> Neal Campbell wrote:
>> The greatest story on this is from a show on PBS about Fractal Geometry.The
>> first half of the show is about how skeptical and belittling the mathmatical
>> world was about fractal geometry when it could be proven over and over and
>> seen recurring everywhere in nature.
>> The second half of the show was about the practical applications of fractals
>> and they spent quite a bit of time telling the story of Nathan Cohen who as
>> a ham started to wonder if antennas would benefit from fractal design and
>> wrote a paper in Communications Quarterly. He kept going, finally starting
>> up the Fractal Antenna company which sells antennas it seems in the cell
>> phone market, etc.
> More correctly, he sells licenses to use the patent, and hopes to get
> investors. They probably do make some antennas.
> As others have pointed out, there's an infinity of ways to make a
> physically small antenna, if you're willing to give up gain or
> bandwidth. Fractals are but one, and lend themselves to sexy marketing
> Note also that just because the Dept of Defense or NASA buy something
> doesn't mean that it actually is any better than anything else. For all
> you know, they bought it for test purposes.
What the DOD purchasing something that might not be the best ?..That'd
be like taking the guns off fighter planes because well never need them
> There are also rumors that the inventor is fairly assertive,
See if you can find the old discussions on the reflector<:-))
> and doesn't
> take kindly to folks wanting to do "head to head" comparisons. It's
> kind of hard to legally build an example of a fractal antenna to test on
> an antenna range against, say, a meander line or loaded dipole without
> violating his patent.
Special interests have profaned both the patent and copyright systems
way beyond the original intent of those laws.
> I don't know, but he could easily put a
> restriction on purchasers of his antennas that you not publish test
> results from antenna range measurements.
> This is like various software companies that have, as a part of the
> license terms, that you cannot publish benchmark results from their
Microsoft is very open about that and it's in the TOS/license.
<snip> I don't doubt that Apple is the same way although I don't know.
TowerTalk mailing list