Talk:Fractal antenna

WIKIPEDIA NOT THE PLACE FOR LIBEL AND PERSONAL ATTACKS

The below material is obviously not intended as discussion of a technical topic, but a thinly disguised attack on Nathan Cohen. It is not , per se, about fractal antennas. Wikipedia is not here to be a means of cyberbullying and propaganda, which the below espouses.

Here are some quick facts that may be helpful vis a vis below:

1) FRACTALS is a peer-reviewed journal with many top scientists and Nobel Prize winners as reviewers. It as founded by Benoit Mandelbrot. Obviously the anonymous writer is trying to convince you that the journal, article, and author have no scientific 'cred'.

2) Cohen is a scientist who is a succcessful inventor, with 25 US patents, and over 90 publications, in many of the world's top journals. He spent over thirty years in academia as a researcher, student and professor, at Harvard, MIT, Cornell, Brandeis, University of Iowa, Bentley University, Boston University and other institutions. He retired in 2002 as a professor at Boston UNiversirty. His work has not been discredited on any of the many subjects he has researched.

3) Fractal antennas have in no way been discredited. The anonymous author asserts that "Steven Best" discredited fractal antennas. In fact, Best claims no such thing. And, the fact is easily shown, through Google Scholar, that since Best's publications circa 2003, hundreds of articles have been published by others demonstrating, to the contrary, that fractal antennas have keen advantages over conventional antennas.

4) The anonymous author asserts that Best is a researcher and so on, while Cohen is a business man. In fact, Best is a businessman, who was replaced as CEO of Cushcraft antennas circa 2002.

5) The article on frequency invariance is cut and closed. It is a close-form analytical derivation. Unless our understanding of math and physics is totally wrong, there is no room in nature for 'interpretation', let alone propaganda about it "making no sense electrmagnetically speaking".. The paper is not only valid, but in 12 years has never been shown to be wrong. It never will be. Why? Because it is an exact and unique mathematical solution--and shows fractals are required.

6) An obvious explanation for this targeted attack is that the antenna field is undergoing a paradigm shift and there is an obvious problem--if fractals work better than everything else is worse. Now, imagine if you don't have access to fractal antennas because you don't want to do the right thing and license the invention--where does that leave you if you make your life in the antenna field? Hmm?

7) Science is a self correcting enterprise. That means that if the Cohen reference are wrongs, then give us the publications that then showed they are wrong. You can't just assert it . Show it. If Cohen's articles are invalid, then give us the references that demosntrate that. Or go publish some peer reviewed papers that (allegedly) show that. Good luck!

8) Steven Best made a key error of fact when he stated, in his articles, 'geometry makes no difference in the characteristcs of antennas'. Of course it does! Even grad students in physics know that Babinet's Principle shows that self complemntarity--a geometric condition, for example, uniquely defines the impedance of an electromagnetic structure. Nature is not ecumenical nor pluralistic--it has defined rules. Geometry often constrains and defines such rules. The frquency invariance condition is yet one other of these unique and defining geometric conditions that define the characteristics of radiation of antennas.

8) PIERS is the top electromagnetic society in the world. It is amusing that the anonymous author seeks to discredit it.

9) The anonymous author draws a distinction between 'academic pursuits' and everything else. In fact, research gets done in businesses, universities, non profits, and so on. For eample, the discovery of the Cosmic Background radiation was done at the for-profit Bell Telephone Company. The anonymous author wants you to believe that research outside of academia is not worth considering and has some sort of biased 'agenda'. Just for full disclosure, it should be noted that Steven Best, so mentioned by the anonymous author, is an employee of MITRE, which is not an academic institution but an independent lab that is paid to make assessments. So Best is not an 'academic' as per his employment there.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.251.185 (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Some additional perspective on this article

There is a problem with the "notes" listed here. References [1]-[3], [9]-[11] are non-technical references. They may discuss technical things, but there is no supporting mathematics nor peer review. A patent is not a peer reviewed scientific work. Also, references [1]-[3] suffer the same problem and [4] is a mere conference paper. Notice that Cohen has not presented any material in any recent relevant conferences.

