|
Penn State fractal antenna reduces unwanted lobes
FRACTAL-SHAPED TILES DEVELOPED FOR NEW BROADBAND ANTENNA CLASS
Penn State engineers have developed innovative design methods for a new class of antennas composed of an array of fractal-shaped tiles that offer anywhere from a 4:1 to 8:1 improvement in bandwidth compared to their conventional counterparts. Douglas H. Werner, professor of electrical engineering and senior scientist in Penn State's Applied Research Laboratory, recently described the new antennas at a conference on wireless communication technology in Hawaii. While fractal concepts have been used previously in antenna design, Werner and his research team are the first to introduce a design approach for broadband phased array antenna systems that combines aspects of tiling theory with fractal geometry. Read the full story at http://live.psu.edu/story/4373 |
Excuse my reaction: BFD! Yea, but you didn't do at the university forum or some kind of conference. They will get the "glory" and grant money :-( Let's se what freaky says, paging his layers? BUm |
Richard,
I think it is very bad what Penn State has done and they say they are going to apply for a patent no less. They do have E mail contacts on their page so if you send them a copy of your posting then they will have to declare it to the Patent Office with their initial request. If what you are saying is what they are repeating then congrats and kudo's to you. It would also be interesting how the initial patent on Fractals was written i.e was it a 'method' for producing a new series of designs or limited to specific designs as it could make quite a difference as far as the PTO is concerned. I would imagine they took the first tack as to patent all forms in the family would make it one very huge patent request Art Richard Clark wrote in message . .. On 3 Nov 2003 09:19:07 -0800, (John Bartley I solved my XP problems w/ Service Pack Linux) wrote: FRACTAL-SHAPED TILES DEVELOPED FOR NEW BROADBAND ANTENNA CLASS Penn State engineers have developed innovative design methods for a new class of antennas composed of an array of fractal-shaped tiles that offer anywhere from a 4:1 to 8:1 improvement in bandwidth compared to their conventional counterparts. Douglas H. Werner, professor of electrical engineering and senior scientist in Penn State's Applied Research Laboratory, recently described the new antennas at a conference on wireless communication technology in Hawaii. While fractal concepts have been used previously in antenna design, Werner and his research team are the first to introduce a design approach for broadband phased array antenna systems that combines aspects of tiling theory with fractal geometry. Read the full story at http://live.psu.edu/story/4373 Hi John, Excuse my reaction: BFD! I described this style a year and a half ago: "The innovation, called a Penrose TileTenna Circuit(TM) (PTC), uses Penrose Tile conductor paths to replace low efficiency fractal circuits. In doing so, the company has a proprietary position on a harmonic and ubiquitous reach into electronics, RF, and pulley technology. "Virtually every electronic device using fractals or pulleys to form RLC circuits has been eclipsed by the new Penrose TileTenna Circuit(TM). Those low efficiency fractal components were arranged by superstition and ruse to get the pulley to perform as needed. What we've done is ask: can a Penrose Tile pattern, with its smug-awareness and self-indulgance, be used to eliminate fractals and still get the equivalent RLC circuit? We've found that the answer is yes; and in most uses, especially at milliHertz frequencies, all fractals can be replaced by conductive Penrose TileTenna structures. In 110% of cases, the PTCs can substantially reduce the fractal population from their high tide mark of 0.001% market penetration... "Looking at the Penrose TileTenna Circuit(TM) one sees, for example, a beautiful etched copper pattern replacing the ugly fractal traces for a circuit without kinks, plunging the cost and dramatically increasing the reliability of use... "A key part of using PTCs in a practical way was to find a method to identify a fractal arrangement that fails to meet the design specifications for performance and form factor. This, in effect opens the market to all fractal applications being susceptible to replacement by the superior technology offered by PTCs. Other recent and independent research reports take a given Penrose TileTenna and then see how it works as an RLC circuit, such as a filter or resonator... "The CTO of PILES, Inc. (Penrose tILES' new business name, formerly designers of EH/CFA's, marine pulleys and other fractals) scoffs at competitors' slow-to-patent IP security by noting PTC technology has protections of pending patent pending status. 'We thought of it first and that is sufficient to take anyone to court!' goes the logic of this source. PILES' CTO warns that they have an 'announced' pending patent pending status (offering greater protection than simple pending patent pending status) against all antennas designed using an inclined plane. 'We are committed,' offers the CTO, 'to future possibilities.' 'If you think about it, a wrapped incline describes a screw, and we do not want to be the outdone by fraudtenna in the ability to give customers a screw when they seek a novel antenna design.'" For those interested in the prospects of PILES and their ability to irritate fraudtenna in the end, stay tuned for future breakthroughs in pulley research. ;-) repeated for your edutainment. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Standby for a lawsuit!
