http://ruckman.net/archives.htm#FEATURED
and submitted by William Ruckman of http://ruckman.net
The first thing I would like to discuss is a little history, theory, and uses for fractal antennas.
Fractal antennas are a recent discovery. First discovered back in 1988 by Nathan Cohen and later published and patented in 1995. A fractal antenna has a few unique attributes as seen in this definition from Wikipedia:
"A fractal antenna is an antenna that uses a fractal, self-similar design to maximize the length, or increase the perimeter (on inside sections or the outer structure), of material that can receive or transmit electromagnetic signals within a given total surface area or volume."
What exactly does that mean? Well, you need to know what a fractal is. Also from Wikipedia:
"A fractal is generally a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole,a property called self-similarity."
So basically, a fractal is a geometric shape that repeats and appears over and over no matter how far out or how far in you zoom magnification.
Source: Wikipedia and http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=6&docid=US007088965 Patent number: 7088965]
Fractal antennas have been found to be approximately 20% more efficient than normal antennas. Which could be useful. Especially if you want to make your own TV antenna to pick up over the air digital or high definition video, increase your cellular range, wifi range, FM or AM radio reception, and so on. Most cell phones already have built in fractal antennas. If you noticed in the past few years that cell phones no longer have antennas on the outside. That is because they have a internal fractal antenna etched on a circuit board which allows them to get better reception and pick up more frequencies such as bluetooth, cellular, and WIFI all from one antenna at the same time!
Wikipedia info:
"A fractal antenna's response differs markedly from traditional antenna designs, in that it is capable of operating with good-to-excellent performance at many different frequencies simultaneously. Normally standard antennas have to be "cut" for the frequency for which they are to be usedand thus the standard antennas only work well at that frequency. This makes the fractal antenna an excellent design for wideband and multiband applications."
The trick is to design your fractal antenna to resonate at what ever center frequency you wish to receive. Which means it will look different and be sized different depending on what you want to receive. A little math can be used to figure this out. (Or a online calculator)
In my example, I am going to make a simple one but you may want to make a more elaborate one. The more elaborate the better. I will use a spool of 18 Gauge solid core wire to make a antenna as an example but you could go as far as to etch your own circuit boards for aesthetic reasons, to make it smaller, or more elaborate with more resolution and resonance.
I am going to use the example of making a TV antenna for digital or high definition reception for over the air broadcasts. It is easier to work with these frequencies and they fall around half a foot to a few feet in length for half wavelengths of the signal. I am also going to base it off a common dipole antenna for simplicity and cheapness of parts for VHF. For UHF you may want to add a director or reflector which will also make it more direction dependent. VHF is direction dependent as well but instead of pointing directly at the TV station like UHF you want VHF rabbit ears (dipole antenna) to be perpendicular to the TV station. But there is a little more design to that. I want to keep this as simple as possible as it is already a very complex subject.
Basic supplies (cost me about $15):
Mounting surface such as the plastic project enclosure (8"x6"x3"). http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2062285
6 screws. I used steel self tapping sheet metal screws.
A impedance matching transformer 300 ohm to 75 ohm. http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2062049
Some 18 gauge solid hook up wire. http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2036274
RG-6 coaxial with terminators (and rubber jacket if mounting outside).
Aluminum if using a reflector. The enclosure above came with one.
A sharpie marker or equivalent preferably with a fine tip.
Two pairs of small needle nose pliers.
A ruler of at least 8 inches.
A protractor to measure angle.
A drill and drill bit that is smaller diameter than your screws.
Small wire cutter.
Screw driver or screw gun.
NOTE: The bottom of the antenna is to the right of this picture where the transformer sticks out.
Remove these ads by
Signing Up










































Visit Our Store »
Go Pro Today »




Photo attached. It may be hard to see with the photo taken in low light, the color of the cardboard, and the color of the copper with tape over it to hold it in place. But you get the idea.
