|
antenna theory made easy
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 10:21:01 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
And yes, the title is about antennas. But you're replying to messages about verticals. Nope, please learn to read. Here's your posting to which I replied: So? Even at 50 ohms, 1KW is a lot of voltage. There's no mention of vertical antennas - just a broad sweeping assertion that "1KW (sic) is a lot of voltage". BTW, is that potassium watts, Kelvin watts, or the kinetic energy in 1kW? Hint: 'K' is not the correct prefix for kilo. Now back to the subject of my original posting: IMHO, 1kW into 50 ohms is not a lot of voltage since I have more voltage than that in my house. FYI, 50 ohms is considered to be one of the lower resistances which ohm's law says results in a lower voltage that if it were a higher resistance. If 1kW is a "lot of voltage" at 50 ohms, how low must the resistance go for it not to be a "lot of voltage"? A resonant 1/4WL monopole with a good ground plane has a resonant feedpoint impedance around 35 ohms which at 1kW results in only 187 volts at the feedpoint. How anyone could consider 187 volts to be "a lot of voltage" stretches the imagination. If you really want to talk about "a lot of voltage", talk about the voltage that exists at the tip top of that 35 ohm 1/4WL monopole when only 187 volts is being applied at the base feedpoint. I get more than 10,000 volts. Now that's indeed a lot of voltage. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/27/2014 8:08 AM, W5DXP wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 10:21:01 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: And yes, the title is about antennas. But you're replying to messages about verticals. Nope, please learn to read. Here's your posting to which I replied: So? Even at 50 ohms, 1KW is a lot of voltage. There's no mention of vertical antennas - just a broad sweeping assertion that "1KW (sic) is a lot of voltage". BTW, is that potassium watts, Kelvin watts, or the kinetic energy in 1kW? Hint: 'K' is not the correct prefix for kilo. You haven't been reading, have you? Look back at what the post was referring to. Now back to the subject of my original posting: IMHO, 1kW into 50 ohms is not a lot of voltage since I have more voltage than that in my house. FYI, 50 ohms is considered to be one of the lower resistances which ohm's law says results in a lower voltage that if it were a higher resistance. It is definitely sufficient to fry someone (literally, since RF burns from the bone out). And tell the electric companies, broadcasters and the rest of the world they shouldn't use 'K' for Kilo. Or are you just trolling, also? If 1kW is a "lot of voltage" at 50 ohms, how low must the resistance go for it not to be a "lot of voltage"? You tell me. You claim to know so much, then you know the formulae. And you're the one who claims it's "not a lot of voltage". A resonant 1/4WL monopole with a good ground plane has a resonant feedpoint impedance around 35 ohms which at 1kW results in only 187 volts at the feedpoint. How anyone could consider 187 volts to be "a lot of voltage" stretches the imagination. Gee, 117V is quite enough to electrocute someone. But I guess that's "not a lot of voltage", either. If you really want to talk about "a lot of voltage", talk about the voltage that exists at the tip top of that 35 ohm 1/4WL monopole when only 187 volts is being applied at the base feedpoint. I get more than 10,000 volts. Now that's indeed a lot of voltage. Who cares about the voltage at the top of a 20 meter tower? It's out of reach, anyway. But that's all immaterial, since when you're at the top of that tower, you're isolated from any ground potential. Have you ever climbed a live base-fed AM broadcast tower? I have, when I was young and did tower work for a living. It was only a 5KW station, but even when I was at the top I didn't feel anything. You still didn't tell me if you were over 90 years old or not. So much about your diaper claim! And BTW - I might still have my old Ramo and Whinnery's "Fields and Waves in Communication Electronics". I hope so, anyway. It was a first edition, fresh off the press. Even though I marked it up a bit, I'll bet it's worth something now. And BTW - your sig separator is broken. It should be *exactly* hyphen-hyphen-space-newline. You are missing the required space. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
antenna theory made easy
On Monday, January 27, 2014 7:50:56 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Or are you just trolling, also? Jerry, you are probably the only person who didn't comprehend that I've been pulling your leg by treating you as shabbily as you treat others.:) -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
antenna theory made easy
"W5DXP" wrote in message ... A resonant 1/4WL monopole with a good ground plane has a resonant feedpoint impedance around 35 ohms which at 1kW results in only 187 volts at the feedpoint. How anyone could consider 187 volts to be "a lot of voltage" stretches the imagination. If you really want to talk about "a lot of voltage", talk about the voltage that exists at the tip top of that 35 ohm 1/4WL monopole when only 187 volts is being applied at the base feedpoint. I get more than 10,000 volts. Now that's indeed a lot of voltage. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com I am not sure what a lot of voltage is. There are many differant voltages called high voltage. Some statt at 600 volts and some at 35,000 volts. I think that any voltage that can cause heart problems or that you can not hold on to without feeling a shock would be a lot of voltage. The antenna you mentioned at 'only 187' volts would seem to me to be a lot of voltage in the case of a dog peeing on an antenna. Sick you finger in a light socket and see how long you can hold it there at 'only 120' volts. Bet you say that is a lot of voltage. As we all know it is not the voltage,but the current that causes problems. Therefor in the above I will assume the voltage source has several amps of current avaliable. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/27/2014 9:32 AM, W5DXP wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 7:50:56 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Or are you just trolling, also? Jerry, you are probably the only person who didn't comprehend that I've been pulling your leg by treating you as shabbily as you treat others.:) -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com I treat respectful people with respect. I treat trolls like they deserve. You're just trolling - and now trying to squirm out of it. Plus you obviously can't read. At least i stay on topic. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
antenna theory made easy
On Monday, January 27, 2014 9:32:02 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
You're just trolling - and now trying to squirm out of it. I'm not trying to squirm out of it and freely admit that I was mimicking and mirroring your immature, abrasive posting style right back at you. If you want to call that trolling, feel free, but that's your normal style, not mine. Plus you obviously can't read. At least i stay on topic. Again, the topic was and is: "antenna theory made easy". Exactly how are you going to bully everyone into discussing nothing but what you dictate should be discussed? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
antenna theory made easy
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:32:02 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote: I treat respectful people with respect. I treat trolls like they deserve. Please name one person in this discussion who believes that you have treated them with respect. You're just trolling - and now trying to squirm out of it. Please name one person in this discussion whom you haven't accused of trolling. Extra credit for naming someone with whom you had previously agreed with their point of view. Plus you obviously can't read. At least i stay on topic. Good point. Have any of your comments benefited Irv (VE6BP) in any way that would help him built a proper antenna for his limited available space? As an added incentive, if you can name ANY one of these people, I promise to stop asking you for the maker and model number of your professional only F-connector. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/27/2014 3:51 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 9:32:02 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You're just trolling - and now trying to squirm out of it. I'm not trying to squirm out of it and freely admit that I was mimicking and mirroring your immature, abrasive posting style right back at you. If you want to call that trolling, feel free, but that's your normal style, not mine. Plus you obviously can't read. At least i stay on topic. Again, the topic was and is: "antenna theory made easy". Exactly how are you going to bully everyone into discussing nothing but what you dictate should be discussed? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com No, this part of the thread was about verticals. But you can't seem to understand that. Not surprising. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/27/2014 4:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:32:02 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: I treat respectful people with respect. I treat trolls like they deserve. Please name one person in this discussion who believes that you have treated them with respect. The OP, for one. You're just trolling - and now trying to squirm out of it. Please name one person in this discussion whom you haven't accused of trolling. Extra credit for naming someone with whom you had previously agreed with their point of view. The OP, for one. Plus you obviously can't read. At least i stay on topic. Good point. Have any of your comments benefited Irv (VE6BP) in any way that would help him built a proper antenna for his limited available space? Right after he posted I commented on it. But I guess you can't read that, either. As an added incentive, if you can name ANY one of these people, I promise to stop asking you for the maker and model number of your professional only F-connector. I don't go out of my way for trolls. And you obviously are the worst I've seen her. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
antenna theory made easy
On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:54:28 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
No, this part of the thread was about verticals. You don't seem to be capable of comprehending that "antenna theory made easy" is NOT only about verticals. I wasn't engaging in "this" part about verticals. I was engaging in "that" part of the thread that was about the feedpoint voltage of antennas in general. Are you actually trying to bully your way into control of the content of threads on an unmoderated newsgroup? Many have tried but none have succeeded. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/27/2014 7:19 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:54:28 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: No, this part of the thread was about verticals. You didn't read very well then. You don't seem to be capable of comprehending that "antenna theory made easy" is NOT only about verticals. I wasn't engaging in "this" part about verticals. I was engaging in "that" part of the thread that was about the feedpoint voltage of antennas in general. I comprehend a lot more than you do, obviously. But that's because I read the ENTIRE thread. Not just the subject line. Are you actually trying to bully your way into control of the content of threads on an unmoderated newsgroup? Many have tried but none have succeeded. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com I treat trolls like they deserve to be treated. You have three choices: 1. Ignore my posts and I will ignore you. 2. Treat trolls like they deserve and be deserved with respect by others. 3. Act like a troll and be treated like a troll. I see you picked #3. I'll remember that, troll. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
antenna theory made easy
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:56:15 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote: On 1/27/2014 4:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:32:02 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: I treat respectful people with respect. I treat trolls like they deserve. Please name one person in this discussion who believes that you have treated them with respect. The OP, for one. This was your one and only direct reply to Irv on the subject of his antenna problem: https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.radio.amateur.antenna/mR9yIliLft4/M6UDUlNZG-sJ I hate to admit it, but you did respond respectfully. The information you supplied was nearly useless, but you were respectful. As promised, I will not bother you again about the mystery F-connectors. Please name one person in this discussion whom you haven't accused of trolling. Extra credit for naming someone with whom you had previously agreed with their point of view. The OP, for one. Also true. However you weren't discussing anything with him. You simply offered your sage advice, which due to the lack of a direct response from the OP, I presume that he ignored. Good point. Have any of your comments benefited Irv (VE6BP) in any way that would help him built a proper antenna for his limited available space? Right after he posted I commented on it. But I guess you can't read that, either. Please re-read your own comments in the URL above. I would say that you failed to address any of his questions with anything more than your opinion. No references, no explanations, no examples, no hints, no experience, no useful information. "Put it up and see what happens" is not a very useful answer. As an added incentive, if you can name ANY one of these people, I promise to stop asking you for the maker and model number of your professional only F-connector. I don't go out of my way for trolls. Please don't strain yourself on my behalf. I wouldn't want to feel guilty for your premature demise from the exertion. And you obviously are the worst I've seen here. Nope. I'm just more persistent than most people. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/27/2014 8:22 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:56:15 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/27/2014 4:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:32:02 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: I treat respectful people with respect. I treat trolls like they deserve. Please name one person in this discussion who believes that you have treated them with respect. The OP, for one. This was your one and only direct reply to Irv on the subject of his antenna problem: https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.radio.amateur.antenna/mR9yIliLft4/M6UDUlNZG-sJ I hate to admit it, but you did respond respectfully. The information you supplied was nearly useless, but you were respectful. As promised, I will not bother you again about the mystery F-connectors. Yup, I respond respectfully to those who deserve respect. I respond to trolls like they deserve. Please name one person in this discussion whom you haven't accused of trolling. Extra credit for naming someone with whom you had previously agreed with their point of view. The OP, for one. Also true. However you weren't discussing anything with him. You simply offered your sage advice, which due to the lack of a direct response from the OP, I presume that he ignored. I left it open for other questions. Just because he didn't respond directly doesn't mean he ignored it. But a troll needs a response to tell him his message was read. The rest of us don't have such ego problems. Good point. Have any of your comments benefited Irv (VE6BP) in any way that would help him built a proper antenna for his limited available space? Right after he posted I commented on it. But I guess you can't read that, either. Please re-read your own comments in the URL above. I would say that you failed to address any of his questions with anything more than your opinion. No references, no explanations, no examples, no hints, no experience, no useful information. "Put it up and see what happens" is not a very useful answer. I addressed his problem, not his questions. Whether it was to YOUR liking is immaterial to me. I don't give a damn what trolls think. As an added incentive, if you can name ANY one of these people, I promise to stop asking you for the maker and model number of your professional only F-connector. I don't go out of my way for trolls. Please don't strain yourself on my behalf. I wouldn't want to feel guilty for your premature demise from the exertion. Don't worry. I won't. And you obviously are the worst I've seen here. Nope. I'm just more persistent than most people. You are even worse than gareth. And that's pretty bad. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
antenna theory made easy
