4 ms·

No, not at these scales, they don't. As with any other antenna, the lowest frequency at which a fractal antenna is effective is still strongly influenced by th

No, not at these scales, they don't. As with any other antenna, the lowest frequency at which a fractal antenna is effective is still strongly influenced by the size of its largest dimension.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
Again, as with your other objection you're defending a invalid statement claimed as a universal truth that is demonstrably false. >>To receive EM energy you need a structure that's a substantial fraction of the wavelength. Except you don't and again the point is that it is non-obvious (or at least was) that fractal antennae would work and again this leads us to the position that we shouldn't simply assume we know the truth of extremely complex systems and particularly not based on hand-wavy false statements. --- Edit: FWIW I don't believe that cell-phones|mobiles cause cancer (generally, though I can imagine there are very specific instances where it might occur and that there are doubtless mechanisms that we don't understand at play).
- CamperBob 16y ago
  Sigh. Yes. You're right. You win. Anything will "work" as an antenna at any frequency. You can match your radio's antenna stage to the impedance of a wet noodle, a nerve cell, or an intracellular vacuum cavity with the right network. Whether the antenna ends up electrically distinct from any other object in the vicinity is another question entirely. As I suggested before I have neither the time nor the qualifications to offer lectures on EM physics, nor to calibrate my words carefully enough to keep them from being recast by verbal anklebiters, so I'll grant you the point.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >so I'll grant you the point Nice verbiage. You should definitely try politics - you appear to accede graciously whilst acceding to something completely ridiculous thus belying your contempt of the result of the argument. I don't want your offered point, I'll take my sensible one instead. Thanks.

No, not at these scales, they don't. As with any other antenna, the lowest frequency at which a fractal antenna is effective is still strongly influenced by the size of its largest dimension.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

Again, as with your other objection you're defending a invalid statement claimed as a universal truth that is demonstrably false. >>To receive EM energy you need a structure that's a substantial fraction of the wavelength. Except you don't and again the point is that it is non-obvious (or at least was) that fractal antennae would work and again this leads us to the position that we shouldn't simply assume we know the truth of extremely complex systems and particularly not based on hand-wavy false statements. --- Edit: FWIW I don't believe that cell-phones|mobiles cause cancer (generally, though I can imagine there are very specific instances where it might occur and that there are doubtless mechanisms that we don't understand at play).

CamperBob 16y ago
Sigh. Yes. You're right. You win. Anything will "work" as an antenna at any frequency. You can match your radio's antenna stage to the impedance of a wet noodle, a nerve cell, or an intracellular vacuum cavity with the right network. Whether the antenna ends up electrically distinct from any other object in the vicinity is another question entirely. As I suggested before I have neither the time nor the qualifications to offer lectures on EM physics, nor to calibrate my words carefully enough to keep them from being recast by verbal anklebiters, so I'll grant you the point.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >so I'll grant you the point Nice verbiage. You should definitely try politics - you appear to accede graciously whilst acceding to something completely ridiculous thus belying your contempt of the result of the argument. I don't want your offered point, I'll take my sensible one instead. Thanks.