Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 7:21 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip
Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.
You have changed the topic so many times now I lose track.
First it was the effects of antenna height in wavelengths.
Then it was something about you not liking my response to someone who
said their antenna sucked.
I called your statement into question because you said any 80 meter
antenna under 100' (a little over 1/4 wavelength) sucked.
That's not quite what I said, but in any case ANY dipole mounted at
less than 1/2 wavelength high will NOT perform as well for DX as a
a dipole mounted 1/2 wave length high or higher.
You can see that from the charts I produced or any book on electromagnetic
theory.
Then it was something about you having a WAS thus proving your antenna
was wonderful.
Yes, I proved you were wrong with your statement about wavelengths.
No, you just babbled nonsense about a WAS somehow magically says
something about antenna gain and pattern.
Then it was something about 80M and 6M being different when I said that
signal reports do not measure antenna gain or pattern.
You're the one who brought up 6M, not me.
You STILL refuse understand that gain and pattern numbers for an antenna
have meaning but awards go not, which was the ENTIRE POINT of the 6M
statments.
Which topic do you want?
I haven't changed the topic at all. But you have tried to do so -
several times.
Oh, I forgot the one where you stupidly said that numbers expressed
in wavelenths were not relevant to all dipoles.
--
Jim Pennino