Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 7, 12:14 pm, Bill wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:20 pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Dec 6, 7:47 pm, "amdx" wrote:
"danl" wrote in message
... On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:44:30 +0000, EI5DD
wrote:
Would anyone have a copy of an article from either 73 or CQ magazine
somewhere around the 90's which contained an article on how to
construct a Fractal Quad antenna for 10 metres. The design was based on
work done by Nathan Coen N1IR.
Steve (EI5DD)
Popcorn! GET YER HOT BUTTERD POPCORN HERE! Popcorn!
N9JBF
Whisper Does the Buffoon still come around?
I don't think he is buffoon, he had an idea that was novel and looks like
he is selling a bunch of them.
Mike
No he isn't a buffoon, he had a Doctorate!
A non sequitur. Look at posts by and decide about
buffoonery. Cohen loved to threaten people.http://opsyhopsy.com/MiscJunk/who_is_nc.htm

He stood up for himself, nothing wrong with that


What I'm curious about is what exactly does he own? Does he own the
fractal patterns? the formula to derive the fractal patters. Just what?
The Madelbort and Julia sets? If it the above, I'm outta here to go get
a patent on Pi and all it's applications.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

JIMMIE wrote:
On Dec 7, 3:18 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 7, 1:27 pm, JIMMIE wrote:





On Dec 6, 5:44 am, EI5DD wrote:
Would anyone have a copy of an article from either 73 or CQ magazine
somewhere around the 90's which contained an article on how to
construct a Fractal Quad antenna for 10 metres. The design was based on
work done by Nathan Coen N1IR.
Steve (EI5DD)
--
EI5DD
Folding wire in a fractal pattern to shorten an antenna is probably as
good as any other way of folding wire. Maybe better than some.
JImmie
Correct, Maxwell's laws referes only to the distributed loads which
remain in place no matter what you do to the wire. For way to long the
notion of straight radiators have been staked into the folk lore of
radio
by those who oppose change. Actually it was present members of this
particular group who attacked his ideas as a false technology without
presenting proof, only derision. A line eagerly joined by the pseudo
experts from the CB era, some of which remain today.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Antenna physically shortened by bending the wires is certainly not new
to amateur radio as any ham with a small yard will atest. To say that
these antennas will work without degradation when compared to their
unaltered counterparts is just wrong.


That's the point I don't get, Jimmie. I don't know that anyone is
saying these antennas don't work. I think its a matter of just how well
they work. The answer is often "not very".

Yes, we can get a lot of things to radiate. Wires folded in a fractal
pattern will radiate, so will wires folded in a random pattern. Woe is
the day someone gets a patent on "random".

Antennas that are a tuned circuit on top of a length of coax will
radiate - at least the coax will.

So what? When I was a kid I made a little model of a radio telescope
antenna out of copper wire and Aluminum foil. It was about 12 inches in
diameter. Took a wire and attached it to an old radio. It worked better
than no wire attached. Not that I'm going to promote it as a good
antenna though.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote in
:

Woe is
the day someone gets a patent on "random".

Nope. Celebrate it. If it happens the patent system will lose credibility as
a protection, let alone value for money, and people will rely on copyright
law instead. Maybe that needs reform but the patent system is irredeemable in
my view. The sooner it is terminally discredited the better.

That was off-topic, I know, but I withstood a few temptations already, and I
won't get carried away. I don't expect everyone to agree so I won't argue it.
if someome makes something work, and can get paid for the actual work, good
for them, I don't think anyone should stand in the way of that. If people
want to protect ideas, write them down, date them, and copyright them. That
way plagiarism is preventable but suppression of anything remotely resembling
it is not a legal option. And people won't be able to make claims for garbage
while citing patents that shouldn't have been granted anyway, and wouldn't,
if those granted could understand what was behind the obfuscating nonsense
that some try to pass as a real invention.

/rant.

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:29:51 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Woe is
the day someone gets a patent on "random".

Go to:
http://www.google.com/patents
and inscribe "random" or "random antenna" into the search box.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:29:51 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Woe is
the day someone gets a patent on "random".

Go to:
http://www.google.com/patents
and inscribe "random" or "random antenna" into the search box.


I did google fractal. I can see that the different inventors do seem to
be using similar fractals for their antennas. It looks to me as if what
is needed for me to design my own without fear of infringement would be
to just do some minor change, get my own patent, then there ya go.

