Windigo has it mostly correct. The fractal quad Yagi works extremely well for a very small antenna, but does NOT work better than a full-sized Yagi--nor was this EVER claimed.
No 'fair use' license was issued. The point is that hams building fractal antennas for their own EXPERIMENTAL use are not acting as commercial entities and are not restricted by this or any other patent or patent pending.
If you want to sell'em, or get money for mAKING 'EM OR studying 'em, then there will be trouble ahead.
Hams are encouraged to EXPERIMENT with fractal antennas--on their own. COMMERCIAL manufacture for sale or commercial purpose is covered by patent pending--as it is for any patent pending. In any case, it would not be MY place to issue such a 'license'
No; the statement is accurate. The RF RADIATIVE efficiency is 25% greater than that of a standard stubby. The ComCyl stubby and cell phone act as antenna which together virtually achieves the efficiency of a dipole--which itself is virtually the same as that of a cell phone with a 1/4 wave whip.
No hyperbole her. No magic,no new physics. Just a great antenna design replacing a poor (coil stubby ) one.
That is most certainly not correct. Could you kindly pass along the page and issue? I will be happy to point out the inaccuracy, if indeed it says what you remember.
I will be brief here and this will be my only post on slashdot.
The ComCyl Dualband stubby you are referring to is indeed "25% more efficient". Indeed, the field strength of this antenna attached to a commercial dual band cell phone is, within measurement error (0.2 dB), equivalent to a 1/4 wave whip. In comparison, a standard (coil) stubby is -1.8 to -3 dBd, depending on manufacturer.
Mr. Chenoweth and I are submitting the anechoic chamber measurements for publications.
Those cranks who "claim" that I am breaking some laws of physics, or asserting bogus facts need YOUR objective scrutiny:
WHERE IS THEIR DATA!
Ask them about THEIR MEASUREMENTS and MODELS.
I think the nick 'Anonymous Coward' says it all for them..
Slashdot Mirror
Windigo has it mostly correct. The fractal quad Yagi works extremely well for a very small antenna, but does NOT work better than a full-sized Yagi--nor was this EVER claimed.
No 'fair use' license was issued. The point is that hams building fractal antennas for their own EXPERIMENTAL use are not acting as commercial entities and are not restricted by this or any other patent or patent pending.
If you want to sell'em, or get money for mAKING 'EM OR studying 'em, then there will be trouble ahead.
73
Chip N1IR
No one has given ANYONE a free licnse for use.
Hams are encouraged to EXPERIMENT with fractal antennas--on their own. COMMERCIAL manufacture for sale or commercial purpose is covered by patent pending--as it is for any patent pending. In any case, it would not be MY place to issue such a 'license'
Cordially,
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D>
No; the statement is accurate. The RF RADIATIVE efficiency is 25% greater than that of a standard stubby. The ComCyl stubby and cell phone act as antenna which together virtually achieves the efficiency of a dipole--which itself is virtually the same as that of a cell phone with a 1/4 wave whip.
No hyperbole her. No magic,no new physics. Just a great antenna design replacing a poor (coil stubby ) one.
Cordially,
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D>
Hello OM;
That is most certainly not correct. Could you kindly pass along the page and issue? I will be happy to point out the inaccuracy, if indeed it says what you remember.
Cordially,
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
I will be brief here and this will be my only post on slashdot.
The ComCyl Dualband stubby you are referring to is indeed "25% more efficient". Indeed, the field strength of this antenna attached to a commercial dual band cell phone is, within measurement error (0.2 dB), equivalent to a 1/4 wave whip. In comparison, a standard (coil) stubby is -1.8 to -3 dBd, depending on manufacturer.
Mr. Chenoweth and I are submitting the anechoic chamber measurements for publications.
Those cranks who "claim" that I am breaking some laws of physics, or asserting bogus facts need YOUR objective scrutiny:
WHERE IS THEIR DATA!
Ask them about THEIR MEASUREMENTS and MODELS.
I think the nick 'Anonymous Coward' says it all for them..
Cordially,
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.