These idiots have a video on 'solve for x'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4efE_gO9lFo
Just to give you an indication of what level these guys are at, their slides abbreviate milliWatts as 'Mw'. Their old website quoted performance improvements in "Db's".
None, and I mean NONE of the tests this guy talks about are remotely valid.
He talks about how his system was '10 dB' better than the military one and they determined this by running around in the woods. That is not how RF measurements work, you put your antenna in an anechoic chamber and compare its performance to a known reference. 10dB variations in a link are COMMONPLACE when you're running around in the woods.
He talks about improving the gain of an iphone antenna by "20 dBm". Incorrect units again. Second he says they made the measurement in a faraday cage. That is a completely invalid procedure. Worse than just doing in in the open. Third it looks like the antenna is sticking up out of the iphone case, which is a HUGE and totally unfair advantage to give the antenna. Fourth, he has no way of measuring that antenna in a 'simulated phone call' because a) Cell phones scale their output power to make the link. b) Cell links are digital so all he could measure is BER (and only if he had access to the cell network that a normal person wouldnt have). Even with the BER you cant directly back out antenna gain.
Even in his posts here he demonstrates that they know NOTHING about antennas. He's spouting off about "SWR". SWR is not an antenna performance metric, its a measure of the quality of the match. I can hook up a 50 ohm resistor and get an incredible broadband match (good SWR) but it wont radiate worth a damn.
The basic premise of the claim doesn't even make sense. The gain of antennas is not really a function of the material so much as the design. Its like if you have a reflector for your flashlight and someone claimed to have a coating for that reflector that makes the reflector SOO shiny that it will narrow the beam of the flashlight 100x.