On Monday, January 27, 2014 7:18:41 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I see you picked #3. Actually, none of the above. Your bullying style and ad hominem attacks caught my attention. My entire purpose in responding was to emulate your style of postings in order to give you something you needed - a good look at yourself in the mirror. So ask yourself - exactly what does it mean that you are objecting so loudly to postings that are a carbon copy of your own postings? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/28/2014 12:55 AM, W5DXP wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 7:18:41 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: I see you picked #3. Actually, none of the above. Your bullying style and ad hominem attacks caught my attention. My entire purpose in responding was to emulate your style of postings in order to give you something you needed - a good look at yourself in the mirror. So ask yourself - exactly what does it mean that you are objecting so loudly to postings that are a carbon copy of your own postings? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com You picked #3. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
antenna theory made easy
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:30:42 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
You picked #3. What say we return to the topic of "antenna theory made easy" and vow to cease and desist with the ad hominem attacks that destroy one's credibility? |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/28/2014 9:19 AM, W5DXP wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:30:42 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You picked #3. What say we return to the topic of "antenna theory made easy" and vow to cease and desist with the ad hominem attacks that destroy one's credibility? You don't need my permission to stop trolling. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
antenna theory made easy
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
You don't need my permission to stop trolling. If it was a troll, it was for a good cause. Just consider yourself to have been Elmered in reasonable, ethical behavior. The rest is up to you. |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/28/2014 1:55 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You don't need my permission to stop trolling. If it was a troll, it was for a good cause. Just consider yourself to have been Elmered in reasonable, ethical behavior. The rest is up to you. Trolls always think they're in the right. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
antenna theory made easy
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/28/2014 1:55 PM, W5DXP wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You don't need my permission to stop trolling. If it was a troll, it was for a good cause. Just consider yourself to have been Elmered in reasonable, ethical behavior. The rest is up to you. Trolls always think they're in the right. Pot, kettle, black. -- Jim Pennino |
antenna theory made easy
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/28/2014 2:35 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 1:55 PM, W5DXP wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You don't need my permission to stop trolling. If it was a troll, it was for a good cause. Just consider yourself to have been Elmered in reasonable, ethical behavior. The rest is up to you. Trolls always think they're in the right. Pot, kettle, black. Ah, yes, another well-known troll (in multiple newsgroups) has to have his say. Have you EVER added ANYTHING positive to a usenet conversation? In ANY newsgroup? I didn't think so. Yes, I positively believe you are an argumentative crumongeon. And FYI I know for a fact several of the people you have been calling uneducated and refuse to get off your high horse and have an actual discussion do have BSEE degrees. -- Jim Pennino |
antenna theory made easy
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:26:34 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Trolls always think they're in the right. You can lead a horse to ethical waters, but you can't make him drink. I'm kinda glad now that I turned down the job of managing the r.r.a newsgroups. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/28/2014 3:31 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:26:34 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Trolls always think they're in the right. You can lead a horse to ethical waters, but you can't make him drink. I'm kinda glad now that I turned down the job of managing the r.r.a newsgroups. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Hi, Cecil (and Jeff and jimp) - This will be my only post here because I expect some of the same treatment that AI0K (AKA Jerry Suckle) has been luring you guys into. You must know that he is the troll here. His only aim is to get you into a dialogue that suits his warped mind. If you want to get rid of him, the best advice (not just from me) is to ignore him. He will eventually evaporate. He has nothing of value to add to this or any other group of which I am aware. Cheers to to the normal group, John S |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/28/2014 4:29 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 2:35 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 1:55 PM, W5DXP wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You don't need my permission to stop trolling. If it was a troll, it was for a good cause. Just consider yourself to have been Elmered in reasonable, ethical behavior. The rest is up to you. Trolls always think they're in the right. Pot, kettle, black. Ah, yes, another well-known troll (in multiple newsgroups) has to have his say. Have you EVER added ANYTHING positive to a usenet conversation? In ANY newsgroup? I didn't think so. Yes, I positively believe you are an argumentative crumongeon. And FYI I know for a fact several of the people you have been calling uneducated and refuse to get off your high horse and have an actual discussion do have BSEE degrees. And you never answered my question - because you NEVER have added anything positive to ANY usenet conversation. And I have yet to see anyone who has claimed they have a BSEE degree. Please show me where they said that. Otherwise, you're just trolling - as you always do. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/28/2014 4:44 PM, John S wrote:
