Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 11:21 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 9:18 PM, wrote:
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.
It is EXACTLY what you said - except for the parentheses, which I added.
The whole point of which is that you used a less than optimal antenna
for DX and then became outraged that someone dared to imply your
antenna was less than perfect.
That is NOT WHAT YOU SAID. Do I need to paste your exact words a *third
time*? Is your memory that short?
You are correct, it wasn't those exact words, but it was exactly that
rephrased.
You are simply unable to accept the fact that something you had could
have worked better, thus you rant and fume and go off on tangents.
Yes, you can copy and paste charts. But you don't UNDERSTAND them.
Where is your explanation that you have been asked for many times
now?
I'm not going to waste my time on trying to teach a pig to sing.
What means you have nothing to say about the charts other than your
antenna worked so that must be the standard to which all other antennas
should be compared.
If you actually had anything factual to say you would have said it
long ago so you could gloat in your superiority but the only thing
you seem able to say is that I don't understand what I did.
I did, and you discarded it because it disagreed with your fantasies.
You have never said ANYTHING other than your antenna worked so that
must be the standard to which all other antennas should be compared.
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.
I gave you proof that you were wrong. But you just discard it because
it violates your fantasies.
You gave proof of nothing, just ranting rage about having a WAS,
which I am beginning to doubt.
ROFLMAO! Trying to change the subject again? Just like the troll you are.
YOU are the one that keeps bringing up having a WAS as proof of how
wonderful your antenna was.
Tell me how to get WAS on 80 meters with an antenna that "sucks".
People are eager to know.
Anything that conducts, from a light bulb to a set of bed springs can
act as an antenna and some contacts can be made; I've done it with
both.
Simply because something "works" says nothing about how well it works.
You are simply unable to accept the fact that something you had could
have worked better, thus you rant and fume and go off on tangents.
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.
Oh, I understand all right. You're just a troll who keeps trying to
change the subject when met with facts that match his fantasies.
You STILL refuse understand that gain and pattern numbers for an antenna
have meaning but awards do not, which was the ENTIRE POINT of the 6M
statments.
You fail to understand the awards are, in part, a measurement of
*performance of your station*. That includes the antenna. Tell me how
to get 80 meter WAS on a light bulb. After all, you claimed it works as
an antenna!
Anything that conducts, from a light bulb to a set of bed springs can
act as an antenna and some contacts can be made; I've done it with
both.
Simply because something "works" says nothing about how well it works.
You are simply unable to accept the fact that something you had could
have worked better, thus you rant and fume and go off on tangents.
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.
I never said that. Prove where I did.
In response to Izur Kockenhan, Sun, 16 Nov 2014 06:18:04:
"He thinks the charts he copies/pastes are the last word and apply to
all dipoles."
Which does not say the numbers expressed were not relevant.
If you think the numbers are relevant, why do you continue to rant?
You are simply unable to accept the fact that something you had could
have worked better, thus you rant and fume and go off on tangents.
--
Jim Pennino