At that size the elements are pretty fragile, so they have to be handled carefully.
I have also attached the template in png format. For it to print the proper size, you have to open it in a photo editor like Gimp. The template isn't perfect as i made it by hand with a mouse, but it is close enough for human hands and a needle nose for bending of the elements.
Enjoy.
bending the wires is a little time consuming, but in theory it should add more stable reception. i thought it might be helpful if anyone else was curious about increasing the fractal bends.
Attached here is a pdf for use as a guide / template.
Also, this can easily be mounted to cardboard, pexiglass etc and placed INSIDE the project box, to conceal the antenna.
Thanks,
but the fractal design is smaller and safer (no pokey bits sticking out).
Thanks
with increased fractals (like the pdf above) i now get 88 scanned channels (southern california). that's a pretty significant improvement.
With the reflector and this type of antenna, directionality is key. By shifting the antenna's azimuth by only 12 degrees East, we lost Santa Barbara and began picking up Mount Wilson's signals (pretty much all Los Angeles channels), also from San Diego (only 100 or so miles away); still damn good, however, reception is tightly locked, though also *very* stable. Sans reflector, there is an increase in the number of channels from adjacent broadcast antennas, with additional stability introduced from the fractal design.
Great job.
we used the increased fractal design as a basis (same perimeter). We then mounted the antenna on the focal point of a Dish Network satellite dish, with the dish facing North, from San Diego. The dish sits on our balcony; second story, though we also have trees in the way. It has been several months since the system was put in place and we still receive 50+ channels, mostly from Los Angeles, though we also receive adjacent channels from San Diego.
I few years ago, I bought and put up the most powerfull antenna that Wineguard makes. I live a little way down from the top of a hill in National City. The antenna, 9 feet by 14 feet was raised 48 feet from the ground. I was able to get a lot of channels out of LA as well but they were unstable coming in out all the time. The wind from a storm in Dec of 09 blew my telescoping pole system in half. And that was the end of that. But you managed to do the same thing with far less. Are your LA channels and beyond stable? Thanks for your input jkunkin and waiting your reply. garrison 111
yes, the satellite dish increased the gain quite a bit. The antenna is mounted vertically, not on its side, and in fact, most of the stable LA channels the antenna receives are in the VHF range (2 - 13), in addition to a variety of foreign language channels in the UHF range, of course. This is remarkable since DTV reception is based on the UHF range, afaik. One of the keys to stability is minimizing the use of splitters, since the signal can drop by several dB, as well as keeping coax cable lengths to a minimum; the longer the cable the greater the reduction in stability, say, if the cable is moved around. I believe tripods and satellite dishes can be purchased for around $100 from companies selling OTA receivers.
Good luck with your project.
It's great that this antenna can pick up both UHF and VHF bands. On the loss of db, if an amplifier is placed close to the antenna, that should compinsate for line loss.
On the dish search, I jsut remembered. I believe and have seen them being sold on craigs list pretty cheap.
Thanks again and waiting your reply. ~~ garrison111
I built the fractal antenna shown in the attached picture. Works great. I am 35 miles south of Milwaukee, WI and I receive 20 - 30 stations clearly. I can get Chicago stations but I must rotate the antenna.
Please comment on the circular design that I plan to build. Will it work if there are 20 fractals on the large diameter and only 11 on the small diameter. The large circle is 20 inches in diameter. The small circle is 18 inches in diameter. The fractals are approximately 3 inches tall.
Thanks for posting you instructions for the fractal antenna. Much better than my V shaped coat hanger design.
Sorry if I get multiple images. ??????