Cohen's particular patents seem just fine as far as I can see.

Not specifically involved with fractals, but with the concept of patents
in general, it looks as if we are seeing intellectual property rights
run rampant. While no one should be denied the fruits of their
cleverness, the system has devolved to the point where people are just
ginning up patents with minor changes in hopes that someone infringes on
them. Then they hit the jackpot, you bet.

The system kind of reminds me of the rednecks who play the disability
lottery, hoping to get hurt so they can collect.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Dec 8, 9:08*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:20:17 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
He wasn't the last antenna expert to leave the insults from this
group,

Ever consider what motivates the real experts to spend their time
answering questions? *I'm certainly no expert, but I do try to answer
what little I can. *For me it's learning something new and a karma
boost in helping others learn and understand. *Passing on my
experiences and knowledge and all that. *

Now, contrast that with the signal to noise ratio of this group. There
isn't any question or discussion that doesn't get derailed into
politics, philosophy, and some really off the wall physics.

snip


Remember, I offered a Swell Prize for anybody who produced an
algorithm to predict when a thread was going to turn ugly -- or at
least go goofy. It hasn't been claimed. Art?

Sal

On Dec 9, 2:42*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:29:51 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Woe is
the day someone gets a patent on "random".

That should be my wife.

Jimmie

On Dec 12, 4:09*am, "Sal M. Onella" wrote:
On Dec 8, 9:08*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:20:17 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
He wasn't the last antenna expert to leave the insults from this
group,

Ever consider what motivates the real experts to spend their time
answering questions? *I'm certainly no expert, but I do try to answer
what little I can. *For me it's learning something new and a karma
boost in helping others learn and understand. *Passing on my
experiences and knowledge and all that. *

Now, contrast that with the signal to noise ratio of this group. There
isn't any question or discussion that doesn't get derailed into
politics, philosophy, and some really off the wall physics.

snip

Remember, I offered a Swell Prize for anybody who produced an
algorithm to predict when a thread was going to turn ugly -- or at
least go goofy. *It hasn't been claimed. *Art?

Sal

pick a random number between 0 and 100, somewhere in that number of
postings any thread will turn ugly, change topics, or go completly
crazy.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:09:20 -0800 (PST), "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:

Remember, I offered a Swell Prize for anybody who produced an
algorithm to predict when a thread was going to turn ugly -- or at
least go goofy. It hasn't been claimed. Art?

Easy. Create a list of the most frequent posters. Include the number
of postings they create per month, and the number of original lines of
text they add each month (don't include quotes and blank lines).
Select the top 3 posters, that have the smallest ratio of postings to
new content. These are the ones that traditionally change the topic
with one or two line inflamatory remarks. When they appear, the
thread is sure to go awry.

Also create a list of first time posters, who do NOT start a thread,
but only comment on it. These are guaranteed topic drift candidates
as long time posters directly attack the new poster, rather than his
comments.

A 3rd class of posters are those that supply pure opinions, without
any substantiation, examples, or anecdotes. Any thread that starts
out this way, will invariably include an example demonstrating that
the original allegations are wrong. It's at this point, that the
thread will go off into the minutae of the example, drifting away from
the original opinions.

Please send my prize to the address below.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Bill" wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 9:20 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 6, 7:47 pm, "amdx" wrote:





"danl" wrote in message

.. . On Sun, 6 Dec 2009
10:44:30 +0000, EI5DD
wrote:

Would anyone have a copy of an article from either 73 or CQ magazine
somewhere around the 90's which contained an article on how to
construct a Fractal Quad antenna for 10 metres. The design was based
on
work done by Nathan Coen N1IR.

Steve (EI5DD)

Popcorn! GET YER HOT BUTTERD POPCORN HERE! Popcorn!

N9JBF
Whisper Does the Buffoon still come around?

I don't think he is buffoon, he had an idea that was novel and looks
like
he is selling a bunch of them.
Mike

No he isn't a buffoon, he had a Doctorate!

A non sequitur. Look at posts by and decide about
buffoonery. Cohen loved to threaten people.
http://opsyhopsy.com/MiscJunk/who_is_nc.htm

I was threatened with a lawyer by him in the 90's simply because I
questioned his theory.
He made no attempts to befriend the group.

GeorgeC