"John Bartley I solved my XP problems w/ Service Pack Linux" wrote in message m... FRACTAL-SHAPED TILES DEVELOPED FOR NEW BROADBAND ANTENNA CLASS Penn State engineers have developed innovative design methods for a new class of antennas composed of an array of fractal-shaped tiles that offer anywhere from a 4:1 to 8:1 improvement in bandwidth compared to their conventional counterparts. Douglas H. Werner, professor of electrical engineering and senior scientist in Penn State's Applied Research Laboratory, recently described the new antennas at a conference on wireless communication technology in Hawaii. While fractal concepts have been used previously in antenna design, Werner and his research team are the first to introduce a design approach for broadband phased array antenna systems that combines aspects of tiling theory with fractal geometry. Read the full story at http://live.psu.edu/story/4373 |
|
Richard wrote:
SNIP The only value of patents is in their being a depreciable asset. In other words, valuable only to the bean counters to include in their prospectus. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC There is a second value in Patents: they assure lawsuits!! Deacon Dave, W1MCE |
Dave Shrader wrote in message news:tiMpb.102695$Fm2.88131@attbi_s04...
Richard wrote: SNIP The only value of patents is in their being a depreciable asset. In other words, valuable only to the bean counters to include in their prospectus. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC There is a second value in Patents: they assure lawsuits!! Deacon Dave, W1MCE I would question that statement in the U.S. Dave. It is not a question of who is right or wrong with respect to patents, its just a case who has the deepest pockets and who can make enough money thru a violation so they may hire a lawyer to manipulate the court so a ruling is never made. Two cases I remember one the windshields wiper case and the Sears and Roabucks wrench casewhere even tho the plaintifs went bankrupt pursing justice those who violated the law profited imensely. My patents on antennas as well as the one I am claiming now will be abandond after award since I could never stop any violation let alone pay the maintenance fees. My patent attempt are purely for my own satisfaction. By the way, in some countries the loser picks up the costs which can retard deep pocket violators in any court actions over those with little money. McDonalds found this out to their cost in the U.K. where their opponents had little money and were able to reap huge rewards. Art |
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:44:25 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote: Richard wrote: SNIP The only value of patents is in their being a depreciable asset. In other words, valuable only to the bean counters to include in their prospectus. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC There is a second value in Patents: they assure lawsuits!! Deacon Dave, W1MCE Hi Dave, For the lawyer side of the aisle, that is the same asset. There is certainly nothing about patents that "give" the inventor ANYTHING. America's first, greatest inventor, Ben Franklin declared such things as patents as an abomination to freedom. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
|
Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
SNIP I would question that statement in the U.S. Dave. It is not a question of who is right or wrong with respect to patents, its just a case who has the deepest pockets and who can make enough money thru a violation so they may hire a lawyer to manipulate the court so a ruling is never made. SNIP My point exactly. Patents assure Lawsuits!! I didn't say the patent holder wins. Deacon Dave |
Actually the man that invented the pushbutton release socket wrench did
win his lawsuit against Sears and won big. Sears then licensed the patent and are selling pushbutton release socket wrenches again. I still have my original one and love it. The intermitent cycle automotobile wondow wiper inventer has has to sue each and every autombile manufacturer for infringement. He has won every suit but the lawyers got most of the money. He also lost his marriage. He is now going without legal assistance in his court cases but is still winning. Dave Nagel Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote: Dave Shrader wrote in message news:tiMpb.102695$Fm2.88131@attbi_s04... Richard wrote: SNIP The only value of patents is in their being a depreciable asset. In other words, valuable only to the bean counters to include in their prospectus. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC There is a second value in Patents: they assure lawsuits!! Deacon Dave, W1MCE I would question that statement in the U.S. Dave. It is not a question of who is right or wrong with respect to patents, its just a case who has the deepest pockets and who can make enough money thru a violation so they may hire a lawyer to manipulate the court so a ruling is never made. Two cases I remember one the windshields wiper case and the Sears and Roabucks wrench casewhere even tho the plaintifs went bankrupt pursing justice those who violated the law profited imensely. My patents on antennas as well as the one I am claiming now will be abandond after award since I could never stop any violation let alone pay the maintenance fees. My patent attempt are purely for my own satisfaction. By the way, in some countries the loser picks up the costs which can retard deep pocket violators in any court actions over those with little money. McDonalds found this out to their cost in the U.K. where their opponents had little money and were able to reap huge rewards. Art |
|
As I recall, the interval wiper case was begun in the '60s and only
