Rick Karlquist wrote:
> I did a search of IEEE for papers on fractal antennas authored by Chip.
> There were none in referreed journals, and only 4 or 5 conference
> papers, and they were all rather old. I looked at the papers and none of
> them really made a convincing case for fractal antennas IMHO. It raises a
> red flag for me when I see someone making an end run around established
> technical journals and going to the general media, such as NOVA.
> Most of the time when I follow up on technical "breakthroughs"
> I read about in the general media, there is nothing to take to
> the bank. Being in the general media seems to be more of a
> negative indicator than a positive one.
> Even if a self described fractal antenna is demonstrated to "work",
> whatever that means, we still don't know if it worked because of being
> fractal or in spite of being fractal. There is also a confusion between
> the meaning of "fractal" and the prior art of "frequency independent
> Rick N6RK
I think the primary value of fractal antennas (over other frequency
independent or broad/multi-band designs of one sort or another) is as a
unique marketing tool for product differentiation. Along the lines of
"now, with patent pending framostat enabled chrome muffler bearings".
it also allows some amount of funding lock-in. If you hold the patents,
it makes it harder for someone else to experiment with it and prove you
wrong. A would-be debunker gets a letter implying a legal battle might
ensue, and you figure you got other more productive fish to fry, whether
or not the legal claims have merit (that is, reproduction of a patented
thing for experimentation is permitted under limited circumstances, but
you'd hate to spend thousands of dollars proving it)
TowerTalk mailing list