text:
eMusic vs. iMusic
Posted May 1st, 2003 @ 03:02pm by Erik J. Barzeski
Someone published an article called Why eMusic Gets It as a direct comparison between eMusic and the iTunes Music Store (iMusic for the purpose of a funnier title). Point by point, let's have a look at the issues raised.
1. No DRM or Crippled Files Yeah, the iTunes Music Store has "managed" files, but frankly, the rights are pretty broad. These "rights" play into a later point.
2. Cross Platform Mentions the need for iTunes. Funny, but I played my "protected" tracks in the Finder, QuickTime Player, and my car's CD player. My iPod too. Well, whatever… QuickTime exists for Windows as well, and iTunes is going there as well.
3. Searchable Without Setup/Subscription Uhhh, same thing with the ITMS.
4. Flat Rate Same thing again, just in a different way: per song instead of per month. This works out better for me. I may not spend $10/month.
5. Full Albums Check, got those.
6. Worthwhile Free Trial Nope, don't have one of those, but the 30-second previews are nice.
I searched for several random bands in my iTunes playlist: R.E.M., Toad the Wet Sprocket, Shania Twain, Destiny's Child, Britney Spears, Kelly Clarkson, Fleetwood Mac, Eminem, The Corrs, etc. How many did eMusic have?
Which is odd, because that's about as much of my money as eMusic will ever get. Sorry bub, but your "diss" of the ITMS is not well founded at all. Move along and make room for someone who knows what they're talking about.
19 Responses to "eMusic vs. iMusic"
Quote Me	| Reply Katherine
I didn't think his article was a diss, really (in fact, he updated it to reflect some issues with Emusic).
I subscribe to Emusic, and I suspect I will be spending money in the ITunes music store too. Why? They both have great (and growing) collections... but Apple has major labels, and Emusic tends more to the indie end of the spectrum.
I will be buying old favorites and albums that I've been meaning to get for ages, from Apple. But when I want to explore some new (to me) genre of music -- and I need more than 30 seconds to decide if I like it -- EMusic is definitely the way to go for me.
Quote Me	| Reply d.w.
I've been an Emusic subscriber for a while. It all depends on what your tastes are. Currently, Emusic actually beats the ITMS selection in some areas -- namely, jazz and indie labels, and electronic music. I use both, and will continue to do so.
Quote Me	| Reply Baumi
It didn't feel like a diss to me, either. I don't mind ite ITMS; in fact I'd love to buy there (can't yet, because I don't live in the U.S.), but for people listening mainly to Indy music, EMusic does have some advantages:
The ITMS doesn't even list independent labels yet, although it's been indicated that this will change soon.
For anyone buying more than 10 songs or 1 album per month, EMusic is cheaper. (And $.99 per song is not a flatrate. That'd be like saying: Sure I've got an internet flatrate: $.01/minute. Flatrate means: Same price, no matter how much.)
I usually download at least 2 or 3 albums per month from EMusic. Even if these artists were available in the ITMS - which they aren't yet - and even if I were able to use it - which I can't yet - I'd still get them from EMusic, because I'd pay less that way.
That doesn't mean the ITMS doesn't have its place - it's just that it's better in some things and EMusic's better in others.
If, however, through some miraculous deal all music were available via EMusic (which will never happen), I'd use it instead of ITMS, because I'd easily rack up more than 1 album or 10 songs per month.
Oh, and btw: EMusic works with Linux, too. The ITMS doesn't, and I don't see it happening any time soon.
Quote Me	| Reply Clint
eMusic didn't have the indie label *I* wanted. Do a little search for Drive-Thru and you'll see what I mean.
Yeah, it certainly wasn't a diss.. I felt it was a pretty open comparison.
You brush the DRM off like it doesn't mean anything at all. I agree that ITMS's DRM is pretty flexible, and quite reasonable. But DRM is DRM, and any way you cut it, its taking your rights as a listener away. I think Apple's DRM still leaves you with a lot of your basic rights, but the fact that its there at all is an important point.
Windows and Mac does not count as cross platform. You need the other operating systems for that! And no Windows downloader yet, until the software is installed, its as good as vaporware.
Have to agree with an above comment about the flat rate. ITMS isn't a flat rate. Its a cost effective system if you are only doing a few songs a month, but if you download more than one average album per month (I know I would!) then ITMS's rate gets pricey, and fast.
No free trial is annoying. I want to try things out, see how I like them. Of course, while eMusic has a free trial, if I decide to go with their service, I have to get a 3 month minimum contract or a year contract if I want the better price. Thats a minimum of 45$ to get started. I can just download a few tracks from the ITMS and spend 6$ to decide if I like it or not. I don't think either really 'wins' here. eMusic has free trial, but higher startup cost, ITMS has no free trial, but low startup cost.
You mention some bands you couldn't find on ITMS. Well, I searched for a few of my favorite artists, stuff I listen to a lot, not just random things from my collection: Pete Namlook, Infected Mushroom, and Twilight Circus Dub Sound System. Didn't find any of them on ITMS, however, all of those were listed at eMusic. It just depends on who you listen to. eMusic doesn't have any of the big big label stuff, but they have a great selection of small and indie labels, which have most of my favorite music anyway. The intended audience is a little different. The best system would have mainstream and indie together, but since neither of the systems we are discussing do, then its really just personal taste.
The final thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, surprisingly, is audio quality! eMusic is using 128kbs MP3, and ITMS is using 128kbs AAC. Same bitrate, but AAC does sound much better. Still not quite as good as I'd prefer, but the improvement over MP3 is clear. Thats one thing ITMS definately has over eMusic. However, they sacrifice player support in exchange for better sound. iPod plays them, which is key, but it leaves other players in the dust (not unintentional, I believe). eMusic has been claiming for a long time that they are going to up their bitrates, which is the only thing keeping me from signing up today (I'm not currently a customer of either service). My dream would be that hardware makers would finally support Ogg Vorbis, and then ITMS and eMusic would offer Q5 or better .ogg files, but thats a bit of a pipe dream for now. More reasonably, I'd like 192kbs/224kbs at a minimum for MP3, or 192kbs AAC along with better hardware support. For now, because its what my SlimX supports, I'd be happiest with 192k/224k MP3s.
So in conclusion, at this point I lean more towards wanting to buy from eMusic, but the quality issue prevents me from doing so for now. However, I think ITMS has a lot going for it, especially with support for more mainstream bands that a lot of people have been wanting pretty bad, as well as finally using a more modern codec, even though it lacks a bit in terms of hardware support. The DRM of Apple's isn't too bad, but I still prefer having no DRM, just because I have an aversion to having my rights taken away, even if they are only taking a tiny bit away.
I'm a real music enthusiast, and would likely download several albums a month, making ITMS's ala carte system a little overpriced. However, if I were on a modem, or was more of a 'heard a cool song on the radio and want to download it on impulse' kind of guy, then ITMS would be more attractive.
Ok, sorry for the long rambling comment.
Quote Me	| Reply Benjy
I admittedly wrote this article before the ITMS was released, but I did a lot of comparisons between between what I hoped the ITMS would offer and what eMusic (and P2P) currently offers.
The ITMS does most of what I hoped it would do, with one exception, and that's a pretty major exception: I have to repurchase the songs if I lose my copy of the file. Because of that, I'm only going to be buying exclusive music from the ITMS, and everything else I'm going to stick with CDs for.
But, when it comes to eMusic, there were really two generations of how they handled this:
With the original eMusic (before they started the emusic unlimited subscription plan), you bought the music, and could download it up to 3 times.
Then they switched to the subscription plan, at which point, you could just repeatedly download the same songs.
Either one of these would be better than what the ITMS does, except that when I cancelled my emusic subscription (mainly due to lack of selection), I could no longer re-download the music I bought before they went subscription, even though I had only ever downloaded those songs once! I've written them many angry letters about this, but to no avail.
And the ITMS even keeps track of what songs I've purchased and I can go review them, so it should be technically possible to allow people to redownload their music. I'd even be okay with a $0.05 or $0.10 fee to redownload a song to cover bandwidth...
But, I suspect this was probably actually some contractual issue.
Anyway, right now, neither emusic nor the ITMS allows you to buy rights to music. Instead, they're both still selling bits, and for that reason, I'll stick with CDs. Read my linked article above for the possibilities of a service that sells rights instead of bits.
Quote Me	| Reply Michael
While it's true that a buck a song isn't a flat rate, it's still a good price because the barrier to entry is low, and that's the main point. Although ITMS has a better selection than competitors, it's still limited enough that many people wouldn't want to be forced to subscribe, yet. Once the range of songs is more complete, I'd be surprised if a subscription didn't become available.
And another thing regarding selection: No one cares if ITMS has a bunch of indie stuff, and the list some other poster gave of groups he couldn't find is irrelevant. It's not representative. I know a lot of folks like to look down their noses on the tastes of pop culture, but luckily for me and other non-snobs, we're the ones fueling the engine of commerce.
Quote: And another thing regarding selection: No one cares if ITMS has a bunch of indie stuff, and the list some other poster gave of groups he couldn't find is irrelevant. It's not representative.
I must say I totally disagree with that..
Irrelevant? That wasn't a contrived example, I just picked the three things on my playlist right now. I'm not being snobbish about it, I have no problem with bands like Fleetwood Mac, REM, etc. It just so happens that my tastes lean towards things often found on indie labels, just as some people's taste leans them more towards bands found on the main labels.
Also, I might like to point out that the belief that nobody but a few 'hardcores' here and there listen to anything besides the few major labels is due to the fact that nearly all radio stations are owned by a select group of companies who choose exactly what does and does not get played. These people also decide what music gets put on MTV, and what CDs get sold in every Sam Goody nationwide.
Thus we get a little 'closed circle' of music where music is recorded, then promoted, then sold, by the same companies. You look at the top 40 lists and see nothing except what gets played on the radio and on MTV. That isn't an accident, its called market domination.
Now, the music can be really good. The label a band is on doesn't make them good or bad, their skill does. However, the thing you have to remember is that while this little ecosystem of major labels/mtv/clearchannel/radio stations/etc is going on and dominating all the major media channels, there is a whole world of music that doesn't have anything to do with the radio, or top 40 lists, or MTV or Sam Goody stores. LOTS of people listen to this music that is on the outside. I bet most people listen to at least a little music that is under the radar, so to speak, of the few major labels, and there are a lot of people who primarily listen to music like that.
If most of the bands you like are in the circle, then you hear them on the radio, you see them on MTV, and you see them on ITMS. Cool. Thats all well and good, but it might make it so you don't notice all the other music going on outside that circle. People who's tastes put their music choices mostly outside the ecosystem of major media music have benefited greatly from the Internet and computers in general. We aren't restricted to just buying white label vinyl and cheaply pressed small run CDs. Technology means bands can offer music for free on websites, trade prized live shows easily, quickly burn CDs for cheap and easy releases, and get promotion in places far from their home town.
Why do you think emusic exists? Why do you think it is the success it has been? Clearly, your statement that 'no one cares' about indie stuff is very wrong. Emusic is doing quite well with nothing BUT indie music! There is a market out there that isn't apparent at first glance, but is significant. Significant enough that ITMS's lack of indie music is a downside in my book, and in many other people's books. For many people, that isn't a problem, and the ITMS's success in these few days makes it clear that it isn't a big enough problem to cause them to fail, however, the addition of more indie music, electronic music, jazz, etc, would only add more customers, and wouldn't be an irrelevant measure.
Quote: I know a lot of folks like to look down their noses on the tastes of pop culture, but luckily for me and other non-snobs, we're the ones fueling the engine of commerce.
One more thing, what do you mean by this? If I buy a CD, I'm supporting capitalism and commerce, regardless of who I buy it from. In fact, if I buy it from a local artist, it could be argued that I'm actually fueling commerce even more than if I bought it from Wal-Mart, because the money will get turned around and sent back into the local economy, rather than getting collected in a far away place.
Also, I really don't think I'm looking down my nose at anyone else's taste, I'm just saying that my tastes are different from yours. Thats all good! People should have different taste, it keeps things diverse. My point is just that ITMS doesn't represent my tastes, and the tastes of many others (the numbers of who aren't very apparent at first glance, as I discussed in my last post). If it represents your tastes, then thats great, because you now have more choices at your disposal.
I admit that a little anti-pop-culture snobbery exists, but I don't think I'm perpetuating that. I'd prefer if you not toss the accusations around so much, in fear of creating a sort of anti-anti-pop-culture snobbery, which would be very unfortunate.
The other possibility is that you were being sarcastic and that I'm just looking silly right about now. 😉
Not to go off on too much of an indie vs. majors tangent here, but usually when I go to buy music, I'm looking for things that aren't being played continually on the radio. After all, if I just wanted to hear radio hits, I'd (duh) just turn on the radio. On the other hand, if I want to hear the new Yo La Tengo album, unless I get lucky tuning into the local college station, I've got to buy (or download) it myself. Emusic does a better job of scratching that itch. If you're looking for Eminem records, you've already got plenty of opportunities to hear him.
Not being sarcastic at all, but I was exaggerating to make my point with less effort. However, on reskimming your post, I agree with just about everything you said except the cross platform snipe, but I won't go all off-topic on it.
Quote Me	| Reply Joel
Indies vs. major labels is a pretty central point for a lot of people (including most of my friends). I spent all week being excited about ITMS, but in the end, I haven't bought a single track, because there wasn't a single one that interested me that I didn't already have.
Michael, I can see what you meant to say with the comment about "driving commerce", but the problem is that it's the other way around: the reason Apple has the major labels on their service is because it's the biggest bang for their buck. With the exception of a few artists like the Beatles, they have all the popular groups that make up some overwhelming portion of the sales in the music business. Your statement was inaccurate: my CD collection of about 300 CDs dwarfs that of most of my friends', which indicates that I'm at least making a splash in the fuel tank of commerce (ugh, pushing that metaphor a little too far) -- and yet I would be able to find only about 5% of those artists on ITMS. Generally, people who listen to indie bands, electronic artists, jazz music, and other such non-mainstream styles are committed to music (you have to be, or else you wouldn't be able to find the music) and willing to spend more money on their music collections.
I suppose it isn't worth arguing, because it's going to come down to a pissing match, but it does seem strange to me that as someone who is a mac user, who runs a blog with its own domain name, and whose blog is an obscure programming reference, you would be willing to so blithely dismiss the value of non-mainstream tastes (musically and OS-wise).
Joel, if that last comment was directed at me and not Michael, then I certainly assure you I'm not "blithely dismissing" anyone's taste in music. In fact, indie bands and whatnot look to be coming to the iTunes Music Store, and I welcome it! Why? Because perhaps it will allow people to "get into" indie music more often by passing around those itms:// links to albums they like.
But the fact remains that right now, the music that most people buy, listen to, and download is that same 90% of music controlled by "the big five." Apple would have been stupid to ignore that! They did the right thing.
I am a Mac user. I've got a blog with its own domain name referring to a Cocoa printf-wannabe, but I'm blithely dismissing nobody.
Heh, I got you and Michael mixed up -- sorry about that, I'm a newcomer to this site. But you seem to hold similar viewpoints, so my comments are directed in that general vicinity.
In any case, I must again politely disagree. The big five don't control anywhere near 90% of the music out there. Perhaps 90% of the *sales*, which is why I'll certainly agree that it was wise to bring them on board before anyone else. Quantity and diversity (and even quality, but let's not go there) are a different story.
I'm glad I read this discussion -- it made me think more critically about ITMS, and it provided me with details on the eMusic service, which I'm now seriously considering as an alternative.
Quote Me	| Reply WE ARE HUGH
NSLog: "Someone published an article called Why eMusic Gets It as a
direct comparison between eMusic and the iTunes Music Store (iMusic for
the purpose of a funnier title). Point by point, let's have a look at
the issues raised."
Why do you think Erik and I "hold similar viewpoints"? Just because we both like the ITMS?! I can't really tell myself.
Anyway, as for my friends and I, we couldn't care less about major labels versus indie, and I suggest that we are a large majority. I personally prefer it when the majority agrees with me; it makes life easier.
I didn't mean to say anything other than what I did when I said "we're the ones fueling the engine of commerce." To explicate: Apple chose to use their limited resources to contract for music by the major labels 'cause me and my pals are the largest bloc of voters where dollars are votes. Yay, us! I hope they continue in that vein.
I hope they spend about 1 minute of effort tracking down indie music for every 9 minutes they spend on major label music. Luckily for indie fans, that 1 minute will probably be quite productive. Indies won't be demanding stiff terms, and it's not much skin off Apple's teeth to put up more files. Plus, Apple's marketers can then promote their large catalog.
Anyway, I don't blithely dismiss non-mainstream tastes. I thoughtfully dismiss non-mainstream tastes. And, actually, that's not really true: I just dislike when minority tastes gain disproportionate influence because of that minority's passionate activism. Such activism only works because of our damnable penchant to root for the underdog.
PS - I use a Mac only because it's better. I reject any gratuitous anti-establishment associations that anyone tries to attach to me because of it.
Quote Me	| Reply freeform goodness
Posted 03 May 2003 at 1:15am #
Competition Is A Wonderful, Wonderful Thing
I've been an Emusic subscriber since 2000... I think their monthly service, at $9.99 has been one of the best deals in existence for the music fan who wants access to music by a huge quantity of good (if not necessarily well-known) artists.
Quote Me	| Reply jeff
Posted 07 Oct 2004 at 7:27pm #
the article is gone now, replaced by:
Why EMusic no longer gets it (and Apple is getting closer)
UPDATE 2003-10-09: EMusic just radically changed their terms of service in such a way that invalidates the points made my original article. I'm updating this version to reflect the new terms.
8733% of all votes
15057% of all votes
Total Votes: 262	Started: October 23, 2014	Back to Vote Screen


text:
Historian-in-Chief Doris Kearns Goodwin to Speak at the Bijou in Knoxville
LMU Law and East Tennessee Historical Society partner to present world-renowned presidential historian for special community presentation.
Doris Kearns Goodwin
"America's historian-in-chief" -New York Magazine
Knoxville, Tennessee (PRWEB) March 09, 2017
The Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law (LMU Law) and the East Tennessee Historical Society (ETHS) have joined forces to bring world renowned presidential historian, public speaker and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Doris Kearns Goodwin to Knoxville on Tuesday, April 25, 2017.
Goodwin will present a community lecture at 7:30 p.m. at the historic Bijou Theatre. The author's presentation will be on her award-winning book, "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," an epic tome that illuminates Lincoln's skills as political operative during the most trying time in our nation's history. Goodwin's Team of Rivals was also the basis of director Steven Spielberg's film Lincoln, which earned 12 Academy Award nominations.
Goodwin is the author of six critically acclaimed and The New York Times bestselling books, including her most recent, The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism. Spielberg's DreamWorks Studios has also acquired the film and television rights to the book. She was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in history for No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II. Goodwin's "The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys" was adapted into an award-winning television miniseries that aired on ABC. In 2015, to celebrate the 50th anniversaries of many of President Lyndon Johnson's domestic accomplishments, "Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream" was released in e-book format for the first time.
Goodwin has made many appearances on television, where she is frequently on NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN, The Charlie Rose Show and Meet the Press. She has also made appearances on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, The Oprah Winfrey Show, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and has even been animated for an appearance on The Simpsons.
Tickets for the community lecture will go on sale on March 10, 2017, at the Bijou box office or online. General admission tickets are $40, East Tennessee Historical Society members and Friends of the Knox County Library will receive a code for discounted tickets; student tickets will be available for $25 with a student id presented at the Bijou box office.
ABOUT LINCOLN MEMORAL UNIVERSITY Lincoln Memorial University is a values-based learning community dedicated to providing educational experiences in the liberal arts and professional studies. The main campus is located in Harrogate, Tennessee. For more information about the undergraduate and graduate programs available at LMU, contact the Office of Admissions at 423-869-6280 or e-mail at admissions(at)lmunet.edu.
ABOUT EAST TENNESSEE HISTORICAL SOCIETY Established in 1834, the East Tennessee Historical Society is widely acknowledged as one of the most active history organizations in the state and enjoys a national reputation for excellence in programming and education. For 182 years the East Tennessee Historical Society has been helping East Tennesseans hold on to our unique heritage—recording the events, collecting the artifacts, and saving the stories that comprise the history we all share.
Kate Reagan
@LMUKate

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Second Act of Jefferson Island (1984)
Place Covered: Jefferson Island, Iberia Parish, Louisiana, 29.9711029, -91.9754144
Subjects: Lake Peigneur (La.) | Jefferson Island (La.) | Environment
Courtney, Beth Host
Ekings, Robyn Reporter
Bayless, J. Lyles, Jr. Interviewee
This segment from the October 12, 1984, episode of the series "Louisiana: The State We're In" features Robyn Ekings' visit to Jefferson Island in Iberia Parish, four years after an oil drilling rig punched a hole in a salt dome beneath Lake Peigneur and nearly destroyed the island. Ekings interviews J. Lyles Bayless, Jr., a Jefferson Island resident who lost his home and an imported conservatory of exotic plants and flowers to the disaster. He discusses his memories of the disaster and his efforts to rebuild the Live Oak Garden. Host: Beth Courtney
Jefferson Island & Vermilion Parish Officials (1984)


text:
FARZANEH; Sadegh ; et al. November 30, 2017
DIPOLE ANTENNA WITH BEAMFORMING RING
Systems, methods, and devices relating to antennas. A crossed dipole antenna element has a ring encircling the antenna. The ring, constructed of a conductive material, is not touching the arms of the dipole antenna and the distance between the ring and the arms of the antenna can be optimized. The antenna element assembly can be used in one or two dimensional antenna arrays.
Inventors: FARZANEH; Sadegh; (Kanata, CA) ; GAVRILOVIC; Minya; (Ottawa, CA) ; VAN BEEK; Jacob; (Stittsville, CA)
Communication Components Antenna Inc.
PCT Filed: August 31, 2015
PCT NO: PCT/CA2015/050835
371 Date: May 31, 2017
62089608 Dec 9, 2014
Current CPC Class: H01Q 21/10 20130101; H01Q 21/26 20130101; H01Q 19/10 20130101; H01Q 21/205 20130101
International Class: H01Q 19/10 20060101 H01Q019/10; H01Q 21/26 20060101 H01Q021/26
1. An antenna comprising: a dipole antenna having two arms; at least one beamforming structure encircling said dipole antenna, the or each of said at least one beamforming structure being spaced apart from said two arms; wherein the or each of said at least one beamforming structure is constructed from a conductive material.
2. An antenna according to claim 1, wherein said at least one beamforming structure comprises a ring encircling said dipole antenna.
3. An antenna according to claim 1, wherein said at least one beamforming structure comprises at least two rings encircling said dipole antenna.
4. An antenna according to claim 1, further comprising a second dipole antenna, said dipole antenna and said second dipole antenna forming a crossed dipole antenna, said at least one beamforming structure encircling both said dipole antenna and said second dipole antenna.
5. An antenna according to claim 1, wherein said at least one beamforming structure is a quadrilateral encircling said dipole antenna.
6. An antenna according to claim 1, wherein said at least one beamforming structure is annular in shape.
7. An antenna according to claim 6, wherein a latitudinal axis of said dipole antenna is collinear with an axis of an annular shape of said at least one beamforming structure.
8. An antenna according to claim 2, wherein said at least one beamforming structure is a shallow tube in shape.
9. An antenna according to claim 1, wherein said antenna is one element in an array of antenna elements.
10. An antenna according to claim 4, wherein said crossed dipole antenna is an element in an array of antenna elements.
11. An antenna array having at least two antenna elements, each antenna element comprising: a crossed dipole antenna; at least one beamforming structure encircling said crossed-dipole antenna; wherein said at least one beamforming structure is constructed from a conductive material; and wherein said at least one beamforming structure is spaced apart from arms of said crossed dipole antenna.
12. An antenna array according to claim 11, wherein said antenna array is a two dimensional array.
13. An antenna array according to claim 11, wherein said at least one beamforming structure is ring shaped.
14. An antenna array according to claim 11, wherein said at least one beamforming structure is tube shaped.
15. An antenna array according to claim 11, wherein said at least one beamforming structure is quadrilateral in shape.
16. An antenna array according to claim 11, wherein a center of said at least one beamforming structure is collinear with a longitudinal axis of said crossed dipole antenna.
[0001] The present invention relates to antennas. More specifically, the present invention relates to dipole antennas with a ring useful for beamforming and increasing gain.
[0002] The telecommunications revolution of the late 20.sup.th century has given rise to a plethora of new communications devices and methods. With this rise in communications capability comes a need for better means for disseminating radio based signals.
[0003] Previously, omnidirectional antennas were used for most radio based applications. Nowadays, more focussed antennas with a narrower beamwidth are use. These antennas can be placed in arrays to provide greater telecommunications coverage for densely packed areas such as sporting arenas, shopping malls, and the like.
[0004] To arrive at a narrower beamwidth, such as, for example, a 65 degree beamwidth, previous attempts have been made. However, none of these attempts have been satisfactory.
[0005] Previous attempts include using two elements in parallel in the azimuth plane with a proper feed network. Using this approach, the number of elements should be twice of a 65 degree element. Another approach involves staggering the elements to make two columns. Again, the number of elements required is higher than for an antenna with elements which have a beamwidth of 65 degrees. Another approach is that of controlling the height of the dipole antenna and the reflector size or side fences. However, none of these approaches can offer a stable beamwidth over 1710-2690 MHz. Another approach is that of using several parasitic elements in parallel to the reflector which increases the antenna depth.
[0006] In addition to the above issues, these approaches also have additional issues. Using two elements by staggering elements or in quad format increases the number of elements used. This increases the cost of the antenna. In addition, a beamwidth of 65 degrees is not guaranteed as beamwidth variation over 1710-2690 MHz is more than 5 degrees. If one reduces the height of the dipole antenna and uses a large reflector, this increases the size of the overall antenna. Again, this approach has a beamwidth variation of more than 5 degrees. If multiple resonators are used in parallel with a reflector, this increases the depth of the antenna.
[0007] Based on the above, this is therefore a need for systems, methods, and devices which avoid the shortcomings of the prior art.
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
[0008] The present invention provides systems, methods, and devices relating to antennas. A crossed dipole antenna element has a ring encircling the antenna. The ring, constructed of a conductive material, is not touching the arms of the dipole antenna and the distance between the ring and the arms of the antenna can be optimized. The antenna element assembly can be used in one or two dimensional antenna arrays.
[0009] In a first aspect, the present invention provides an antenna comprising: [0010] a dipole antenna having two arms; [0011] at least one beamforming structure encircling said dipole antenna, the or each of said at least one beamforming structure being spaced apart from said two arms; wherein the or each of said at least one beamforming structure is constructed from a conductive material.
[0012] In a second aspect, the present invention provides an antenna array having at least two antenna elements, each antenna element comprising: [0013] a crossed dipole antenna; [0014] at least one beamforming structure encircling said crossed-dipole antenna; wherein said at least one beamforming structure is constructed from a conductive material; and wherein said at least one beamforming structure is spaced apart from arms of said crossed dipole antenna.
[0015] The embodiments of the present invention will now be described by reference to the following figures, in which identical reference numerals in different figures indicate identical elements and in which:
[0016] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an antenna according to one aspect of the invention;
[0017] FIG. 2 is a plot showing the return loss and cross-pole isolation for the antenna illustrated in FIG. 1;
[0018] FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating a variant of the antenna in FIG. 1;
[0019] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating another variant of the antenna in FIG. 1;
[0020] FIG. 5 is a two-dimensional array of antenna elements using a variant of the antenna in FIG. 1;
[0021] FIG. 6 is a plot which compares antenna directivity for a dipole antenna without a beamforming structure and for antennas which use different variants of the beamforming structure;
[0022] FIG. 7 illustrates the azimuth pattern for a dipole antenna not equipped with a beamforming structure for different frequencies;
[0023] FIG. 8 illustrates the azimuth pattern for a dipole antenna equipped with a beamforming structures for frequencies similar to those used for FIG. 7;
[0024] FIG. 9 shows a one dimensional array of antenna elements using a variant of the antenna in FIG. 1; and
[0025] FIG. 10 shows a three-sector antenna using antenna elements which are a variant of the antenna in FIG. 1.
[0026] Referring to FIG. 1, an antenna 10 according to one aspect of the invention is illustrated. The antenna 10 has two dipole antennas 20, 30 which, together, form a crossed dipole antenna. A beamforming structure 40 encircles the crossed dipole antenna.
[0027] In FIG. 1, two dipole antennas 20, 30 are used. However, a single dipole antenna may also be used. As well, the beamforming structure 40 in FIG. 1 is in the form of a ring. Other loop shapes, such as square loops, rectangular loops, cross loops, and other quadrilateral loops, may also be used. Depending on the beamforming shape, dipoles may be designed and tuned accordingly. The center of the beamforming structure is, preferably, collinear or coincident with the center axis of the dipole or crossed dipole antennas. As such, the center of the beamforming structure would be collinear with the axis where one dipole antenna meets another. For a crossed dipole antenna, the axis where all four single pole antennas meet is coincident with the center of the beamforming structure. Other variants of the beamforming structure will be explained below.
[0028] The use of the beamforming structure, especially in the form of a ring or an annulus, stabilizes the azimuth beam width, increases the antenna gain, and reduces grating lobe, cross-pole isolation, and beam squint. In addition, since rings do not have contact with a reflector, they do not generate passive intermodulation.
[0029] The beamforming structure is developed primarily for 1710-2690 MHz band. However, the concept has been applied to other frequency bands including but not limited to other cellular bands such as 1710-2360 MHz, 698-896 MHz, 698-960 MHz, and 596-960 Mhz. In either case using a ring with dipole configuration may increase the antenna gain, may stabilize the beamwidth, and may reduce grating lobe and cross-pol isolation.
[0030] With the use of a ring beamforming structure, it is possible to adjust the azimuth and elevation beamwidth without modifying the dipole antenna. This allows for the reconfiguration of the element pattern when the antenna is used in different antenna arrays. The beamforming structure can have its radius, height, or spacing from the dipole antenna adjusted depending on the desired operation band and dipole height.
[0031] The configuration illustrated in FIG. 1 is for an antenna with 65 degree azimuth beam width over 1710-2690 MHz. It may be modified to add additional rings with similar or different shapes. Addition of such rings modifies the impedance of the antenna as well. However, the dipole antenna can be re-tuned to work with either single or multiple rings. In practise, the crossed dipole antenna and the ring shaped beamforming structure is optimized for impedance matching by taking into account the ring in the system design.
[0032] The antenna in FIG. 1 is a dual polarization dipole antenna surrounded by a suspended ring and is for dual slant +/-45 degree polarization. Each dipole has a parasitic element with the same width but longer in length to offer 45% bandwidth which covers 1710-2690 MHz.
[0033] Referring to FIG. 2, the plot shows the return loss and cross-pole isolation for the antenna element. The plot shows that the antenna element has a better than 14 dB Return Loss and has a better than 30 dB cross-polarity isolation at 1710-2690 MHz.
[0034] Referring to FIGS. 3 and 4, variants of the present invention are illustrated. The embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1 has a beamforming structure that is tube-shaped. The shallow tube which encircles the dipole antenna is spaced apart from and is not in contact with the arms of the dipole antenna. In FIG. 3, the beamforming structure is a thin circle while in FIG. 4, the beamforming structure is annular in shape. Other shapes, as noted above, are also possible.
[0035] The beamforming structure may be placed below the arms of the dipole antenna as in FIGS. 3 and 4. Similarly, the beamforming structure may be located at the edge of the arms of the dipole antenna as in FIG. 1. The beamforming structure may be raised above the ground plane by suitable non-conductive supports. Alternatively, the beamforming structure may be suspended above the ground plane by suitable clips which attach the beamforming structure to the circuit boards on which the traces define the dipole antenna.
[0036] Regarding the design parameters for the beamforming structure, if a circular or annular shape is used, the diameter of the beamforming structure is preferably less than one wavelength based on the highest operating frequency. In one implementation, the height of the rings is around 10 mm for best performance. However, the height can be varied from 1-2 mm to 20 mm. In this implementation, the spacing between the reflector and ring shaped beamforming structure is close to the dipole height. Preferably, there is no metallic contact between the beamforming structure and the reflector base plate. This lack of contact between the base plate and the beamforming structure is good for passive inter-modulation.
[0037] Spacing between the beamforming structure and the reflector can be less than the dipole height and this determines the operating band of the antenna. The diameter of the ring-shaped beamforming structure is preferably about the length of dipole but can be smaller depending on the structure's height, frequency band, and application. Smaller diameter structures can be used for planar arrays where antenna elements need to be compact. Depending on the application, multiple beamforming structures with similar or different radii may also be used.
[0038] Regarding signal feed to the dipole antenna, FIGS. 1, 3, and 4 show dipole antennas which are fed from below. However, the dipole antenna can also be configured to be fed from above.
[0039] It should be noted that the data presented in this document for different sized beamforming structures is based on a fixed dipole antenna height. By modifying the dipole height and adding more beamforming structures, azimuth beamwidth can be modified.
[0040] The use of the ring shaped beamforming structure provides a number of advantages. Specifically, a 65 degree antenna azimuth pattern can be achieved over 1710-2690 MHz by adjusting the beamforming structure height. Another feature of the ring shaped beamforming structure is that azimuth and elevation beamwidth can be controlled by modifying the structure height for a fixed dipole. Using this feature allows one to design antennas with a reconfigurable pattern. As well, other antenna parameters such as antenna gain (by as much as 1 dB), cross-polarity isolation, cross-polarity discrimination, grating lobe, and beam squint are improved when a suitably designed beamforming structure is used. As another advantage, the deployment of a ring-shaped beamforming structure reduces the dipole size by around 10%.
[0041] Regarding construction, the beamforming structure may be constructed from any suitable conductive material. The dipole antenna may be constructed using conventional and well-known construction methods and materials.
[0042] Referring to FIG. 6, a plot is provided that compares the antenna directivity for a dipole antenna without a ring-shaped beamforming structure, a dipole antenna with a large ring-shaped beamforming structure, and a dipole antenna with a small ring-shaped beamforming structure. As can be seen, antenna directivity at 2.7 GHz is increased by 2 dB by adding the large beamforming structure and is increased by 0.7 dB when a small beamforming structure is used.
[0043] Referring to FIG. 7, the figure shows the azimuth pattern for a dipole antenna not equipped with a beamforming structure on a 155 mm square reflector for 1.71 GHz, 2.2 GHz and 2.69 GHz. It can be seen that azimuth beamwidth varies from 67 degree at 1.71 GHz to 81 degree at 2.69 GHz. FIG. 8 shows the azimuth pattern for a dipole antenna which uses a large ring-shaped beamforming structure for 1.71 GHz, 2.2 GHz and 2.69 GHz. It can be seen from FIG. 8 that azimuth beamwidth is 65 degree for the three frequencies when a beamforming structure is used. When a dipole antenna is used, azimuth beamwidth variation is within +/-3 degree variation.
[0044] As noted above, antennas using the beamforming structure may be used in arrays. FIG. 9 illustrates a 2-port, one-dimensional array using a suitably designed crossed dipole antenna elements which use a beamforming structure. FIG. 5 shows a 4-port, two dimensional array with crossed dipole antenna elements with beamforming structures. Both antenna arrays in FIGS. 5 and 9 use the beamforming structure to obtain 65 degree azimuth beamwidth that has a frequency range of 1710-2690 MHz. Finally, FIG. 10 illustrates a six port tri-sector antenna in which each sector is covered with a panel with 65 degree azimuth beamwidth. The antenna elements used in the antenna of FIG. 10 also used crossed dipole antennas with a beamforming structure. Other configurations for antenna arrays are, of course, possible.
[0045] A person understanding this invention may now conceive of alternative structures and embodiments or variations of the above all of which are intended to fall within the scope of the invention as defined in the claims that follow.


Google co-founder Sergey Brin is building a hi-tech airship in Silicon Valley destined to be the largest aircraft in the world, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the project.
"It's going to be massive on a grand scale," said one, adding that the airship is likely to be nearly 200 meters long. This would make it by far the world's largest aircraft today, albeit smaller than the epic Hindenburg Zeppelins of the 1930s, or the American navy airship USS Macon that was once based in the very same hangars where Brin's aircraft is now taking shape.
The sources revealed details of the airship on the condition of anonymity, citing confidentiality agreements. Brin has revealed nothing of his airship ambitions and is building the airship in a giant hangar on a Nasa airfield far from the eyes of the public.
Brin wants the gargantuan airship, funded personally by the billionaire, to be able to deliver supplies and food on humanitarian missions to remote locations. However, it will also serve as a luxurious intercontinental "air yacht" for Brin's friends and family. One source put the project's price tag at $100m to $150m.
I am writing you concerning Google Inc.'s (Google's) partnership with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and its activities at Moffett Federal Airfield (Moffett Airfield) in Santa Clara County, California. My office recently received troubling allegations regarding the Google fleet of aircraft housed at Moffett Airfield.