Spray on antenna?

[Qacer]

http://chamtechops.com/?page_id=405

How would this work?

If this is some sort of liquid metal that "dries" when you spray it on something, then I can see it possibly working. After all, it would just be like crafting your own antenna from scrap metal, only this time you're not cutting anything. However, I have not heard of any spray on steel product, yet... and by that I mean, you spray this material on a paper tube and once it "dries" you remove the paper tube and you get a hollow metal tube.

 

[Modelworks]

It is a scam. Antennas are more than just metal. Layout, material thickness, conductivity all play a role. No way is a spray going to give you 15-20db gain. This kind of stuff has been around as long as radio. About like the stickers that when installed in your cell phone boost signal 200 %. Google rear windows defogger repair kit. It is just conductive paint.

 

[PottedMeat]

It doesnt. They take your money, when it doesn't work and you ask for your money back, they never respond.

Looks like a fly by night operation. The jammers look like they're bought in bulk from dealextreme.

 

[Ninjahedge]

I would imagine, if all antennas used today are essentially metal rods or wires, that a "spray on" antenna would not work because of conflicting conductive route lengths.

I have heard that certain lengths of material are best for receiving signals, and I think that may be due to actual physical wavelength, but I may be wrong.

Suffice to say, a spray on antenna does not even SOUND convenient.....

Buy one, let us know how it works for ya!

 

[PottedMeat]

I have heard that certain lengths of material are best for receiving signals, and I think that may be due to actual physical wavelength, but I may be wrong.

That's usually how an antenna design starts. The only longshot way I would guess a spray on antenna would work ( with copious amounts of bullshit sprinkled in for sales ) would be as a conductive plane or reflector to accompany an existing antenna.

 

[PsiStar]

Actually ... it could be for real. I am thinking that is an electrically conductive spray as Modelworks says. A template in the shape of the antenna of interest is a must as antennas are not just blobs with ill defined edges ... planar antennas radiate only off edges so a nicely defined edge is best.

This could only work on non-conductive objects like a windshield. Spraying it painted metal would fail as the paint is just not thick enough.

Connecting a coaxial feed line gets tricky. How is it kept in place? More of a mechanical problem than electrical. Although for a quicky & temporary install I suppose conductive tape might be good for a start. Capacitive coupling from the other side of something like glass could also work ... some GPS or was it cell phone antennas used to be available like that ... very inefficient tho.

The claimed gain? Depends on what it is compared to. Some of those rubber ducky antenna are pretty poor. But if it is a government agency/military doing the buying ... well, they have some pretty crappy grandfathered product in use & under contract so I would not be surprised if a newly design planar antenna sprayed onto the right surface might work better. Head to head with a well designed antenna might be another story.

 

[CHamTechOps]

Hello All,

I would first of all like to to thank you for all the interest in the Spray On Antenna. I am the President of ChamTech Operations and also the inventor of the Spray on Antenna. It is great to see all the reaction from our actual invention (Comments Good and Bad). I will start of by saying Mr. ModelWorks this is not a SCAM, it is an idea that started out many years ago, out of a very special need to help conceal antennas for different types of radios on vehicles, walls, windows and other platforms, but not limited to radios, any equipment that would TX and RX freqs or do one or the other passively (ie. TV's and FM and AM radios). The material is a mixture of extremely highly conductive material (which I will not give the ingredients for). And as someone reference above we make certain templates to best capture the radio wave and also keeping in mind to optimize the best gain as well. It is extremely difficult for some to understand, how we are able to come up with an idea and the concept of a spray on antenna, but it is extremely satisfying to show those optimist people that it work and it works EXTREMELY well. And Mr. PsiStar, thank you for your view and outside the box thinking, we have come up with several ways to connect the coax to the Spray On material with outrages testing, we continue to amaze people everywhere we demo the product. If you would like to know more or are interested in the product please visit the website and contact us. We are always glad to speak to all about it.

Thank you again,

ChamTech Ops!
Chameleon Technologies Operations Enterprise Inc.

"The Quite Professionals"

 

[CHamTechOps]

Oh by the way, i created my own antenna for my tv and nolonger need cable for the same channels plus some that i was paying for.

thanks again,

ChamTech Ops.

Well let me explain myself, I get local channels

 

[CHamTechOps]

I would imagine, if all antennas used today are essentially metal rods or wires, that a "spray on" antenna would not work because of conflicting conductive route lengths.