In particular:

[1]-[3] are commercial-type works and not academic pursuits. One cannot use commercially-driven claims to support scientific work.

[4] They do not claim superiority in this paper. They simply show an example antenna (among many possible). The "layman" description is typical science journalism - sensationalism before facts.

[5] Does not make any claims about superiority. In fact, Cohen isn't even referenced once in the paper. Additionally, the work is from PIERS which is not a well-respected journal and not as strictly peer-reviewed as IEEE journals.

[9] This is NOT a journal on electromagnetics - Fractals barely qualifies as a scientific journal to begin with. The derivation by Cohen barely even qualifies as a real derivation. Speaking from someone who has worked with Maxwell's equations for many years, the paper makes absolutely no sense electromagnetically-speaking.

[10] Patent - moving on.

[11] Commercial work

[12] 2 pages from an obscure textbook? Seriously? I have not seen the book but I seriously doubt these authors would claim any sort of superiority of fractal based anything.

[13] The only claim being made in this paper (read the abstract for goodness sake!) is that the impedance performance of the fractal antenna improves with the number of iterations. Absolutely no claim is being made in regards to its superiority over other designs - it's just a self-comparison!

However, if one were to go on Google Scholar or IEEE Explore, there is a large body of work presented by Dr. Steven R. Best that discredit the claims made about fractal antennas. In no way does Best (or anyone) claim you cannot use fractal antennas. The point is simply that slapping a fractal pattern down as an antenna does not mean a good design will result. Some fractal antennas DO work quite well such as the log-periodic dipole array, but these have been known for decades. However, the new fractal designs have been shown to be poor designs when compared to more traditional designs. The article is very strongly biased and the references/notes suggest this as well. The major problem with the article is the suggestion that fractal antennas are somehow superior to traditional designs but this is simply not true. Note that [6] and [7] show the inferiority of fractal antennas and not in the specific sense, but general sense. Dr. Steven R. Best is also a very well respected and prolific author - not a business man like Nathan Cohen. Actually reading the articles supporting the case for fractal over traditional designs shows they look at very particular scenarios and/or the authors are not even claiming superiority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.130.144 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

RCOOLEY I SUPPORT YOU

Can you get semi-protection on here? (the one where you have to be registered)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.31.11 (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is clearly written by someone with vested interests in fractal antennas. It has been shown in the literature, quite strikingly, that fractal antennas DO NOT offer superior performance over traditional design approaches.

Firstly, the lowering of resonance is a complete sham, considering that space-filling DOES NOT ensure good electromagnetic performance. One cannot simply rely on the efficiency of packing a line into a small space and ignore electromagnetics. It has been shown that any fractal antenna can be out-performed (i.e. lower resonance) for a given surface area / volume by a traditional intelligent approach to design.

Secondly, the well known causes of low radiation efficiency (sharp corners, increased perimeter, etc..) are very prevalent in fractal antennas. Hence, many authors are dishonest and do not quote radiation efficiency when they must. That being said, honest authors have shown the radiation efficiency of fractal antennas are typically quite low.

Thirdly, the most important antenna quantity when dealing with electrically small antennas is Q. It considers ALL electromagnetic effects and allows one to compare ANY two antennas in an unbiased fashion. Unfortunately, authors publishing work on fractal antennas do not quote the Q values for their antennas, and hence unbiased comparisons CANNOT be made.

I will post the relevant references to the above claims and hope to edit this article and correct the outright lies therein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.56.99 (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Stellar follow-through there, hon. 76.99.199.53 (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well Shuchs, 'hon', considering your contributions to Wikipedia focus on 'eye shadow', 'Eureka episodes', and other non-technical subjects,you have chosen to use this forum in a way it is not designed for. That is, to pat someone on the back rather than contribute to the discussion. If Wikipedia becomes a popularity contest rather than a fact-based resource, we are all wasting our time here. Have a nice day Hon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.188 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, evidence indicates it was Dr. Nathan Cohen, founder and CEO of Fractal Antenna Systems who personally twisted this article to his POV, circa May 2007. There could hardly be a more flagrant conflict of interest! I have added just a bit more balance, and most importantly a jumping-off point, should someone be interested in improving this article. Wikiwatcher serves to confirm my conclusion [1] Rcooley (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow!

