oSaddam (Yuri Blanarovich) wrote in message ...

Aw, not this ... again?

Bada BUm


Just to add something new, you might want to have a look at U.S.
Patent 6,552,690 (April 22, 2003): Vehicle windshield with fractal
antenna(s)

On 15 Sep 2003 09:29:26 -0700, (k4wge) wrote:

Just to add something new, you might want to have a look at U.S.
Patent 6,552,690 (April 22, 2003): Vehicle windshield with fractal
antenna(s)

Hi All,

Sheet 6 with unsubstantiated claims of Z (graphs, charts,
illustrations, and such have no legal basis except to "inform" how a
practitioner in achieving a working design, clearly unreliable here)
is off the chart of reality from the beginning.

Sheet 5 purports to compare two loops. One is a simple, standard
loop, the other is a fractal Koch Triadic (not the best of class to
use, another give-away of faked data).

Returning to Sheet 6, we see that the inventor "claims" the standard
loop contains absolutely NO Rradiation over the range of 150 to 220
MHz. The scale clearly resolves 1 Ohm, and the inventor clearly
portrays 0 Ohms over the entire interval.

This 0 Ohm Rradiation loop circumscribes the fractal loop and by
simple physics, dominates any Rradiation characteristic by virtue of
encompassing more area. However, the inventor "claims" that this
fractal eventually exhibits a Rradiation of 35 Ohms at a frequency of
220 MHz. The give-away to this fantasy is that the inventor has the
chutzpa to further "claim" the standard loop never obtains any
Rradiation.

Moving on to the fantasy of Sheet 7, we find more strained "claims"
that progressive iterations bring vast shifts of resonance. This is
perform through employing Marketing techniques of forcing an illusion
through crafted scales of display. What appears to be dramatic shifts
of resonance, are in fact rather mundane results. Further, we are now
presented with an application that has been pushed 30 fold in
frequency over the magic fractal loop of Sheet 6. This is tacit
agreement with my observation that only through economy of scale can a
fractal have any manufacturable return in the cost of complexity to
build.

By the time we get to Sheet 8, it is clear the inventor may sue you
for not paying him royalties for your cracked windshield, with triple
damages for concurrent bug splatters. (Or so his lawyers' threatening
letters may proclaim - in actuality of law, this design does not
survive in the true claims.)

Sheet 9 cleverly omits the first iteration, a simple dipole. This is
so as to not reveal that this form ALSO exhibits nearly identical
"multiband" operation.

Sheet 10 is clearly in contravention of patents pending for FAS. ;-)

One last point. NONE of the illustrations of "fractals" barring those
portrayed in Sheet 9, are described in the true claims.

Such is the "science" of fractal electromagnetics.

Such is the "legitimacy" of patents published.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Such is the "science" of fractal electromagnetics.

Such is the "legitimacy" of patents published.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Paint it brown, add the claim that it is faster than light, and you got another
"winner" or sucker?

Wonder if somebody would repay the treatment and actually sue the clowns for
misleading claims or advertising.

If Art got patent for reflecting directors, then looks like anyone can get
patent for anything and then rattle it in the face of ignoramuses.

BYm BUm