Thanks
Took me less than 30 minutes to toss together. I just put some aluminum tape on the back of the chunk of scrap wood I built it on as a reflector - not optimal but seems to work just fine. Even if I count my wages for the time spent making it I'd say I'm time and money ahead vs. buying another commercial antenna - took me less time to build this one than it did to find a good deal on the last one I bought. And no waiting on shipping :)
The only downside is that 1 hour of TV last night reminded me why I don't bother with cable or sat anymore and seldom turn the TV on even when I have a working antenna :)
http://www.kwarc.org/ant-calc.html
Thanks for the instructable! It is really cool. I came across your design the other day and decided to try it out this past weekend and it worked pretty good, just in my living room and with no reflector. My antenna is made with 8 dipoles instead of 4. I sort of combined your design with the bowtie design. I was able to pick up all the same channels as my two uhf only antennas from Radio Shack. Granted I had to rotate the antenna to aim it in the right direction and not all signals came in as strong.
The antenna is not totally finished. It's still missing a reflector. I've read on some other sites that wire mesh might work better as a reflector, as opposed to a sheet of aluminum. What do you think? Also, is the distance between the dipoles and the reflector important? My dipoles are on mounted on 1/2" plywood stick. If I put the reflector on the opposite of the plywood, would it be too close?
I am going to try to add this antenna with my existing two in the attic and combine all the signals into one to see if it will improve my reception. I plan to point all three in slightly different directions to be able to pick up all the stations. I don't have a rotator.
Thanks again for the cool design.
.
There is probably a way to print it with conductive ink... then you could glue it onto about any (insulating) material you have handy, connect the terminals to a tranformer or a cable connector and plug it in! ,
If it gets damaged or worn print out a replacement! Even print several copies and build an array.
.
Tin foil or a matel screen (strainer, etc.) makes an excellent reflector. Suggest you experiment with tin foil, scissors and scotch tape.
BTW your average log periodic (fishbone-looking) antenna is also a fractal.
My problem is, I live about 45 miles from the towers (Beaver dam to towers in Madison wi), I get awesome reception with this except for 2 stations that I want.
I was wondering if there was a way to boost reception other than adding an amplifier and without making it bigger. As you can see from the pictures I added a couple elements to the original design to get a better reception.
Aluminum paper on reflector ? can I add straight elements going out of the ones in ?
Thanks for the help!
PS: yes I used a cookie cooling rack I had laying around :)
Next, you're using the cookie rack horizontally polarized and the antenna elements vertical, so the signal isn't going to bounce off the back but go right through it. Also, the signals are horizontal, so turn your elements 90 degrees from the picture and you've got it right.
Doubling your antenna size will get you less than 3 dB so there's a diminishing returns. Better to try to get it higher, especially above any obstacles such as houses or trees.
I forgot to mention, I used the 1" setup, I have a piece of 2x4 (aka 1.5" between elements and reflector or however it's called :)
Do you think that you might consider this Idea for the future?
Thank You. Nice project.
Has any reader written a nec description file so this antenna can be modelled using the xnec2c antenna software program?
xnec2c is a Linux antenna modelling program. There are similar programs for Windows.
What a fine accomplishment in bringing the recent development of fractal antennas down to a practical and build-able level.
Wouldn't the bending go a lot easier if you just pounded a nail into a board, then marked off a dot @ 1 inch on one side then 2 more @ 1 inch after the bend for 60 and 240 degrees?
This works as good or better than the $50 clearstream micron i purchased from best buy.
I am also interested in more iterations on the fractal design, but i cant imagine id be able to tell the difference as i already get 50+ channels with this. if only 40 of them werent in foreign languages. :)
thanks again for the great instruction.
The Philips received only 2 channels, very badly. The Terk received none. So I decided to build her an antenna. After weeks of research, I decided to combine a few designs. I found the basic fractal design on Ruckman's sight, but changed it slightly. See attached drawing/photos.
I came up with a picture frame antenna that works really well. I live 25 miles northwest from the broadcast towers. The day I tested this antenna it was raining and jets were flying directly over head of the house ( 200 to 300 feet above). It should be noted that the jets disrupt the roof antennas signal.
Every station came in clear, no problems, even channel 2 (cbs) which is the hardest station to get (low vhf band). So I took it into the basement. Totally below grade, steel, concrete, not signal ever was received before. This antenna received all stations clearly, even channel 2. I couldn't believe it.