You manage to classify contributors--or you claim a sole CONTRIBUTOR--as: 1) dishonest; 3)non-intelligent; 4)self serving; 5) twisting (twisted?). Furthermore you treat the FACTS presented in the article as CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN ART--despite the fact that they ARE the known art; and are well-cited as references in this article. Finally you cited two old articles that may have limited interest to a few scholars but not to those who use Wiki--and you explicitly quote from one such article (linking, without any evidence that you have the copyright holder's permission for such wide and non-fair use distribution) a dramatic and sweeping statement that in no way is supported by the very limited data presented. By analogy, that's like saying the Earth is made of diamonds just because you walked into a jewelry store and saw a handful...

Mate, you certainly have a point of view! So much of accusing those of whom you speak....

Such a collection of assertions--with no evidence given! If you feel the references given in the article are NOT described correctly, then go ahead and edit, and give the evidence in the discussion. Also, if you want to introduce new subject matter, as you do in the discussion, be sure it has relevancy to the article at hand as written.

You assert that there is a narrow point of view in the article, but rather than give evidence that disputes the FACTS presented in the article, you merely present your own 'NPOV' without any evidence that is cogent to showing that FACTS in the article are incorrect.

When, and if, in the discussion, you can present evidence which CONTRADICTS the facts in the article, it may be relevant to consider this further. I will get back in a while and show the weakness of your assertions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.188 (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV REMOVED

As promised, note an intelligent response to  assertions:

<<This article is clearly written by someone with vested interests in fractal antennas. It has been shown in the literature, quite strikingly, that fractal antennas DO NOT offer superior performance over traditional design approaches.>>

A: And yet the Wiki article has been initiated, and dramatically modified (that is not written by "someone") over the course of the multi-year entry, by at least a DOZEN-PLUS authors. "Many" is not "one". Ergo, YOUR ASSERTION IS FALSE.

Also, you give no evidence that fractal antennas do no offer superior perfromance over traditional designs, but rather, in one mod of the Wiki article, (are) cite(d) two articles--old ones that are vastly outdated-- that compare fractals to fractals or fractals to self-similar NON-traditional designs with a very limited data set, whereby that author makes sweeping conclusions that are just wrong: witness the contradiction posed by the TWO articles --recent ones--cited in the IEEE citations given (see NOTES (4) and (5)). They totally contradict the sweeping assertion about fractals having no advantage over other designs. Now, there is a good point in saying that one fractal antenna is better than another...I guess that may be of interest to antenna designers, but that doesn't support the (silliness that fractals have no advantage. It seems more of a political statement rather than a scientific one.

When someone makes a sweeping generalization, to show it is fatuous, all you need is one counterexample to break the dyke. The dyke, mate, is broken. Or I suppose research people should make a cottage industry showing thousands of counterexamples? That's not how I want my tax money spent... wrong is wrong.

And now, we presume, you expand on your explanation by enumerating....

<<Firstly, the lowering of resonance is a complete sham, considering that space-filling DOES NOT ensure good electromagnetic performance.>>

A: This article is about FRACTAL ANTENNAS. Fractal Antennas are one of many types of space filling antennas. Performance is defined by a number of factors often written or expressed as an 'objective function', weighting factors THAT YOU CAN MEASURE, such as: gain; front to back; size; volume; bandwidth; multibandedness; and many more. Typically, as stated, these are things you MEASURE as opposed to INFER. That's because real world devices have real world metrics to be met.

