal antennas are really good for is when you
have DOD and government contracts that require very
small antennas, and need something which seems
"special" in order to win these contracts.
It doesn't really matter if the antennas are superior to
random design linear loading. All that matters is that
the ones that sign checks believe it to be the case.
Kind of like the government spending $342.95 for a
hammer. It doesn't matter that the expensive hammer
is no better than one you can buy at Home Depot for
a fraction of that price. The hype overrules the reality,
and clouds the minds of those that sign checks.
Needless to say, the ones that sign checks don't have
a clue whether fractal antennas are worth the money or
not. They could care less. They see it as redistributing
wealth. :/
To me it matters not. I use manly full sized antennas,
and I'll leave the little fractals to ones that want inferior
performance.
Heck, if I could sell boatloads of inferior antennas for
boatloads of money, I could probably live with inferior
antennas too. *:/
I'd be laughing too hard on my way to the bank to
worry about having a decent antenna for my radios.
Or HDTV.. Another groaner for me. HDTV antennas..
What in the wide wide world of sports is an HDTV
antenna? Do digital signals follow different rules than
analog signals? Groan... Just another example of
getting people to write checks for something someone
claims as "special" when it's not. *

I remember when color TV was the rage and color was added to the name
on all the TV antennas. Sometimes there was actually a stick on
"color" label on the box.

JImmie

What in the wide wide world of sports is an HDTV antenna? Do
digital signals follow different rules than analog signals? Groan...
Just another example of getting people to write checks for something
someone claims as "special" when it's not.

I remember seeing one at CES a few years ago. An HDTV antenna, I laughed,
mad at me for being too practicaal to exploit the idiot market, and
remembered how in the late 60's there were suddenly "color" TV antennas.
Gold anodized to make
em look different.

Same thing. Congratulate the guy making hte money with it.

GeorgeC

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:46:28 -0400, "John Gilmer"
wrote:


Also, I note that "they" market HDTV antennas that are about the size of a
book. Do these things work? What's inside them?

One thing that has not been mentioned is most of the small HDTV
antennas (at least the ones I have seen) include an RF amplifier. W/o
the amplifier these antennas' performance is abysmal.

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:29:19 -0400, Registered User wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:46:28 -0400, "John Gilmer"
wrote:


Also, I note that "they" market HDTV antennas that are about the size of
a book. Do these things work? What's inside them?

One thing that has not been mentioned is most of the small HDTV antennas
(at least the ones I have seen) include an RF amplifier. W/o the
amplifier these antennas' performance is abysmal.

There's an interesting twist. We're finding that these amplified gizmo's
are creating problems. Too much signal for the amplifier, actually
degrading performance. And they amplify the local noise, which is much of
the real issue, Taiwan wall-wart supplies, etc...

And they amplify FM. Combine the right two FM's and you can wipe out
reception to a VHF high band TV.

It is amazing how mis informed so many people are.

Yeah, just ask the guy at Radio Shack. 50 years too late for that one to
have a chance.

GeorgeC

There's an interesting twist. We're finding that these amplified gizmo's
are creating problems. Too much signal for the amplifier, actually
degrading performance. And they amplify the local noise, which is much of
the real issue, Taiwan wall-wart supplies, etc...

We are getting a little "thread drift" here but ...

When the shift to HDTV came we suddenly found that we couldn't get reliable
service for most of the channels we were used to. We live in a semi-rural
place and it's over 50 miles (as the crow flies) to the nearest broadcast TV
antenna.

A neighbor suggested the antenna mounted amplifier (I already had a
"distribution amplifier" in the basement) and it fixed us up.

"John Gilmer" wrote in message
...



There's an interesting twist. We're finding that these amplified gizmo's
are creating problems. Too much signal for the amplifier, actually
degrading performance. And they amplify the local noise, which is much of
the real issue, Taiwan wall-wart supplies, etc...

We are getting a little "thread drift" here but ...

When the shift to HDTV came we suddenly found that we couldn't get
reliable service for most of the channels we were used to. We live in a
semi-rural place and it's over 50 miles (as the crow flies) to the nearest
broadcast TV antenna.

A neighbor suggested the antenna mounted amplifier (I already had a
"distribution amplifier" in the basement) and it fixed us up.


Mast-head amplifiers always were appropriate for 'fringe-area' reception in
the old days when there were fewer transmitters around. The dynamic range
issues occur closer to transmitters, of whatever type, whose signals get
into the front end. If someone puts up a TETRA (or equivalent for your
country) base-station near your house you might find amplifiers a lot less
effective.

Chris

christofire wrote:

Mast-head amplifiers always were appropriate for 'fringe-area' reception in
the old days when there were fewer transmitters around. The dynamic range
issues occur closer to transmitters, of whatever type, whose signals get
into the front end. If someone puts up a TETRA (or equivalent for your
country) base-station near your house you might find amplifiers a lot less
effective.

Chris

For sure. I was on the verge of returning my last analog TV because it
wouldn't get one channel at all, and several others were very poor. But
then I got an idea and added an attenuator at the antenna input. Problem
solved -- got a great picture on all channels. The new HDTV has a better
dynamic range and can put up with the strong signals, so it doesn't need
the attenuator. I'm about 10 - 15 miles line of sight from urban
broadcast towers. I use a commercial TV antenna in the attic.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL