The Wizard, prize-worthy antenna magic?
How about a 5″ square “multi-band bisynchronous simultaneous reception and transmission ” antenna that doesn’t need to be mast-mounted and can handle frequencies from AM and shortwave through FM and VHF and up into cellular, GPS, sat phones, and WiFi…three radios at once?!? That’s actually just the beginning of what AMT Revolution claims possible of its “Advanced Membrane Transducers.”
Yup, I too have a hard time getting my head around the techno babble. But if The Wizard is for real, it may indeed make “all traditional…antennas a thing of the past.” So I was quite disappointed when told that the sample above was from a bad batch shortly after I got it. But while I wait for a replacement, there seems to be an operational, and impressive, Wizard running in a booth at IBEX. The evidence: a gang of writer/judges–proper skeptics all–gave it an NMMA Innovation Award this morning. Other interesting prize winners mentioned in the press release include Mastervolt’s MasterShunt, WillDo Jet Thrusters, Caudwell’ Axis IO, and especially the Steyr Hybrid Drive.
The AMT antenna seem like a great idea. If all that is claimed is true it could really prove to be a revolution. I can imagine that the technology works when receiving radio signals, but what about transmitting? Can it handle the 25W output of a VHF radio or will it just blow the thin film away?
How do they overcome the line-of-sight limits when mounting the “Wizard”-antenna practically at deck level? You can’t beat physics, even NMEA judges can’t.
Cheers,
U.
Wow.
… I know the intention is to get in a few non-AIS entries …
But since the web site is bragging about it working well inside a vessel, not requiring line of sight, it would be interesting to find out how well this does inside your boat as an AIS antenna vs. a whip antenna on the rail. This could reduce installation costs and have other benefits.
Sorry, my background in RF has set off my bullshit alarm on this one.
While the antenna may work, I am betting the efficiency is unbelievably low.
While this sounds interesting, I see a few practical limitations for marine use. VHF is still line-of-site, so for optimal range it will still need to mounted high on the vessel. Pole-mounted will get the best range.
And what about the other uses for traditional fiberglass antennas, such as a tie point for mono line to keep the seagulls at bay? I’d like to see a thin-film antenna take on that role.
Fair enough, Phil. I note, for example, that AMT Revolution never mentions dB ratings for the Wizard, like the 3-9 dB we typically get from our vertical stick antennas. On the other hand, I’m pretty darn sure that some of those Judges probed that very question.
The “line of sight” claim bothered me also, but it seems like they are miss using the term rather than representing the technology can transmit over the horizon or through objects more substantial then plastic.
Ben … how is it aimed so that a big portion of the energy dosn’t go into the ground or the sky ?
I too immediately thought of the units efficiency over all those possible freq bands. I can see, possibly, that tiny cells (within the mass) could be acting like antennas, (I guess) but as far as my customers would be concerned, effectiveness/efficiency would be paramount.
We’ll have to wait and seem but, It’s VERY interesting!
I don’t have to worry about revealing my ignorance here, its on my Tee shirt. But I too am experiencing some low-level alarms at the slick and very expensive promotion of this product. Not only are there some very deep pockets at work here, there is at least one very accomplished wordsmith.
“Fractal math, magnetic spheres, Tesla—this product is something you’ve never seen before,” explains Dean Travis Clarke, executive editor, Sport Fishing, Fly Fishing in Salt Waters, and Marlin magazines and host of Sport Fishing Magazine TV on the Outdoor Life Network, (OLN) in the press release of the awards.
Clark is one of the judges at IBEX. They were all marine writers. While they represented a lot of marine experience, there doesn’t appear to have been a single scientist or engineer among them, to question these claims.
Ben, there is no scientific data listed anywhere on this device (that I can find). If this is such a revolutionary antenna why aren’t there scientific papers published discussing how it works? There aren’t even basic azimuth plots!
Since you actually have a device in hand I would suggest that contact your local Amateur Radio club to find someone with test equipment to test it. I would suggest testing VSWR at a bare minimum (although a dummy load will also have low SWR!). A field strength meter would be another good piece of very basic test information.
