RadioBanter - View Single Post

[email protected] · November 16th 14, 11:10 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 5:04 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 1:27 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:32 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/15/2014 9:17 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

You should see someone about getting that stick pulled out that is
firmly shoved up your butt.

After you do that, you can comment on the repeatable data I posted.

ROFLMAO! At least my head isn't there - like yours is.

So where are your insightful comments on the data or is puerile drivel
all you've got?

snip puerile drivel

But I am not going to get into a technical argument with you.

You have no technical arguments.

I do.

So where is it?

snip puerile drivel

ROFLMAO!

Right he

From your post on Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:12:37:

"Any dipole type antenna will suck on 75M if mounted less than about
100 feet, or about .4 wavelengths."

Yep, and as one can see from the data, an antenna mounted less than
about .4 wavelengths high sends most of the energy into the clouds.

So what is your technical arguement about that?

Or perhaps you are still fixating on the fact that the original poster
said the antenna sucked and I used the phrase "will suck" in response?

snip remaining puerile drivel

--
Jim Pennino