Took it to moms. Placed it on her TV (54 inches off the floor. Got every channel but channel 2, very cleanly. She's using it as I write this. Channel 7 (abc) which is also hard to get (also vhf), comes in better than it did on her cable.
I'm working on a better vhf antenna to try and get her channel 2. Hope the pictures make it.
Baddahbing
Gentlemen, you are geniusesseess!
from my tests (15 or so miles away from the towers, all in the same direction) I'm indeed getting very good results and constant signal for UHF, as expected (all channels 80-100%, mostly between 90-100%)
on the other hand one channel using VHF 7 is only 40% and quite constant, but when cars pass by the street i get breakups. i assume i could improve signal by adding a reflector and moving the antenna to find the "sweet spot" where all channels are in best shape.
overall I'm not sure there is much difference between this one and the normal "V" shaped element DB4 antenna, other than smaller size. it may work better if drawn on a PCB.
moving the antenna (without a reflector) around a bit increased channel VHF 7 to about 50-60% and slightly degraded the others to around 80%. I'll do some more experimenting, maybe adding an amplifier into the mix over the next few days.
overall my bi-quad antenna with reflector (looks like a squared number "8" with a 5" arm length) beats this one in both UHF and VHF (channel 7).
Could you tell me how you connected the 4 dipoles to the two center wires and the tabs for the matching transformer? Did you solder them? And did you bend the copper wires by hand? That must have been tedious. I would like to try your design and was trying to figure out how to go about doing it. Thanks.
That is, the pattern calls for 8 inch wires bent into 8 segments of 1 inch each. Is the 8 inch length the important part for the calculation of what frequencies I'm trying to catch, or is it the 1 inch measurement? Thanks!
.
And how sensitive are the dimensions? ... Thanks.
And how sensitive are the dimensions? ... Thanks.
They both work really well, One has a balun one doesnt..They both are superior to
the amplified & unamplified rabbit ears. The next time I make another I will probably solder things together and better the construction.
Thanks for the plans
if i will use a balun for this fractal antenna ,what impedance should i use?ntx.
I want to try the same thing and see if it improves my reception.
Something like this may help:
http://www.edaboard.com/ftopic201626.html
You will also need to change the size of the enclosure / dipoles to match what frequency range you will be using. It will be much smaller at native N (5 Ghz). Also, if you are using hybrid B/G/N then if would be best to buy a router with two transceivers and make 2 antennas. One for 2.4Ghz and one for 5Ghz and place each antenna on the separate tuner/transceiver.
I built one antenna like the one here using cooper wire and attached to the inside of my window. It went from 3 poor quality channels to 5 channels with a a great signal!
Thanks!
RL
http://ruckman.net/archives.htm#FEATURED
You assumed that if 10db= 10x , 1db might equal 2x. An easy beginners mistake.
http://ruckman.net
Also, I didn't follow to exact spec's: I used bailing wire for the fractals, a project container that was one size smaller (7"), and stripped Romex for the dipole antennae. Regardless, it still worked just fine. Thanks again, you have saved me so much money. I owe you a beer.
I didn't do the reflector bit.
I parked a digital converter box and the antenna on top of a bookshelf in my living room and get 14 channels -- including 4 educational channels PBS all different.
I was worried that reception would be lousy since I'm below a hill that blocks the line of sight with the majority of transmitters in this city. There's also a lot of natural stone on the exterior and stone fireplaces that mess up WiFi signals.
I don't have to worry about the weather, so it might just stay on the cardboard.
1) For what appears to be a well matched wire bending tool--iteratively speaking--see the following:
TED Conference video
TITLE: Arthur Ganson: Sculpture that's truly moving
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPfn01Ndc1g&feature=channel
(mm:ss) 10:26 - 10:49
A drill press, a sharp bit, a hack saw, and vice appears to be all that is needed to make this two part hand tool.
Arthur Ganson is a machine and wire artist (and engineer). He makes kinetic sculptures.
2) Has anyone compared the fractal antenna to a Gray-Hoverman design,say, like this one?
