Roy Lewallen wrote:
I strongly endorse that caution. A couple of years ago, Chip (Dr. Nathan
Cothen) of Fractenna . . .

That's Cohen, not Cothen. I apologize for the typo. And while his
posting address is , he's an officer of Fractal Antenna
Systems, Inc., and often acts on their behalf.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I strongly endorse that caution. A couple of years ago, Chip (Dr. Nathan
Cothen) of Fractenna posted a "$1000 Challenge", offering $1000 for a
design that could better his fractal design in specific properties he
specified. Steve Best produced several, along with EZNEC models, which I
posted on my web site. (They're still there -- you can download them
from ftp://eznec.com/pub/MI2/.) The result was a long series of threats
by Chip/Cohen, and postings on numerous newsgroups and private groups
accusing me of piracy and theft of intellectual property. I wouldn't
take Chip up on any offer without great caution. At least go to
groups.google.com and see how this now-calm and rational sounding
individual has reacted in the past to anyone who dares to publicly
suggest that fractal antennas just might not be the best thing since
canned beer.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Robert Hohlfeld won that challenge, Mr. Lewallen. It was not a "couple of years
ago". This and other information is available on google as you state. It is
also apparent from such postings that Steve Best did not enter the challenge.
Indeed, Steve's loop(s) weren't anywhere near the best, even if they had been
submitted.

Best did not enter and did not win.

For the FOM chosen, there are certainly better loops--fractal loops--than MI2,
which was the entire point of the challenge. That is also a matter which is
archived. The challenge has obviously succeeded in firing such investigations,
which means that 'I had impact' as they say. Nothing pleases me more.

The MI2 antenna is a very useful one in some applications. It has helped
inspire a breakthrough approach to antenna optimization, which Bob Hohlfeld has
championed, based upon some earlier (published) work by me in 1996/1997. The
system incorporates genetic algorithms; fractal coding; and a supercomputer
(grid) cluster made of off the shelf PC's. You and othersmay find a
description of the system at:

http://www.fractenna.com

under the FRAGO system.

The FRAGO system is working on a daily basis on antenna optimization,
successfully I might add. It has assessed over 2 million antennas a month. It
has also been described in several publications and conferences; indeed it will
be described at one this coming week.

With regards to the statements you have made above: In October, 2001 you had an
attorney send me a letter of complaint for defamation and issued a demand of
$50,000--based upon an alleged loss. You had counsel claim that such damages
were suffered from my statements regarding ownership of copyright.

You threatened to sue myself; Fractal Antenna Systems,Inc.; Boston University;
and others.

Certain matters regarding a potential counterclaim(s) were tendered to your
counsel, and compelling evidence regarding ownership of copyright files was
also provided. Incidentally, you did not provide any evidence of damages.

Regarding MI2: Steve Best has recently published an interesting paper--as you
know--and I am quite certain there are many here who will benefit from my
corrections of factual error; omissions of citation; and so on; which will be
presented in due time.

A very brief summary: Steve's paper confirms my statement that the Small Loop
Approximation is incorrect (at least for the regimes of antennas being
considered); Steve has shown other fractal loops that share the very high (over
90%) efficiency and dipole gain; and so on, thereby corroborating the advantage
of fractal in loops of that size and need.

Clearly I see no issue, Mr. Lewallen, with you or anyone else discussing
fractal antennas or any other sort of antenna. In fact, I never have. I
presume, however, that accuracy and fact are also of some merit in the
enterprise, and I invite you to strive for that; along with me and everyone
else, in future discussions.

With Best wishes to all,

Chip N1IR

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

Can you please tell us what happened to the 10meter amateur band fractal
antenna design that was on your web site?

We would appreciate it being put back if possible as I had not got around to
building one before you took it off.

Michael

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...


May I suggest that you monitor the web site:

http://www.fractenna.com

73,
Chip N1IR

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:10:09 GMT, "Michael Hart"
wrote:

Can you please tell us what happened to the 10meter amateur band fractal
antenna design that was on your web site?

We would appreciate it being put back if possible as I had not got around to
building one before you took it off.

Michael


Hi Michael,

Two words of caution.

1. DO NOT ASK WHY.
2. Do not ask here.

Either constitutes the most fruitless appeal offered in this forum.
Approach him directly and ask for only what you want without comment,
color, or explanation. Failure to observe protocol will invariably
lead to difficult correspondence, unless of course you approach on
your knees with hands clasped and raised (a few "hosannas" might be
appreciated too). ;-)

To date (for 4 years?), absolutely no other such plea has been
fulfilled. There have been absolutely no reports of any successful
constructions of this design (although it is not particularly
difficult once you do some preparation).

73's & Good luck, write when you have one warming the air,
Richard Clark, KB7QHC