True or Not? - Page 2

The Others · 06-18-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by 1EZway
I was hoping lincomatic would say something.

I don't think he's said anything for a while

:-(

Damn it, he was one of the good guys.

1EZway · 06-18-2003

sparafina · 06-18-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by nashr
Drop the hyphen and you get these results:

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?s...patial+capture

and

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...patial+capture

yep, I'm familiar with those definitions. That's why it caught my attention.

Anyway, if they make are going to make such dramatic claims, they should back it up with plots, white papers, or patent numbers. Otherwise, yawn ...

lincomatic · 06-19-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by The Others
I don't think he's said anything for a while

:-(

Damn it, he was one of the good guys.

actually, i've been back in a very small way since last week...cleaned up some FAQ's and posted a little.
i still see no end in sight to my ever-increasing pile of (non-wifi related) work to do, so i won't be posting like mad like in the past,
but i'm trying to pop in a few times a week.

i took a quick look @ site yesterday...some their claims sound like a bunch of obfuscating gibberish. i'm not saying that their products are necessarily bad, but lack of more technical explanations and some plots of what they are claiming makes everything suspect.
as for "obstruction penetrating"...i guess they are claiming they figured out a way to break the laws of physics?

sparafina · 06-19-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by lincomatic
as for "obstruction penetrating"...i guess they are claiming they figured out a way to break the laws of physics?

Hey, we've slowed and stopped light.

good to see you back!

1EZway · 06-19-2003

many thanks I think many value your opinions on antennas.

Thorn · 06-20-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by 1EZway
... Thorn any thoughts?

I'm with everyone else on this. The antennae may be fine. They may be very good in fact, but there seems to be a lot of BS in the copy on the website. The physics do limit this stuff, and there is no way around that.

dan426 · 06-20-2003

Having read the white paper offered on the site, Signal is not absorbed but polarity is changed. Signal can penetrate walls so what physics laws does this break. It seems to make sense so I tried it and it works better than the 5dbi omni I had. Bought the Bullet antenna, Picked up two adiitional hot spots I could get before.

sparafina · 06-20-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by dan426
Having read the white paper offered on the site, Signal is not absorbed but polarity is changed. Signal can penetrate walls so what physics laws does this break. It seems to make sense so I tried it and it works better than the 5dbi omni I had. Bought the Bullet antenna, Picked up two adiitional hot spots I could get before.

Uh huh. I don't understand what you are saying, of course 802.11b signals can penetrate many materials but what do you mean polarity is changed?

Could you possibly share the white paper, many of us are not inclined to give away tons of personal info. Even the patent number would be helpful. Or an FCC id.

lincomatic · 06-20-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by dan426
Having read the white paper offered on the site, Signal is not absorbed but polarity is changed. Signal can penetrate walls so what physics laws does this break. It seems to make sense so I tried it and it works better than the 5dbi omni I had. Bought the Bullet antenna, Picked up two adiitional hot spots I could get before.

like i said before, i don't know enough about the antenna to say whether it works well or not. my main complaint is the marketing garbage on their site.

"Signal is not absorbed but polarity is changed" is gibberish. the signal still gets attenuated no matter what kind of antenna you use...whenever the wavelength is on the order of the thickness of the obstruction.

are they talking about multipath? the signal gets bounced around in all directions when it hits irregularly shaped objects. these components can add or subtract depending on the phase when they hit each other.

f0urtyfive · 06-21-2003

/me looks suspiciously at the user who's single post is defending this item, and it is the only post...

dan426 · 07-03-2003

Here is white paper I read. I am not defending only looking for information with an open mind.

dan426 · 07-03-2003

A word format with plots is available on the site by request.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...AND&d=ptxt&s1='dual+polarized+antenna'&OS="dual+polarized+antenn a"&RS="dual+polarized+antenna"

[The complete paper published patent describes the "Dual Polarized Antenna" Nilsson design as Multi/All-Polarized in that the dual-polarization in three dimensions geometrically dictates ALL Polarization results.]

Dr3D1zzl3 · 07-03-2003

MARKETING WILL NEVER SUBSTITUTE SCEINCE

Some of there claims are completly INSANE.. Looks like the marketing end of things took hold and pushed out the engineering dweebs.

Im sure there stuff works and possibly even works well. But some of the claims i immediatly read CAN NOT BE TRUE. There is no way.. Anyone who knows how signals propegate knows this.

sparafina · 07-03-2003

Well, the paper is laced with marketing goop but the information from the patent does make sense. So the basic design is that you have mulitiple radiating elements arrayed to capture RF energy at different polarizations. However, neither the paper or the patent proves the claims.

Plots would be very helpful or an FCC ID would also be useful. We are looking for the science and not the hype.

06-18-2003	#17 (permalink)
1EZway Stumble & Bumbler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mid Atlantic in Hurricane Alley Posts: 47	yea!

07-03-2003	#29 (permalink)
Dr3D1zzl3 Mental Penis Fencer Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 371	MARKETING WILL NEVER SUBSTITUTE SCEINCE Some of there claims are completly INSANE.. Looks like the marketing end of things took hold and pushed out the engineering dweebs. Im sure there stuff works and possibly even works well. But some of the claims i immediatly read CAN NOT BE TRUE. There is no way.. Anyone who knows how signals propegate knows this. __________________ O praeclarum custodem ovium lupum!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-19-2003	#21 (permalink)
1EZway Stumble & Bumbler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mid Atlantic in Hurricane Alley Posts: 47	many thanks I think many value your opinions on antennas.

06-20-2003	#23 (permalink)
dan426 Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 6	Having read the white paper offered on the site, Signal is not absorbed but polarity is changed. Signal can penetrate walls so what physics laws does this break. It seems to make sense so I tried it and it works better than the 5dbi omni I had. Bought the Bullet antenna, Picked up two adiitional hot spots I could get before.

06-21-2003	#26 (permalink)
f0urtyfive HAH! Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 68	/me looks suspiciously at the user who's single post is defending this item, and it is the only post...

07-03-2003	#28 (permalink)
dan426 Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 6	A word format with plots is available on the site by request. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...AND&d=ptxt&s1='dual+polarized+antenna'&OS="dual+polarized+antenn a"&RS="dual+polarized+antenna" [The complete paper published patent describes the "Dual Polarized Antenna" Nilsson design as Multi/All-Polarized in that the dual-polarization in three dimensions geometrically dictates ALL Polarization results.]

07-03-2003	#30 (permalink)
sparafina Registered Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: TX,MD,NY Posts: 1,431	Well, the paper is laced with marketing goop but the information from the patent does make sense. So the basic design is that you have mulitiple radiating elements arrayed to capture RF energy at different polarizations. However, neither the paper or the patent proves the claims. Plots would be very helpful or an FCC ID would also be useful. We are looking for the science and not the hype.