Thread
:
Dipoles, why height matters
View Single Post
#
66
November 23rd 14, 09:10 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
[email protected]
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,898
Dipoles, why height matters
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 1:11 PM,
wrote:
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.
Yes, and in rephrasing it, you completely changed the meaning.
No, I did not change the meanging.
The bottom line is, and always has been, you went into a multipost rage
because it was implied something you did was less than perfect.
And you are still raging about it.
--
Jim Pennino
Reply With Quote
[email protected]
View Public Profile
Find all posts by
[email protected]