On 1/28/2014 3:31 PM, W5DXP wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:26:34 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Trolls always think they're in the right. You can lead a horse to ethical waters, but you can't make him drink. I'm kinda glad now that I turned down the job of managing the r.r.a newsgroups. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Hi, Cecil (and Jeff and jimp) - This will be my only post here because I expect some of the same treatment that AI0K (AKA Jerry Suckle) has been luring you guys into. You must know that he is the troll here. His only aim is to get you into a dialogue that suits his warped mind. If you want to get rid of him, the best advice (not just from me) is to ignore him. He will eventually evaporate. He has nothing of value to add to this or any other group of which I am aware. Cheers to to the normal group, John S ROFLMAO! Look who started it. Jeff, to start. And he was followed by W5DXP. I just treat trolls the way they deserve to be treated. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/28/2014 4:44 PM, John S wrote:
On 1/28/2014 3:31 PM, W5DXP wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:26:34 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: Trolls always think they're in the right. You can lead a horse to ethical waters, but you can't make him drink. I'm kinda glad now that I turned down the job of managing the r.r.a newsgroups. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Hi, Cecil (and Jeff and jimp) - This will be my only post here because I expect some of the same treatment that AI0K (AKA Jerry Suckle) has been luring you guys into. You must know that he is the troll here. His only aim is to get you into a dialogue that suits his warped mind. If you want to get rid of him, the best advice (not just from me) is to ignore him. He will eventually evaporate. He has nothing of value to add to this or any other group of which I am aware. Cheers to to the normal group, John S Oh, and BTW - I haven't been called that since third grade. Shows just how mature YOU are. ROFLMAO! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
antenna theory made easy
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/28/2014 4:29 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 2:35 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 1:55 PM, W5DXP wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You don't need my permission to stop trolling. If it was a troll, it was for a good cause. Just consider yourself to have been Elmered in reasonable, ethical behavior. The rest is up to you. Trolls always think they're in the right. Pot, kettle, black. Ah, yes, another well-known troll (in multiple newsgroups) has to have his say. Have you EVER added ANYTHING positive to a usenet conversation? In ANY newsgroup? I didn't think so. Yes, I positively believe you are an argumentative crumongeon. And FYI I know for a fact several of the people you have been calling uneducated and refuse to get off your high horse and have an actual discussion do have BSEE degrees. And you never answered my question - because you NEVER have added anything positive to ANY usenet conversation. And I have yet to see anyone who has claimed they have a BSEE degree. Please show me where they said that. No one said it anywhere in recent posts, but obviously I have been reading these groups a LOT longer than you have. -- Jim Pennino |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/28/2014 9:17 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 4:29 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 2:35 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 1:55 PM, W5DXP wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You don't need my permission to stop trolling. If it was a troll, it was for a good cause. Just consider yourself to have been Elmered in reasonable, ethical behavior. The rest is up to you. Trolls always think they're in the right. Pot, kettle, black. Ah, yes, another well-known troll (in multiple newsgroups) has to have his say. Have you EVER added ANYTHING positive to a usenet conversation? In ANY newsgroup? I didn't think so. Yes, I positively believe you are an argumentative crumongeon. And FYI I know for a fact several of the people you have been calling uneducated and refuse to get off your high horse and have an actual discussion do have BSEE degrees. And you never answered my question - because you NEVER have added anything positive to ANY usenet conversation. And I have yet to see anyone who has claimed they have a BSEE degree. Please show me where they said that. No one said it anywhere in recent posts, but obviously I have been reading these groups a LOT longer than you have. How can that be when you've shown you can't read? FYI, I've probably been reading these newsgroups a LOT longer than you. I quit a few years ago because of trolls like you. Have you been reading them since the 1970's? They were around even back then when it was known as arpanet. And back then we didn't have trolls. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
antenna theory made easy
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/28/2014 9:17 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 4:29 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 2:35 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 1:55 PM, W5DXP wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You don't need my permission to stop trolling. If it was a troll, it was for a good cause. Just consider yourself to have been Elmered in reasonable, ethical behavior. The rest is up to you. Trolls always think they're in the right. Pot, kettle, black. Ah, yes, another well-known troll (in multiple newsgroups) has to have his say. Have you EVER added ANYTHING positive to a usenet conversation? In ANY newsgroup? I didn't think so. Yes, I positively believe you are an argumentative crumongeon. And FYI I know for a fact several of the people you have been calling uneducated and refuse to get off your high horse and have an actual discussion do have BSEE degrees. And you never answered my question - because you NEVER have added anything positive to ANY usenet conversation. And I have yet to see anyone who has claimed they have a BSEE degree. Please show me where they said that. No one said it anywhere in recent posts, but obviously I have been reading these groups a LOT longer than you have. How can that be when you've shown you can't read? FYI, I've probably been reading these newsgroups a LOT longer than you. I quit a few years ago because of trolls like you. Please feel free to quit again. Have you been reading them since the 1970's? They were around even back then when it was known as arpanet. And back then we didn't have trolls. Yes, I have been and when I started reading them there was no arpanet. And back then argumentative crumongeons like you would have had their UUNET node blacklisted as wasting bandwidth. -- Jim Pennino |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/28/2014 9:57 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 9:17 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 4:29 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 2:35 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 1:55 PM, W5DXP wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You don't need my permission to stop trolling. If it was a troll, it was for a good cause. Just consider yourself to have been Elmered in reasonable, ethical behavior. The rest is up to you. Trolls always think they're in the right. Pot, kettle, black. Ah, yes, another well-known troll (in multiple newsgroups) has to have his say. Have you EVER added ANYTHING positive to a usenet conversation? In ANY newsgroup? I didn't think so. Yes, I positively believe you are an argumentative crumongeon. And FYI I know for a fact several of the people you have been calling uneducated and refuse to get off your high horse and have an actual discussion do have BSEE degrees. And you never answered my question - because you NEVER have added anything positive to ANY usenet conversation. And I have yet to see anyone who has claimed they have a BSEE degree. Please show me where they said that. No one said it anywhere in recent posts, but obviously I have been reading these groups a LOT longer than you have. How can that be when you've shown you can't read? FYI, I've probably been reading these newsgroups a LOT longer than you. I quit a few years ago because of trolls like you. Please feel free to quit again. Have you been reading them since the 1970's? They were around even back then when it was known as arpanet. And back then we didn't have trolls. Yes, I have been and when I started reading them there was no arpanet. And back then argumentative crumongeons like you would have had their UUNET node blacklisted as wasting bandwidth. ROFLMAO! Before Arpanet, there was NOTHING. Usenet didn't exist! It functioned over Arpanet. Caught you in another lie. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
antenna theory made easy
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/28/2014 9:57 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 9:17 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 4:29 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 2:35 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 1:55 PM, W5DXP wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You don't need my permission to stop trolling. If it was a troll, it was for a good cause. Just consider yourself to have been Elmered in reasonable, ethical behavior. The rest is up to you. Trolls always think they're in the right. Pot, kettle, black. Ah, yes, another well-known troll (in multiple newsgroups) has to have his say. Have you EVER added ANYTHING positive to a usenet conversation? In ANY newsgroup? I didn't think so. Yes, I positively believe you are an argumentative crumongeon. And FYI I know for a fact several of the people you have been calling uneducated and refuse to get off your high horse and have an actual discussion do have BSEE degrees. And you never answered my question - because you NEVER have added anything positive to ANY usenet conversation. And I have yet to see anyone who has claimed they have a BSEE degree. Please show me where they said that. No one said it anywhere in recent posts, but obviously I have been reading these groups a LOT longer than you have. How can that be when you've shown you can't read? FYI, I've probably been reading these newsgroups a LOT longer than you. I quit a few years ago because of trolls like you. Please feel free to quit again. Have you