You are grossly (to be charitable) unaware of the published literature IMO,
and when you make comments like 'believer' and 'just another', those are
(again, being charitable) reflections of your absence of knowledge on this
subject. Please: don't ask someone else to be your librarian.
If your antennas work for you--that's great! But with countless users of
fractal antennas, and millions out there, don't expect your comments to be
supported by facts--they aren't.
If more (older) amateurs want to use fractals, then make the case: I am
willing to volunteer some time, and that is not counting the many many hours
volunteered, and half dozen articles published in ham mags, almost 20 years
ago. I suggest getting QST or CQ to (by editor) solicit a MS. I do not
write unsolicited MS's anymore--no need to.
Saying fractals are hard to build, or support mechanically, is a joke. If
you don't have the dexterity to bend wire(really, not an onerous task), for
example, then young people appear dastardly proficient--as the youtube
videos on fractal antennas(some by pre-teens)--at doing so. I myself am happy
to let younger people share in the fun. You should to.
73,
Chip W1YW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 9/19/2013 2:45:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
xdavid@cis-broadband.com writes:
No, I'm not just making silly assertions. The primary advantage of
fractal antennas, based upon everything I've read on the subject,
appears to be that they offer a generally wider bandwidth over other
folded designs of the same size ... and yes they can be made smaller,
albeit with more mechanical hassle when applied to HF (as I stated).
That makes them eminently viable for things like cell phone antennas,
where they are widely used, versus things like ham radio antennas, where
they are not.
And you have to admit that much of the hype for fractal antennas in the
past was far more snake oil than science. I'm not saying that you were
culpable in that, but others certainly were.
Enjoy your mission ... I'll stick to mine.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 9/18/2013 12:00 PM, W1YW@aol.com wrote:
> Well Dave,
>
> After listening to almost 20 years of such silly assertions--despite
'acid
> tests' of chamber measurements; 'acid tests' of simulations; 'acid tests'
> of direct comparisons; 'acid tests' of live demoes (including Dayton,
ARRL
> National, RCA, several IEEE societies and many others); 'acid tests' of
peer
> reviewed publications; 'acid tests' of validation by researchers in
over
> 40 countries and over 1500 articles,'acid tests' of being a keynote at
an
> international conference of engineers, mathematicians and scientists;
and
> yes, 'acid tests' of on the air comparisons, I have come to one
conclusion
> when it comes to fractal antenna technology and the persiflage of 'just
> another folding method':
>
> Some hams must be on acid... ;-)
>
> Trippy!
>
> Go take some bicarb of soda.
>
> I, on the other hand, am going to enjoy myself and execute my Part 97
> mission.
>
> You should try it. It's fun.
>
> 73,
> Chip W1YW
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
>
>
>
> In a message dated 9/18/2013 1:46:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> xdavid@cis-broadband.com writes:
>
> edly I'm not a believer in fractal antennas. They don't really
> offer anything over any other folded designs and are clumsier
> mechanically.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|