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/01/maker_workshop_dtv_antenna_steadyca.html
3) Wire: regardless of design, is heavy gauge better than light, as a general rule. e.g., Is coat hanger better than speaker wire in a significant way?
This uhf antenna business has been kinda fun these last few months. Made a GH for me and one for a retired neighbor using speaker wire, glue gun, and foamboard. Now, the fractal thing has my curiosity up again.
Regards
Making a Four Iteration Koch Fractal Antenna for HDTV/DTV with Copper or Aluminum Foils, Part 1 of 2
www.instructables.com/id/Making-a-Four-Iteration-Koch-Fractal-Antenna-for-H/
Making a Four Iteration Koch Fractal Antenna for HDTV/DTV with Copper or Aluminum Foils, Part 2 of 2
www.instructables.com/id/Making-a-Four-Iteration-Koch-Fractal-Antenna-for-H-1/
This video is the full version from my prior link. The TED link in the first comment actually shows the artist in a lecture with portions of this video on the screen behind him.
This video has great detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0UNz-ayzrE
Regards
Previously, I was using a rabbit ear/uhf combo table top antenna that was about 40 years old and and had lots of drop outs. When I hooked up the fractal antenna using an Archer transformer similar to the one pictured, I got mixed to poor results. I moved the antenna around and up and down within a 15 foot area and I got fairly poor results.
Today, I decided to try a different matching transformer with the same fractal antenna and the difference was HUGE!
I used a "professional" or commercial transformer from the cable tv company instead. Now one of the stations is coming in at a strength reading of 52!
All I did was change the transformer and put the antenna in approximately the same position.
I highly recommend the tansformers made by a company called RMS and you probably can order them online or better yet, get an old one from your local cable company truck perhaps for free! It doesnt have to be RMS, just one that cable tv companies usually provide to their customers to hook up an old style tv to 75 ohm round cable.
I havent tried it with just a piece of flat cable....has anyone out there used that approach with no transformer at all? what were the results?
Sorry for being such a noob, but I want to really make this and need some clarification on this part of the assembly.
I see now, thank-you.
Any opinions as to whether an antenna can be made by using conductive paint?
I've been looking into different antenna analysis models. It has taken quite a bit of time to research this, pros and cons of each, how to model this antenna... Fractal antennas are a different beast, when it comes to modeling and analysis using the existing software tools. Also, I'm finding that due to the bandwidth, I may have to break down the antenna model into a more simplistic form, then gradually build it up to more of the current version and extrapolate the effects to see if my design is optimal for the Hi VHF and UHF digital band. These antennas can realistically have a size reduction of 10:1 on up to 1000:1 over the old antenna design paradigm. Antenna modeling is needed because the bandwidth range is wide and size reductions may be possible, and then employ multiple patterns to really pull in the signals, like the DB2, DB4 and DB8 versions. Meanwhile, I'm freewheeling and I've got 2 additional patters that I want to try/model. These could be even better! BUT FIRST: Thanks to RVogel for his novel approach of a bunch of nails to make the wire snake exactly to the desired pattern. That is a great prototyping approach. I'm going to build the other 2 types of antennas and test. Trying things, and analyzing the effects helps me understand how to improve further...
VERY IMPORTANT: Also, a fractal design is very good, but not optimal...another reason to analyze the antenna via a model.
If you are really itching to try something different, RVogel's approach should be a winner too.
http://www.scienceprog.com/fractal-antenna-constructions/
Mine is a second iteration of this fractal, but I eventually will make this with a third iteration and test it to see if there is any improvement.
Instead of buying a backplate from Radio Shack, I used an inch-wide piece of wood (taken from a heavy-duty paint stirrer). I also introduced washers to make the contacts easier to screw together and so that I didn't have to bend the rails. Now that I know that the design works so well, I may create a wider backplate out of wood so that the wires can't poke things, but this one is so cute that maybe I'll just leave it.
BTW, I had a few baluns/transformers from the 80s lying around, but they didn't work so well. A brand new one worked great, though. So, if you use an old one and are less than impressed, buy and try a new one instead of thinking that it's the design.