I have been looking for a combination wifi/cellular antenna (850 mhz to 1900 mhz + 2.4 ghz)with no luck, and would love to be able to have an antenna that could do that and more, but does it bother anybody else that they seem to talk about speakers more than antennas in their product description. I have read enough audiophile magazines to know that the idea of a thin film speaker has great potential, but moving air and transmitting radio waves seems to have a lot less in common in my mind then they seem to be suggesting.
I hope the judges got a lot more technical background then they have on their website before giving this “magic” antenna an award.
After going through their site again, particularly focused on the Dismounted Battle Space Battle Lab, I am getting two impressions:
1) The writer of the document is over reaching to establish credibility, including lots of useless detail, using project numbers, jamming in logs of techno babble, etc.
2) Also, I get the impression this was written in another language and then translated to English. Not Chinese, perhaps Russian?
Case in point: Dismounted Battle Space Battle Lab, under Operating Enviornments (sic) …
“The patents have been applied to RF pixel elements for controlled parallel, full digital, duplex operation, with allows for bi-syncronous, simultaneous, broad-band frequency operation even when connected simultaneously to different RF devices”
Huh ?
I am thinking the judges where snowed. Ben did you already come to this conclusion, and just wanted to see how long it take us to reach the same conclusion … or is there something genuine we can’t appreciate because the web site is so poorly done ??
No, Dan, I haven’t come to any conclusions. The test unit I was sent supposedly came from a bad batch, and they asked me not to test it. Of course I did anyway (easy enough), but it didn’t work. But why would they send one weeks before IBEX and FLIBS if it doesn’t work?
I’ve been a judge at these Innovation Awards twice now, and can tell you that they take it seriously. It is hard to review all the products quickly, but my guess is that the judges saw a live demo, or at least much more concrete data than is on that Web site.
The Wizard has been used by US Military Forces for more than 13 Years. All the Judges took their jobs very seriously professionally and saw real world, no smoke and mirror demos.
I have been involved with Physics for more than thirty years. No laws of Physics were broken. The technical explanations make sense if you take the time to understand how the Antenna Pixels [like video pixels] are applied in a new way creating High Def RF.
If this kind of thing interests you take the time to research the patents http://www.USPTO.gov and/or see what companies have been selling the Porrazzo Transducers in other markets the stamp of VERY REAL appears prominently.
This technology is from a well respected Scientist and the Intellectual property is solid and backed by one of the best patent attorneys in the business, Townsend and Townsend of Calif. The top attorney backing the Wizard is one of the top litigators and has represented clients like Microsoft and IBM. The patent is no baloney and promises a whole new era of electronics, not just in RF.
The Comment by Samsone is sheer libelous and without merit or understanding of how Pixels operate or how they are applied to RF. I have seen the pixel layout under a Secrecy/Non-Disclosure its not as this fool describes.
I also happened to do a bit of due diligence. Porrazzo had a drag-out divorce just after 9-11 and as you can imagine with such a transformative technology lots of greedy people who tried to steal his Patents when he was down. They lost. It wouldn’t surprise me if this was one of the theifs that got his hand caught.
To get a persepective on this try seeing the new movie “Flash of Brilliance.”
Regardless, the Prize was for Innovation, not inventor, and I will go on the record to say, that this was one of the most innovative products I have every seen for the Marine Industry. Imagine, no more visible antennas and a single antenna connecting all of our different devices from VHF, UFH, Cell Phones and now including WI-FI!
I was skeptical too, but skeptical does not mean having to get nasty. I took the time to go to the booth and try it out. Did you? The President let me hook it up to my own hand-held. I saw it transmit at more 5 watts RF and on standard VHF equipment 25 Watts in both transmission and reception.
There are many white papers available on this transformative WIZARD technology and the list of reputable users over the past decade is long and credible. I suggest that if you have a real issue you look at the test data, or better yet, try the product yourself, as I have, and see the side by side results; The Wizard delivers.
No BS. I for one am excited.
I’m not buying it. They have a Patents page on their website. Pick one of the numbers given and Google for it, for example “patent 5627903”. Even better, go here
http://www.google.ca/patents?id=KhsgAAAAEBAJ
A patent can claim just about anything. The US patent office is generally regarded as clueless; it can’t check everything that passes through.
Technobable is one thing, bafflegab is another.
Hook up a good GPS to it, one where you can monitor the quality of the sats in view.
Then hook up a 25W VHF and transmit for a bit.
Note how the sats disappear. And never come back.
Oh, I guess you should use a GPS you don’t care about blowing the front end out of…
AMT Revolution just offered to overnight me a working Wizard sample. However I’m off for a long weekend in NYC. But their desire to have it tested in real world conditions—i.e. versus the several VHF and WiFi transcievers I already have set up with standard marine antennas plus GPS and whatever else I can scrounge–is a good sign.
Hey Norse,
Sorry to say, but you’re wrong on the Patent Office being clueless. Do you know what the minimum requirements are to be a patent examiner? All have to have advanced degrees. Most have multiple Master of Science Degrees, many have Doctorates. Do you know how many patents are cited in the Wizard Porrazzo? More than four times the usual. What’s that mean? It means that it’s a SERIOUS Technology.
Do you notice that more than 60 other patents quote the inventor and are making use of the Patents? I’d say that would indicate it’s a pretty important technology. Who’s clueless now?
How many patents do you have Norse? Ever gone through the process? A single patent like AMT costs over a Mil easy — and they have more than 5 foundational patents.
The thing about the patent office is you have to prove that your invention works real world. In the US you can’t patent Ideas. Your invention has to work and be PROVED to work. So sorry NORSE but you are just NOT correctly informed.
You can pull the File History on the Porrazzo “WIZARD” Patent from the Patent Office. What you will read is that the Patent Attorney from Townsend and Townsend actually was required to demonstrate the Porrazzo Advanced Membrane Transducer “AMT” Wizard working as a loudspeaker, while also functioning as a multi-band antenna before a patent board before they would issue the Porrazzo Patent. And guess what–that was more than a decade ago.
What do you think those wizards have done for the past ten years to improve the technology? Well I for one saw it and I’m from Missouri –show me it works–shake down time–Well the Wizard proved itself to this sea dog.
The AMT President just sent me some impressive test results on the Wizard and they confirm them what I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears. Looks like more than 6dbi gain in conventional VHF Frequencies. That can’t be faked.
The Kewl and amazing things we see in movies like Minority Report or Star Trek or the high-tech gear that only the military been using for more than a decade are now–thankfully because of http://www.amtrevoultion.com available to ALL OF US, boat builders, captains, users — the entire Marine Industry.
Like I said, this technology proves out. I put my money where my mouth is and ordered them for all my boats. I know Special Forces members who have been swearing by this tech-gear for years. Now we civvies get to use it.
Some people thought night vision was a crock. Others thought color monitors were a fad. Pixels for High Def RF? Well it makes sure fired sense to me.
Just like Ben said. AMT is not afraid to have people put their Wizard thru its paces.
A lot of people might try and bury or discredit this cuz it’s a disruptive technology. I for one would sell all my stock in conventional antenna companies.
I for one know how many cumulative hours (and more hours I could have spent underway having fun) I’ve had to wait at Bridges because antenna pods and VHF whips were too high to let me get under;
How many antennas has the average boater broken in maintenance? Look at the Wizard–No wires to run, no more holes or stress fracs my fiberglass.
By the way, most marine antenna tests are always conducted on glassy waters. Most people don’t know that. Want to know why? Because seas greater than 3 feet tend drop the db gain by more than 6 because of the roll and pitch.
Because the Antenna Pixels catch or transmit the wavelets omni-directionaly; Wizard doesn’t care. I will prove this out and post the results. I for one bet this tech will become mandated on vessels very shortly just because it will make boating safer for everyone. Cheers for this innovative technology. It’s a real winner in my log book.
How much does this thing cost and where do you buy them?
What IS the gain at each band.. and is that with simultaneous output on all bands?
Have there been AB tests to existing antennas?
Welcome MagicWands
* I want to believe, but overreaching statements (e.g. “you have to prove the invention works real world”) dosn’t really help. It’s easy to believe the Wizard is far less fragile, the hard part is getting a picture in my head on how the transmitted energy radiates from a flat square panel? How can it be sensitive to incoming signals in a 360 degree arc ? Or, how it can work from under five feet of dirt ?
* Attacking Norse dosn’t much help. The patent offices challanges are well known, they have to reinvent themselves, and they know it.
* What would help is if you could elaborate on what the output is, how is it efficient. For example, could you clarify the whole omnidirectional thing and how Wizard offsets the pitching and rolling of a boat as standard VHF antennas are omnidirection also.
(Wikipedia : An omnidirectional antenna is an antenna system which radiates power uniformly in one plane with a directive pattern shape in a perpendicular plane. This pattern is often described as “donut shaped”)
Hello Magicwands,
Not sure the best way to enter a new forum is to attack the long standing members of said forum. There are several long time members of the discussions here at Panbo, myself being one of the newer members in all reality. These are people with lots of marine electronics knowledge and always good intentions. As a regular, I find it unlikely that you are not affiliated with the company, partially due to your use of name, but largely due to your advanced knowledge of presumably a brand new to market product. While we appreciate industry insiders and the advanced knowledge they have, we appreciate that they be up front with their involvement. If you did just happen to choose your name poorly, then I apologize for jumping to that conclusion.
As far as our concerns go, I think they are perfectly justified. If a company selling a technologically advanced product wants to sell it, they need to provide more information on their website than some techno-bable. If they want us to believe that this thing has undergone independant testing then they should publish such testing. At the very least, they need to provide information in a way that is comparable to their competition. They also have a fairly broken website. The links to FAQ’s and manual go nowhere, so we can’t even tell how you are supposed to mount this thing and if the mounting orientation matters to performance.
There are also some fairly simple laws of physics that an antenna can not break. There is only so much energy being output by the radio, and gain is just a function of how tightly that energy is directed. It can not radiate energy in a sphere and be very efficient. If it radiates like a standard omni-directional antenna (i.e. 360 degrees) then there should be some beam-width and a DB rating for the antenna should be measurable for comparison to standard antennas.
Customers should not have to search for multiple patents to find out about a product. The seller should make this information readily available and explain it in terms familiar to the customer. I as well as all the users here on Panbo look forward to Ben’s testing of the antenna, but the company could have saved a lot of grief by having technical information available at product launch.
As noted, there is no technical substantiation for the claims. I’d like to see antenna patterns every 100 MHz or so through the claimed range.
It doesn’t help credibility any that the information on the “Frequencies” page is at best confused and at worst just plain wrong.
It sure would be nice to have something at the masthead that would support my quad-band 3G phone and WiFi bridge.
Testing for this is simple with a signal generator and an oscilloscope. It would be better in an anechoic chamber …
If they spent as much as noted above on a patent they are throwing money away.
Oh — I think the judges got snowed also.
I saw it work, talked to a captain who proved it worked past line of sight, and I’m going to test it extensively. Remember, people used to think the world was flat.
I will clarify my comment for MagicWands. Many of these patents are for use as a transducer, something going from an electrical signal to a mechanical movement or vice versa, like an audio speaker. I have no problem with that.
But I do have doubts about the radio antenna use. On one side, anything (with some restrictions) can be an antenna. Think of a rock reflecting a radar signal. The question is how good is it? Show me the proof, then I will be happy to change my mind, but until then I will have doubts.
It looks like a patch antenna, but from the patent diagrams, it’s not. Please tell us more. Give us tech info to convince techies, not just info to impress people who don’t know better.
Ok my turn to wade into this fray.
My best guess after looking at this patent is that this is a magnetic loop antenna that is similar to the old Auto Direction Finding loops that used a soft ferrite core and many turns of wire.
As has been mentioned by the more knowledgeable on this forum – the antenna is limited in its effective aperture or potential gain by size. In this case the effective size is greater than its physical size because of the magnetic core it uses – just like all the old AM radio antennas you’d find on transistor radios years ago.
For greatest pattern benefit this antenna has to be laid down flat to be vertically polarized like the typical VHF whips we all use. To get good VHF range you would have to get it as high as possible on the boat just like any other antenna- a good trick for a flat pancake like this.
The three coax feeds must be coming from tap points on the many turns of loops inside the antenna. My concern would be it may work for receive only but there is a real chance of damaging receivers by VHF transmitters depending on how much coupling occurs. For sure there is a good chance that jamming will occur and there could be intermittent operation of multiple devices connected to this system.
One point that no one has observed yet is that this is a transducer – it can operate – per the patent as a speaker or a microphone – so that means – any use of this unit as an antenna is subject to mechanical vibration that will induce tuning effects on the antenna function. So if you test this Ben – run the engine and stomp on deck where it is laying. I want to know what happens.
Another issue is the fact that the patent NEVER says anything about the unit being used as an antenna. Its as if they stumbled on to the idea by accident. I can see it now – AM radio broadcast coming in on some Audio amp when it was being used as a speaker – with AM detection happening in the PA itself. Ahah – we have an antenna…..
So – it may have some functionality as an antenna – but just like a huge barge goes through water – its not as efficient as a narrow sailboat hull – but it does float. So this may act as some sort of antenna – but for my money this is NOT going to be efficient. It will NOT outperform the typical whip antennas we have today. I also agree they should have claimed some gain figure for each frequency they claim for operation. Thats only fair.
So Ben when you test this thing – its not fair to try one radio at a time. You’d better hook up WiFi and VHF and GPS and AM / FM and hit the mike key on a few VHF frequencies and let that Wifi operate with a valid link.
Then if you have some way to look at received signal strength (or C/No or something) that would be great. And if you have a VHF VSWR meter put that between the Wizard and the radio and let us know what you find. A decent standard VHF antenna will give you less than 2:1 over most of the band.
Last but not least try to use this with the wizard flat and with it held vertically. I’ll wager its going to be seriously impacted by this change of orientation (loss or reduction in signal for VHF) AM radio will have no effect.
And for Magicwands – whats this crap about antenna pixels??? I’m a 34 year radar engineer – you wanna tell me what they are? The reason you get signal fade with pitch and roll of a yacht is due to antenna directional gain. Whip antennas radiate with a “toroid” or Donut pattern that is perpendicular to the antenna. If you roll 30 degrees one side of the gain pattern rolls up into the air and the other rolls down looking into the water. If your signal was coming from the low side – you’ll loose it or have some drop in power. Thats simple physics and there ain’t no antenna pixels!!!
By the way Ben – we tested our new marine radar and we recorded nearly a terabyte of data. We have data on rain and waves, small and large target detection and being able to resolve details on a shoreline. We’ll present the data at eNavigation in Seattle WA on November 18.
I’m really looking forward to your report. It better be fair and balanced and it better have some measured data. If all we get is “it worked ok” that will send most of us techies over the edge. Remember – a barge and a log both float – but neither is a trawler or a sailboat. Just because something “functions” doesn’t mean its better than the established norm. You have to provide MEASURED DATA that shows benefits on an A Vs B basis. Nothing less qualifies as engineering.
DaveV thank you for your comments. I was also unable to find any quantitative data about the antenna.
In my view many of the claims on the AMT website simply violate the laws of physics.
I imagine the 65 watt output from my 2-meter mobile could be used to heat my coffee cup on that wafer. Am looking for my tin hat just in case there are misplaced pixels flying around….
You may obtain tin hat folding instructions at the URL.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
Doug
Tough crowd ! Are there any laws of physics governing antenna pixels ? Oh yea, don’t believe in antenna pixels either.
Personally … if this product is just ok, not revolutionary or efficient, it would be a much better sales & marketing strategy to keep it out marine electronics experts like Ben. It would also be a much better idea to promote on the web-site it’s apparently sturdy and small size rather than electronic wizardry and long list of patents.
In any event, I hope MagicWands or the products creators would post here and fill us in with a down to earth description of the products installation, it’s output, efficiency, and maybe access to a manual.
Ben,
This is one which will take some scientific exploration. You really need to get at least a ham operator, or some other person who has the expertise and testing equiptment to do evaluation on this product.
There are all sorts of “all band” antennas out there, (many are loops) but I have yet to see one, even in a huge physical installation which is effecient enough to be worth while.
All of the “information” given is anecdotal. You need scientific proof.
Note that the IBEX award is prominent in the web site…..sooo just what does an IBEX award mean? How does it translate to excellence in real life?
Sorry, Magicwands, so far its Lions 1, David 0.
And now this discussion will pop up in a Google search for anyone wanting to check you out. Its definitely time to put up some independant, FCC cert. Lab test reports.