Read your statement: you are saying that fractal antennas do not lower resonances AND do not have performance. Really? Show us! To expand-- fractal 'loading' being a "sham" (definition: "cheap falseness"--Mirriam-Webster) leads the reader to assume that there is no lowering of resonances, and then you cite a statement that has nothing to do with the assertion. Show us a reference which shows that fractal antennas DO NOT lower resonances. This WIKI ARTICLE cites articles that clearly show that they do and gives several peer-reviewed articles that demonstrate the advantageous performance.

<<One cannot simply rely on the efficiency of packing a line into a small space and ignore electromagnetics.>>

A: Yes, so what? How is this non sequitar relevant to this article?

<<It has been shown that any fractal antenna can be out-performed (i.e. lower resonance) for a given surface area / volume by a traditional intelligent approach to design.>>

A: That's amazing! Do you have a reference that SHOWS this? Or is it (again) just a silly statement without support from the data? Can you show us how the data supports that statement? To wit:IF it were true, then how do you account for the hundreds of fractal antenna articles, most published in the last few years (long after that 2003 article cited), done by research groups WORLDWIDE? Europe. Asia. Australia. North America. South America. Only Antarctica seems to have missed the boat...How do you account for the IEEE papers--long after 2003-- cited in the Wiki article? They compared to non-fractals there, mate. Is it all a mass delusion, or --hey--it's a CONSPIRACY! Correction: a conspiracy by "non intelligent" researchers! I mean, if they were INTELLIGENT, then by your assertion, they wouldn't be using fractals! You made a personal attack there, mate! You called researchers who make fractal antennas NON-INTELLIGENT.

Here's a good one for you: Can you please show an example of a fractal invariant array , for example a log periodic, which is out-performed by an antenna that is invariant and not fractal (that is not self-similar?)? As your assertion is that it 'has been shown', then it should be trivial for you to refer us to the example. That would be a dandy starter, because it would contradict the close-form analytical solution for frequency invariance in Maxwell's Equations and thus bring the house of cards called electromagnetics down. Oops!

<<Secondly, the well known causes of low radiation efficiency (sharp corners, increased perimeter, etc..) are very prevalent in fractal antennas. Hence, many authors are dishonest and do not quote radiation efficiency when they must.>>

A: Well, once again you have packed a lot of nonsense--in my own opinion-- into a mere two sentences! Radiative efficiency is the ratio of radiation resistance to the total resistance (which includes, for example, ohmic losses caused by increased length). If you use a fractal to get TWO (as an example--it is not the only one) spaced current maxima on an antennas length--when normally it has one-- then you have increased the radiation resistance. Of course, you have also increased the GAIN AND DIRECTIVITY. So you may have increased the ohmic loss but you managed to increase the radiation resistance also, so the efficiency may actually go up! And what if,just to rub in the fallaciousness of your point, you superconduct the fractal? Obviously when antennas are made very electrically small,it doesn't matter how many current maxima you have. The point is that what really matter is the objective function, and that seldom includes efficiency. It's usually GAIN or DIRECTIVITY (which includes efficiency BTW)rather than efficiency.

Also, give an example where a research author was DISHONEST and did not quote efficiency when they had to. You said it. Show it. Where is it? I am sure we are all for academic/research honesty.

<<That being said, honest authors have shown the radiation efficiency of fractal antennas are typically quite low.>>

A: Therefore, anyone who does not meet certain (anonymous signer) criteria is DISHONEST? Never mind 'why', just state it as fact, right? Do the readers really deserve your defamatory input here? What right do you have to assert to the world that ANY author is dishonest, without proof of such? What is your motivation for such personal attacks? And, again, where is the proof? How does that have anything to do with fractal antennas?

BTW, what size were these alleged inefficient fractal antennas? Inefficient antennas have a name you know: they are called "loads", in this case ones made with fractals. Capacitors and inductors added into antenna are also very inefficient radiators by themselves--but they change the reactance and thus load it. What sort of so-called antenna savvy person confuses a LOAD with an ANTENNA? What sort of so-called antenna savvy person whould place a cap and an inductor in a teeny space and call it an ANTENNA? Again, don't confuse LOADS with ANTENNAS.