Below is a photo and here's a link to a larger version to the image:
http://www.netfresco.com/FractalAntenna.jpg
After printing that out, it was really easy to drill the holes and bend the wires at the right locations and at the right angles.
Also, if anyone is wondering, that's a mini zip tie that I added to secure the balun/transformer.
PCB Police Electronics Forum - Try our competition!
Fractus do not use any special methods for designing their fractal antennas although they do maintain (or license - cant remember!) a patent on the idea of an antenna made from a fractal structure.
I guess you could even make the author's antenna out of copper tape on bare FR4 if you had no etching materials.
PCB Police Electronics Forum - Try our competition!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/tm/3514.html?site=34&pl=wmp&rate=hi&ch=3
Its a fact determined by the physics unfortunately.
Fractal antennas are smaller and 'can' have an increase in bandwidth - they have less gain compared to their monopole/dipole counterparts though ;-)
PCB Police Electronics Forum - Try our competition!
If you really don't mind a larger size antenna, then you can go with something like this to really pull in the weak signals:
- Single Bay Gray-Hoverman (SBGH) for nearby to fringe reception range (approx. > 0 to 100 km or > 0 to 60 mi)
o Two Variants of the SBGH: with 6 Pair Collinear rod reflectorso with 30 x 40 Split-Screen Reflector
OR,
- Double Bay Gray-Hoverman (DBGH) for fringe to deepest fringe reception range (approx. 30 to > 160 km or 20 to > 100 mi)
o Two Variants of the DBGH: with 11 Pair Collinear rod reflectorso with 30 x 75 Full-Screen Reflector
Both can be found at: http://www.digitalhome.ca/ota/superantenna/design.htm
Will you be designing an antenna amp to complement the antenna?
Nicely documented instructable by the way ;-)
PCB Police Electronics Forum - Try our competition!
Nova - Hunting the Hidden Dimension
http://ruckman.net/blog/news.php?item.22.4
Enjoy!
Nonetheless, I am pursuing something smaller, wider bandwidth and more easily disguised so it doesn't have to be hidden in the attic. Fractal antennas are inherently small, so that has been my focus.
It has been difficult to find good information. I thank you for posting your instructable as it further motivated me to pursue something better.
For those unaware, Fractals can be used as reflective elements, ground planes, transmission lines and passive or active elements. According to Mr. Cohen, antennas have certain features to be a truly fractal antenna. What is presented above is a fractal element modification of a 2-bay bowtie (AKA DB-2).
I believe you will get better performance if you have elements that are spaced using the repeatable pattern (motif) or at least a 7 in. bow tie spacing, rather than 4!. What you do have is a balanced arrangement of "low order" fractal elements. As I understand it from reading, the bandwidth of your antenna design is still rather narrow (1-2%) around multiple frequencies as it doesn't implement more than one iteration of the pattern. As a result I believe this antenna has impedance mismatches and undesirable beam patterns and poor gain and bandwidth relative to it's potential.
Unfortunately, other HDTV designs on this site are also lacking the peak performance they are capable. Maybe some more people will chime in on how this fractal element DB-2 variant performs as compared to their other common antennas (such as the, dare I say it, 7 in. diameter loop antenna -- that really is narrow bandwidth for it's center frequency and poor radiation resistance. Unfortunately now many people have compared how many digital channels the williamruckmand design gets as compared to the more common antennas (same pointing angle for apples to apples comparison).
The great things about your instructable is that:
First, it gets people trying things -- me included!
Second, it also has lots of references that lead people to additional information.
Third, using fractal elements on an older design is innovative! :)
Fourth, it motivates me to make a higher order fractal design that addresses some of the goals I mentioned at the start.
GOOD ON YOU!
Hopefully, I can post my own instructable soon, but first, I have some building and testing to do. :))
Here is a good web site for finding stations and antenna types per area:
http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx
What would be nice is if you could couple antennaweb.org with a GPS and google maps so you could see the distance, channel, and compass direction from the truck while you were moving on a map. :)