settled recently. So it took the inventor thirty years to win the suit. And I believe that was only against one auto manufacturer. I seriously doubt that he's collected a nickel yet. The only reason he prevailed is that there was such a huge amount of money involved, lawyers were willing to spend years working on it for a contingency fee. (Consequently, the inventor will only get a portion of the settlement if he's still alive when the money actually changes hands.) For something of more modest value, the inventor will simply be run out of money long before the case reaches court. As far as I can tell, patents are of use only for companies large enough and with enough resources to defend them. They're often used just to shut out the little guy. For example, Big Company A patents its widget. Big Company B incorporates the widget into its own products. Big Company A threatens to sue Big Company B. Big Company B comes up with some prior art that might void the patent, and threatens to countersue to make the patent void. (This can be done for a huge number of patents. There are surprisingly few truly new ideas, and prior art can very often be found if you've got the resources to look hard enough for it.) Big Company A backs off, and gives Big Company B a royalty-free license to use the widget. That way, they both benefit. If the patent had been voided (which it probably deserved to be), then any old body could use the widget. By letting the patent stand, either company can sue any little guy who tries it. Patents are now awarded with hardly any scrutiny at all, which I'm sure makes this scheme increasingly common. Actually, what I've seen is big companies freely stealing others' patented ideas, and not bothering with the formal process I just described. They don't mess with each other, and that way all the patents stand and the little guys are effectively locked out. In my humble and decidedly non-legal opinion, a patent is pretty useless to a small inventor, unless it's worth so much that the lawyers are willing to spend millions and years defending it, like in the interval wiper case. I guess it strokes some egos. But I always think about the Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna (U.S. patent #6,025,810) when someone brags about how many patents he's got, just to keep the accomplishment in perspective. Roy Lewallen, W7EL David G. Nagel wrote: Actually the man that invented the pushbutton release socket wrench did win his lawsuit against Sears and won big. Sears then licensed the patent and are selling pushbutton release socket wrenches again. I still have my original one and love it. The intermitent cycle automotobile wondow wiper inventer has has to sue each and every autombile manufacturer for infringement. He has won every suit but the lawyers got most of the money. He also lost his marriage. He is now going without legal assistance in his court cases but is still winning. Dave Nagel |
I'm sure Chip is active off line.
Deacon Dave, W1MCE Hacksaw wrote: I wounder what they have to say about this. http://www.fractenna.com/index.html |
David.
I chose those three cases deliberately because they were people who pursued their case since money was more important than life. I also stated the McDonalds case in the U.K. where justice came without total ruination. Look at cases where the "giants" take on "giants" as in the phamacutical industry where appeals upon appeals and other manipulations of the court drag on for years. Yes, the courts allow the little man to challenge the big man but he never "wins", he always loses the most valuable thing that he has, a major part of his life in exchange for following his "rights". In these particular cases quoted it emphasised the difference in "rights" between the U.K. and the U.S. which supposedly follow the same system but where one follows the "intent" of the law where the other follows the " actual wording" of the law. This places the U.S. descisions in the same bracket of many threads seen at this site. Art "David G. Nagel" wrote in message ... Actually the man that invented the pushbutton release socket wrench did win his lawsuit against Sears and won big. Sears then licensed the patent and are selling pushbutton release socket wrenches again. I still have my original one and love it. The intermitent cycle automotobile wondow wiper inventer has has to sue each and every autombile manufacturer for infringement. He has won every suit but the lawyers got most of the money. He also lost his marriage. He is now going without legal assistance in his court cases but is still winning. Dave Nagel Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote: Dave Shrader wrote in message news:tiMpb.102695$Fm2.88131@attbi_s04... Richard wrote: SNIP The only value of patents is in their being a depreciable asset. In other words, valuable only to the bean counters to include in their prospectus. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC There is a second value in Patents: they assure lawsuits!! Deacon Dave, W1MCE I would question that statement in the U.S. Dave. It is not a question of who is right or wrong with respect to patents, its just a case who has the deepest pockets and who can make enough money thru a violation so they may hire a lawyer to manipulate the court so a ruling is never made. Two cases I remember one the windshields wiper case and the Sears and Roabucks wrench casewhere even tho the plaintifs went bankrupt pursing justice those who violated the law profited imensely. My patents on antennas as well as the one I am claiming now will be abandond after award since I could never stop any violation let alone pay the maintenance fees. My patent attempt are purely for my own satisfaction. By the way, in some countries the loser picks up the costs which can retard deep pocket violators in any court actions over those with little money. McDonalds found this out to their cost in the U.K. where their opponents had little money and were able to reap huge rewards. Art |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com