I have heard that certain lengths of material are best for receiving signals, and I think that may be due to actual physical wavelength, but I may be wrong.

Suffice to say, a spray on antenna does not even SOUND convenient.....

Buy one, let us know how it works for ya!

Ningahedge,

No that is not entirely correct, the Spray On antenna is made out of metallic particles and other materials that when spray incidentally weld themselves together forming a solid state. The common antenna is a great invention, but it is a general invention to work on multiple radio waves, that is what makes us so different, we target each and every wave, meaning that an antenna is round there for the RF wave only travels on the outside of the conductive material and in a circular pattern, which in case is only one edge, when we spray our material, it travels in two straight edges and because of that it is able to release more waves and reduce the SWR readings less than a conventional antenna. The material it self is confidential but the way it is used it is not. Please contact us for additional information, thank you ChamTech Ops.

 

[PsiStar]

Great that you replied CHamTechOps.

As I was writing the words "... blobs with ill defined edges ..." I was thinking about fractal antennas. At 1st glance they are antennas with ill defined edges. What they really are, are antennas with highly detailed edges to improve bandwidth.

This and many other unusual antenna designs would be so much easier to investigate with your product by the many wanna-be PhDs (and inventors) with your product. Imagine a template printed by one of those TV advertised template makers versus the issues of going thru a PCB vendor!?!!?

kudos to you & other start up companies & here is to your future successes.:thumbsup:

 

[xalos]

This actually isn't a very new idea. Conductive "paints" for antennas and what not have been utilized for quite some time. You can actually make some fairly easily by using any sort of finely powered conductive material (graphite usually) and a binder (contact cement is often used).

You can create a stencil in the specified shape and just brush the "paint" on and you will have your antenna. I'm not sure how I would feel about it being a spray, I think I would prefer to brush it on as it would create less waste.

 

[Modelworks]

Hello All,
The material is a mixture of extremely highly conductive material (which I will not give the ingredients for).

Do you have a patent number ?

It is extremely difficult for some to understand, how we are able to come up with an idea and the concept of a spray on antenna, but it is extremely satisfying to show those optimist people that it work and it works EXTREMELY well.

It isn't hard to understand. I have spent years in RF design and find it very unlikely that what you are claiming is true. The idea isn't new, it has existed since the 1950's . The problem is that they don't work as well as you are claiming. On the site you claim it works better than conventional antennas and that isn't true unless you can provide independent testing showing otherwise.

We have come up with several ways to connect the coax to the Spray On material with outrages testing, we continue to amaze people everywhere we demo the product.

The ability to connect coax to flexible or film antennas has been around for decades . 3M has several products as does amphenol. For testing what test were performed and what labs did the testing ?

 

[Modelworks]

Ningahedge,

The common antenna is a great invention, but it is a general invention to work on multiple radio waves

Antennas are not designed to work on multiple radio waves unless that was the intent. Antennas are carefully designed to match the frequency they are trying to receive.

that is what makes us so different, we target each and every wave

What you are claiming contradicts every known rule for RF design. You cannot make an antenna that is tuned to every wave.

, meaning that an antenna is round there for the RF wave only travels on the outside of the conductive material and in a circular pattern, which in case is only one edge, when we spray our material, it travels in two straight edges and because of that it is able to release more waves and reduce the SWR readings less than a conventional antenna.

I'm not sure what you are describing here but this sounds like nothing more than a panel antenna and those are nothing new and generally are worse than any other type of antenna.

The material it self is confidential but the way it is used it is not. Please contact us for additional information, thank you ChamTech Ops.

I understand the need for confidentiality but do you have a patent number ?

 

[Unheard]

The only way I know of making an antenna that works on multiple frequencies is to design an antenna to work on frequencies that are multiples of each other, ie, a full wave length 10 meter antenna would give you a 1/2 wavelength on 20 meters, and a 1/4 wavelength on 40 meters. The side effect of this is decreased performance as you go down in frequency. Aside from that, you can use traps to add resonance to the antenna by tricking the tx/rx device into seeing a good SWR, but this is a large compromise, and doesn't provide great performance.

In conclusion, there is no way to target "every frequency" without a large compromise.

Signed,
Your neighborhood HAM.