Very electrically small antennas are very inefficient. If you can cite an article--and quote-- whereby anyone expert in fractal antennas claims an efficient VERY SMALL antenna electrically, then do so.

Can you make a list of the honest research authors vs. the DISHONEST ones? After all, by posing it in this fashion, you assert that it is important for Wikipedia users to know this.

<<Thirdly, the most important antenna quantity when dealing with electrically small antennas is Q. It considers ALL electromagnetic effects and allows one to compare ANY two antennas in an unbiased fashion. Unfortunately, authors publishing work on fractal antennas do not quote the Q values for their antennas, and hence unbiased comparisons CANNOT be made.>>

A: All the antenna articles I have seen on fractal antennas, and I have seen and read many dozens, quote bandwidths. Bandwidth is Q. Don't get cute. Also, unless you are living in the past, everything these days is MULTIBAND or WIDEBAND. There may be a lowest resonance with a hi Q--but what about the OTHER 2, or 5 or 100 frequency bands or channels going up the dial? Essentially no one gives a darn about one frequency band anymore. Join the 21st century. Fractal antennas obviously have.

<<In fact, evidence indicates it was Dr. Nathan Cohen, founder and CEO of Fractal Antenna Systems who personally twisted this article to his POV, circa May 2007. There could hardly be a more flagrant conflict of interest! I have added just a bit more balance, and most importantly a jumping-off point, should someone be interested in improving this article. Wikiwatcher serves to confirm my conclusion [1] Rcooley (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC) >>

A: Considering Cohen is the world's expert, it makes sense for him to be involved in the entry. And who knows if he was? Did you ask him? And since there are well over a dozen authors of the Wiki article, it hardly is "twisted" along some personal lines of one person.

Again, with feeling: DID YOU ASK NATHAN COHEN if he "personally twisted this article"?

Also, if you paint the speculation that this entire Wiki article is written by one author (facts show otherwise), it is inescapable that your personal attacks--involving allegations of dishonesty, 'twisted'ness, self-servitude; and non-intelligence--can only be construed as focusing on this person. In that case, why are you using Wikipedia as a public and global forum for apparent defamation?

Finally, if we shun experts from contributing to Wikipedia, then we have nothing but a soup of fantasy with an occasional chunk of fact.

And let's not forget...

<< I will post the relevant references to the above claims and hope to edit this article and correct the outright lies therein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.56.99 (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC) >>

Well, we waited a year and a half so far and noticed you didn't come back to do it. THERE's cred for ya...

But wait! Now we have a Wiki article allegedly written by ONE person; who is: 1) dishonest; 2)twisting(ed?); 3)non-intelligent;4)self-serving;and and added new bonus... 5)a liar!

Ahh! A defamation fun-fest! Get real guys. It's a well-documented technology with hundreds of researchers, and rather than acknowledge the primary-source origins, you just want to taint the founder's reputation.

NPOV removed for lack of factual proof. QED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.188 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no relation to the other (anonymous) commentors here, so don't attribute their claims to me. -- Your rant is just that. It grants no credibility to your claims, just a lot of noise, and evidence you have deep vested interests in the contents of this article, which doesn't bode well for your credibility. Citations speak for themselves. The cited information you removed has been restored. Removing cited material is directly in conflict with WP policy, irrelevant of your opinion of it. Continue to do so and you can expect to be banned from editing. -- The most clearly biased information comes from Cohen's company, as my link shows. He's clearly behind it, whether he did so directly, or by proxy (see: meat puppet), is irrelevant. The fact that those bits were not removed by a dozen subsequent simple edits does NOT grant them any special credibility. The statements were not cited, they should not have been added in the first place. I realize you are completely unconvinced by my statement and will now rant for several more pages about how I'm wrong about the simplest facts, but I'm not going to argue with you further, but will keep a closer eye on this article to ensure your vandalism does not continue. What an AMAZING COINCIDENCE that you have a deep and vested interest in fractal antennas, an extremely high opinion of Dr. Cohen, and that YOUR IP ADDRESS maps to Belmont, MA, less than 4 MILES away from the headquarters of Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc., where Cohen is founder and CEO. Will wonders never cease? Rcooley (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone else removed it. Good thing. It was wrong when I took it down a while back and wrong now. Why? Because it generalized to ALL fractal antennas. And the citations given in the Wiki article shows that is wrong. Hence you are digging out something which science has shown to be wrong and posting it to the disadvantage of others seeking knowledge. Wrong equals gone. And don't be a silly person, I didn't attribute the above comments to you. Your defamatory comment was addressed separately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.188 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