If I wanted to claim a professional and academic qualification for myself, it would be as a psychologist. Your responses worry me. I see paranoia, dim threats of legal retaliation, appeals to irrelevant authority, and an unwillingness to repond in an objective manner. These could be techniques useful to a huckster, or, just possibly, a true latter-day Tesla.
Your sentence structure has Latin roots. Is Italian your native language?
Regarding the Wizard: today AMT “made the decision to hold production and do some slight re-designs to improve some aspects of applications and performance.” But supposedly I will have one to test in about a week.
Note that I have neither the skills nor the equipment to do the engineering studies that folks like DaveV think necessary. But I think I can do some valuable A/B comparisons with standard fixed marine antennas. And I’m also encouraging AMT to put samples in the hands of other independent evaluators.
I also heard a bit about the live demos at IBEX. It sounds like they were impressive but that the A/B comparisons were with relatively small and low gain antennas, like the ones found on handheld VHF radios and travel-type WiFi transceivers.
One of the puzzling things about this antenna is the total lack of information on several key points.
1. Power limits on Transmit. Is this designed for 1/2 watt of RF power, 1 watt, 20 watts, 50 watts, 500 watts? Without info on power levels, no one can actually know what kind of applications this is intended for. 1/2 watt- something like a cell phone or WIFI device. 20 watts, something like a marine VHF. 50 watts – something like a commercial or public safety two-way radio system. Given the size, I’d be very surprised it it could tolerate more than say a half or quarter watt.
2. The claim that it is not limited to line of sight. This one is tough to believe, since the propagation of RF is mostly a function of the frequency, as well as (depending on frequency) current ionespheric conditions. No fancy antenna is going to change the fact that 1.2ghz RF, for example, is inherently line of sight and does not bounce off the ionesphere.
3. The claim that you can have multiple RF devices connected simultaneously. I have a hard time buying that you can have an FM broadcast receiver (or gps receiver) connected to this antenna at the same time as a 460MHZ land mobile radio transmitting 20 to 30 watts. The most likely result is a blown FM broadcast receiver. In order to make this work, I think you’d have include adequate filtering, just as you would for any antenna system. This can be done, and is well established technology and nothing new.
4. Buried in the sand? This one is also tough to buy as some kind of inherent advantage of this antenna. Again, I have a hard time believing that this antenna can trump inherent RF characteristics such as absorption. The claim cannot be evaluated without some detail as to power levels, RF frequency and some indication of efficiency. Buried in six inches of sand, but the receiving (or transmitting) antenna was a high gain antenna pointed directly at it, one inch above ground. What about a comparison to a simple half-wavelength wire dipole?
All in all, without more information there is no way at all to evaluate whether this is brilliant or a bust.
The first order of business would be to do some fairly basic comparison testing – say on a soccer field or football field. Put one of these antennas on top of a broom stick stuck straight up above a wooden step ladder. The idea is you want the antenna a couple wavelengths above ground, say 5 or 6 meters for marine VHF. Next to it, but say 50 feet away put up a 1/4 wavelength vertical dipole cut for resonance at the frequency under test.
Go the far and of the field. Measure field strength of one and then the other, feeding both antennas with same transmitter and feedline. Switch positions, ie. put the Wizard antenna on the other broomstick and repeat just to be sure you were getting repeatable data. You’d either need a field strength meter, or more easily located a radio with a signal strength meter. That will give you a fair approximation of the efficiency of the antenna versus the comparison dipole. Won’t confirm absolute numbers, but will give a reasonably accurate A to B comparison.
Try this basic experiment at a wide variety of operating frequencies, in a couple of different soccer fields and with different mounting heights. Of course, as you go below the VHF range you have to worry about ground wave effects and need a MUCH larger field. This test would be reasonably interesting at 144 MHZ and above. This would not give you absolute date, but would provide very interesting comparative data.
For even more fun, repeat the testing but bury both antennas in the sand. Or, make multiple field strength measurements but tilt and rotate each antenna to get some idea of an overall pattern. Is it really omnidirectional?
I suspect this antenna can in fact receive and transmit RF. Probably does so reasonably well at some frequencies, probably in the 1ghz range or above- consider that cellphone and bluetooth devices have very small antennas. Probably receives OK for much of the RF spectrum, but so would a straightened out paperclip.
The real question, is whether this antenna is capable of >efficiently