 

[xalos]

I think the spray can man meant that you can use his product to create an antenna tuned to whatever frequency you're trying to receive. I don't think he was saying you could create a super antenna that would be finely tuned to multiple frequencies.

 

[PsiStar]

Confidentiality trumps patents. Patents make public the "secrets", are expensive, and have the risk of not protecting you adequately. They are also even more expensive to defend ... ergo ... keep it secret. Although a mediocre student in college taking Qualitative Analysis might be able to tell you what is in the soup.

Broadbanded antennas have been and are common topics in "Microwaves" and various RF and IEEE related publications. These range from log periodic (ancient history), TV antennas (54 MHz to ~1GHz), & not limited to the numerous 3G & 4G cell phone bands of current articles. Fractal antenna

And I do agree, some of what CHamTechOps states is confusing. He is probably not too technical. There is also a sort of "tone" of the web site that suggests DoD/DoE funding and possibly where the testing resides ... or maybe it states it, I am too lazy to go look at the moment.

I have not seen a lot of these kind of companies (Dod/DoE) going for patents as they are usually pretty happy and busy and have a good income just being dependent on Uncle Sam. When they go public (the company behind indigo extreme is another) is a big leap and pretty rare.

 

[polarmystery]

Modelworks is correct. SCAM in the highest degree. The person that replied on their business' behalf is technologically retarded and has no clue how RF transmission works.

<- Works on Radar systems for the DoD

It is a scam. Antennas are more than just metal. Layout, material thickness, conductivity all play a role. No way is a spray going to give you 15-20db gain. This kind of stuff has been around as long as radio. About like the stickers that when installed in your cell phone boost signal 200 &#37;. Google rear windows defogger repair kit. It is just conductive paint.

This

 

[xalos]

The paint isn't necessarily a scam... It's completely possible to create an antenna for picking up local channels or whatever with a 15-20 dB gain. You just need to create a template and spray paint it on something (IIRC this has been done in large cities on windows for awhile).

I just don't know if the actual spray paint that is being sold is decent or not. But, I know for a fact that I could mix up some conductive paint and do this no problem.

 

[Modelworks]

panel antennas are a joke for anything but close range and even then they have serious drawbacks, and these are ones that are solid copper etched on boards . Look at all the wifi issues people report from panel antennas in everything from laptops to routers.

 

[xalos]

panel antennas are a joke for anything but close range and even then they have serious drawbacks, and these are ones that are solid copper etched on boards . Look at all the wifi issues people report from panel antennas in everything from laptops to routers.

Just because someone has a complaint about how something works doesn't mean the technology doesn't work..It simply means the implementation wasn't executed correctly.

Panel antennas work fine and are often used in the wifi community. I also know that wire antennas in cars seem to work ok too..lol

 

[PsiStar]

Panel ... if equivalent to planar ... antennas is all that are in cell phones as just 1 example.

Wifi issues can just as easily be because of co-channel and adjacent channel interference as the simplest issue not to mention objects contributing to path attenuation. Depending on the service, having a really good omni antenna is not the best solution.

Solid copper can be 0.35 mil thick ... damn thin ... and also is a factor considered in the design for the application.

 

[Modelworks]

Just because someone has a complaint about how something works doesn't mean the technology doesn't work..It simply means the implementation wasn't executed correctly.

Panel antennas work fine and are often used in the wifi community. I also know that wire antennas in cars seem to work ok too..lol

Panel antennas are good for one thing, direct point to point over short range. The reason they are used in wifi gear in homes has nothing to do with performance , it is all about the cost .

 

[Modelworks]

Panel ... if equivalent to planar ... antennas is all that are in cell phones as just 1 example.

And it is the reason they have to have towers so close by.

 

[PsiStar]

And it is the reason they have to have towers so close by.

Well, yes. Cell phones are all about controlled & predictable coverage, aka cells. Thinking differently for best RF coverage, if all cell phones "talked" 100 miles, then a lot fewer customers could be handled in any geographical area for a given number of channels. Of course this does not have much relationship to the claimed antenna performance of the antennas from this spray on product ... there just is not enough information

 

[xalos]

PsiStar is 100&#37; right on cell phone technology. The FDA allows your microwave to "leak" more radiation out per sq/cm than cell phone towers emit per sq/cm. It's all about controlling channel saturation. WiFi routers keep the radiation low as well for more or less the same reason (think of your house as a really small cell).