---

The explanation for the removal is founded on the notion that keeping it is factually inaccurate. That is because (the inserted statement and reference)promulgates a false and generalized statement, outdated now by several years of published research, including articles referenced in the Wikipedia article. To keep them does not serve the purpose of factual dissemination of information espoused in Wikipedia. Based upon RCooley's focus on an individual rather than the facts, the objective appears contrary to such factual dissemination. He has not addressed the corrections--only repeated the factual errors. They have again been deleted.

Here is what RCooley states about himself and this Wiki. You will note that RCooley titles his contribution above "calling out the fraudster". Thus the emphasis of RCooley remains defamation of a person as opposed to presentation of fact. Readers are welcome to form their own assessments of RCooley's objective and whether they relate to dissemination of knowledge through a public encyclopedia:

To wit, RCooley says:

"I QUIT "It's clear Wikipedia will eventually devolve into a lot of bias and misinformation. The policies are idiotic, and I've needlessly wasted ridiculous amounts of time. And even tring to come back in a small way (the Shadow Wiki remains...), I kept hitting unnecessary and nonsensical bureaucratic roadblocks." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.181.212 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

RCooley continues to post an incorrect insertion. That insertion--and assertion-- has been re-written to correct for errors and make it relevant to the Wikipedia article. Note that IEEE copyright articles cannot be accessed by a public link. That is not "fair use" any more than (trying to)access a copyright photograph on Wikipedia is "fair use" (it isn't). You need the copyright holder's permission. Suggest RCooley re-list them as references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.188 (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Contributors MUST adhere to copyright law and Wiki policy with respect to copyright material. YOU CANNOT link full articles that are copyright without permission to do so. The articles linked by RCooley are RESTRICTED TO Princeton university distribution (it says so on every page), NOT world wide global public access. It is fine to LIST the primary reference(s) and even link to the abstract page(s) on IEEEXplore. But providing the full article via Wikipedia is copyright infringement. LEARN the law--and the rules--before you POST. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.188 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The RCooley contribution is now factually accurate (on 1 Feb 2010) and has the references cited. I agree that you can't use Wikipedia to copyright infringe and defame. RCooley has done both (between) previous page versions, and linking copyright material clearly labeled as restricted.74.94.181.212 (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

VANDALISM ALERT

Wiki readers and contributors need to be aware of deliberate vandalism to this article by RCooley. Note that on 31 January, 2010, RCooley did an intentional reversion, verbatum to an (his) entry that:

1) presented certain assertions as fact when the edits showed otherwise including

 * ONE researcher rather than his claimed "researchers"(note plural, used to push an 
     obvious POV of acceptance of that POV);
 * assertions that deterministic shapes were "random". In fact none of them are random;
 * a statement about fractal antennas from that one researcher, that was clearly
    shown to be incorrect by the latest studies so referenced (see 4 and 5) in the article;
 * a "suggest"(ion) posed solely by RCooley that has no support from any reference,
    that is (his)opinion rather than citation-supported fact

2)In addition he removed a factual statement on how fractals (self-similiarity) uniquely determine the electromagnetic properties of frequency independent antennas, as shown in the peer-reviewed referenced article (reference provided in the article) from a close-form analytical solution of Maxwell's Equations ( close-form means there are no alternative or un-found solutions). No explanation for removal given by RCooley and no presentation of fact which contradicts it.

3) Used Wikipedia as an illegal distribution forum of copyright material (the materials are clearly marked on each page as restricted to Princeton University ONLY), taking TWO IEEE copyright article download links, intended for a handful of university students, and infringing upon the copyright holder, by making it illegally available to the entire public-world,thereby posing Wikipedia as a vehicle for copyright infringement, identical in approach to how the old Napster allowed copyright infringement by illegal 'file sharing'. Note that the proper and present Wiki article version CITES these articles as opposed to enabling the illegal distribution of them.

As RCooley was alerted to these issues in this forum and on the history page, his reversion must be adduced to be intentional and malicious, not in good faith, a violation of Wiki policy, and not in the spirit of dissemination of knowledge espoused by Wiki. It is thus vandalism.

It is also salient to note that clear disdain RCooley has for Wikipedia (have a look on his page) where his says:

"I QUIT It's clear Wikipedia will eventually devolve into a lot of bias and misinformation. The policies are idiotic, and I've needlessly wasted ridiculous amounts of time. And even tring to come back in a small way (the Shadow Wiki remains...), I kept hitting unnecessary and nonsensical bureaucratic roadblocks."

Also, note the defamation that RCooley has enabled within Wiki against one of the researchers who does fractal antenna work.

173.48.216.188 (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to be dragged into an endless and worthless debate as you feign ignorance, use multiple IPs/meat puppets (all IPs map to nearby cities in Massachusetts), etc. I will say: 1) Intermingle potentially legitimate edits with POV pushing is a good way to get it all reverted. And since it's quite clear you work for Fractal Antenna Systems, Inc., you have an overwhelming conflict of interest, which you clearly can't manage, and should not be making edits to this article at all. I've already suggested appropriate actions be taken. 2) Yes, I dislike Wikipedia, mainly because of it's extended tolerance of individuals like yourself... 3) A URL can't be copyrighted, linking somewhere can't be copyright infringement. The text of a document isn't legally binding, may be outdated, etc. If you or Princeton University wants to sue someone, try Google, as a quick search turns up links to the cited document you complain about citing. Trying to mask your POV-pushing under feigned ignorance fools no-one, you might as well stop wasting your time. I certainly won't be wasting more of mine... Rcooley (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

RCooley continues his vandalism of this article. He is reminded that he is welcome to correct any statement--as anyone with good faith in Wiki editing--that is factually in error. That means not asserting through reversion, statements that are self-evident in their errors and have been shown here to be in error. Also, the copyright issue remains. Do not use Wikipedia as a distribution channel for illegal forwarding of restricted copyright material.173.48.216.188 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Obvious bias in article

As has been noted prior, there is obvious bias in the article. I'll list relevant indicators:

1. As noted, most edits come from different IPs that map to the Mass area. Many of these edits revert aspects of the article not favorable to N. Cohen or his company, Fractal Antenna Systems (FAS). Additionally, you can spot the same phrases (To wit) used all over the article and talk, clearly indicating a single author.

2. A reference to Fractus, another large company in this field, was added and then removed. Only links to FAS remain.

3. The references are terrible. In the talk it is stated: "To wit:IF it were true, then how do you account for the hundreds of fractal antenna articles, most published in the last few years (long after that 2003 article cited), done by research groups WORLDWIDE?" Yet 6/14 references are Cohen/FAS related (3 of these link to FAS or FAS controlled websites), 4 (two are basically the same, author and content wise) are part of the "hundreds of fractical antenna articles", and the two references from Best that are included are given an extremely biased treatment in the text.

4. The tone of the article betrays obvious bias. It's a mixture of a corporate sales pitch and the combative tone of an academic paper. That in itself indicates an author, as the same tone can be found on the FAS website as well.

I'm not interested in discussing whether fractal antennas suck or not. I came to this article expecting a quality Wikipedia article. Electrical articles on Wikipedia are well known for their quality. Yet this article reeks of POV bias and the talk merely confirms it. Again, whether this POV is right or wrong doesn't matter: it does not meet Wikipedia quality standards. This article clearly needs to have protection put on it to prevent the biased author(s) from reasserting control.

In addition, the article itself has a number of structural issues. Notes and references are really the same thing. Many references are not hyperlinked correctly.

It's late, but I will try to rework the article to remove POV bias, keep core information intact and fix structural issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry507 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jerry507. In 14 months Jerry507 did nothing to the article, despite your assertions. Your assertion that the "references are terrible" is just a competitor's diss of a company that is not even mentioned in the article, but that you bring to the forefront. I don't see anything in the article that contains the text "hundreds of references". However I just did a check on google with 'fractal antenna' as the keyword on 'scholar', and sure enough there are more than 1500 references. Only a handful are not illustrative of the benefits of the technology. In fact, almost all of thse have Steven Best as (co-) author. What's your agenda Jerry? Also, scholarly work uses SOURCE references. Are you saying that Nathan Cohen is to be vilified for doing the fundamental work? Would you accuse Einstein of having a point of view because his 1905 paper is cited as the source? If there is INCORRECT info, then go ahead and correct it. Also Jerry507, I have looked at ALL THE EDITS SINCE March 2012 and can find NO REFERENCE to the company you refer to in the article. The only company reference is one that links Nathan Cohen's biography. Otherwise it is clear that you are using Wikipedia to defame Nathan Cohen and that company, Fractal Antenna Systems. The latter may also be 'interference of business'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.171.111 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

New note: agree wholeheartedly with the apparent bias and misinformation that saturates this article. The simple fact that so many references are to Fractal Antenna System's website is insultingly blatant bias at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.83.31.3 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Note again: I can't find these multitudinous references, All I see is an article with cited, published facts, occasionally disconbobulated by those with an agenda.I see no bias let alone an insultingly blatant one. And who, exactly, do you think is 'insulted'? .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.171.111 (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Biased and false information about Fractal antennas

ELECTRICALLY SMALL ANTENNAS

The alleged disadvantages of fractal antennas in very electrically small antennas, are listed by R. C. Hansen in his book, 'Electrically Small, Superdirective, and Superconducting Antennas', pp. 75-81, 2006.

"A careful review of the many papers on fractal antennas shows that they offer no advantages over fat dipoles, loaded dipoles and simple loops with or without magnetic core."

Of course, all very electrically small antennas work poorly beyond narrow bandwidths, and fractal antennas have never made the claim for superior performance on inky-dinky electrical sizes. Nor do such claims bear the scrutiny of a scholarly review. In fact, there is no such claim about fractal making superior inky dinky antennas. Hence there exists no reference claiming such.

Get it? It is a bogus claim about a bogus claim.

In 1997 Nathan Cohen published in the ACES Newsletter(N. Cohen, 'Exploring a Fractal Dipole', Applied Computational Electromagnetics Society Newsletter, 13 (2), (1998) 23-27) pointing out exactly the fallacy of electrically small antennas--all poor performers beyond narrow bandwidths-- and removed fractals as candidates from the unfortunate 'Holy Grail' race of finding the perfect electrically small antenna, which does not exist in any form. To wit: inky dinky antennas, of all geometries, give inky dinky performance. The fact that limited distribution books do not list source references either indicates an absence of knowledge on that aspect of the subject, or an intentional attempt to ignore, both not desired attributes in credible opinion by experts.

Delete?

I don't see anything in here that meets the guidelines of WP:NOTABILITY. In particular, the relevant references are all primary (see WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS). I'd guess that the article was created to promote some silly patents. Is there something I should know about this topic before I put the article up for deletion? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am all for deleting the entry on fractal antennas in Wikipedia! No reason for this to be a primary source (there are much better sources that can easily fill in any 'vacuum') for info, and the article has been widely abused by competitors who do not want the technology to exist. Go for it:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.171.111 (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

-EDIT- Didn't see where someone already mentioned Hansen.

-NOTE- Go look at the previous version before editing. See 'history'. It's there.