been reading them since the 1970's? They were around even back then when it was known as arpanet. And back then we didn't have trolls. Yes, I have been and when I started reading them there was no arpanet. And back then argumentative crumongeons like you would have had their UUNET node blacklisted as wasting bandwidth. ROFLMAO! Before Arpanet, there was NOTHING. Usenet didn't exist! It functioned over Arpanet. Caught you in another lie. Sorry, wrong answer Mr Expert At Everything. USENET news was originally distributed via UUCP and dial up modems. The first USENET connection to the ARPANET was through UC Berkley in 1980. It wasn't until the late 80's that USENET started to migrate away from UUCP and modems to NNTP and network links. FWIW, I was a UUCP leaf node in the early 80's. -- Jim Pennino |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/28/2014 11:32 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 9:57 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 9:17 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 4:29 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 2:35 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 1:55 PM, W5DXP wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You don't need my permission to stop trolling. If it was a troll, it was for a good cause. Just consider yourself to have been Elmered in reasonable, ethical behavior. The rest is up to you. Trolls always think they're in the right. Pot, kettle, black. Ah, yes, another well-known troll (in multiple newsgroups) has to have his say. Have you EVER added ANYTHING positive to a usenet conversation? In ANY newsgroup? I didn't think so. Yes, I positively believe you are an argumentative crumongeon. And FYI I know for a fact several of the people you have been calling uneducated and refuse to get off your high horse and have an actual discussion do have BSEE degrees. And you never answered my question - because you NEVER have added anything positive to ANY usenet conversation. And I have yet to see anyone who has claimed they have a BSEE degree. Please show me where they said that. No one said it anywhere in recent posts, but obviously I have been reading these groups a LOT longer than you have. How can that be when you've shown you can't read? FYI, I've probably been reading these newsgroups a LOT longer than you. I quit a few years ago because of trolls like you. Please feel free to quit again. Have you been reading them since the 1970's? They were around even back then when it was known as arpanet. And back then we didn't have trolls. Yes, I have been and when I started reading them there was no arpanet. And back then argumentative crumongeons like you would have had their UUNET node blacklisted as wasting bandwidth. ROFLMAO! Before Arpanet, there was NOTHING. Usenet didn't exist! It functioned over Arpanet. Caught you in another lie. Sorry, wrong answer Mr Expert At Everything. USENET news was originally distributed via UUCP and dial up modems. The first USENET connection to the ARPANET was through UC Berkley in 1980. It wasn't until the late 80's that USENET started to migrate away from UUCP and modems to NNTP and network links. FWIW, I was a UUCP leaf node in the early 80's. Wrong answer. Usenet was started under ARPANET in the early to mid 70's. Before that ARPANET was used mainly for email and ftp. The email evolved into email lists, but something more was needed, which lead to the forerunners of NNTP servers. These were very basic; really not much more than an open email reader. No threading, for instance. But it served its purpose in that it allowed people to post a message and have it retrieved. Later came some niceties such as threading. You may have accessed it via a modem, but those of us who were on ARPANET had direct access to it. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
antenna theory made easy
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/28/2014 11:32 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 9:57 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 9:17 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 4:29 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 2:35 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 1:55 PM, W5DXP wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You don't need my permission to stop trolling. If it was a troll, it was for a good cause. Just consider yourself to have been Elmered in reasonable, ethical behavior. The rest is up to you. Trolls always think they're in the right. Pot, kettle, black. Ah, yes, another well-known troll (in multiple newsgroups) has to have his say. Have you EVER added ANYTHING positive to a usenet conversation? In ANY newsgroup? I didn't think so. Yes, I positively believe you are an argumentative crumongeon. And FYI I know for a fact several of the people you have been calling uneducated and refuse to get off your high horse and have an actual discussion do have BSEE degrees. And you never answered my question - because you NEVER have added anything positive to ANY usenet conversation. And I have yet to see anyone who has claimed they have a BSEE degree. Please show me where they said that. No one said it anywhere in recent posts, but obviously I have been reading these groups a LOT longer than you have. How can that be when you've shown you can't read? FYI, I've probably been reading these newsgroups a LOT longer than you. I quit a few years ago because of trolls like you. Please feel free to quit again. Have you been reading them since the 1970's? They were around even back then when it was known as arpanet. And back then we didn't have trolls. Yes, I have been and when I started reading them there was no arpanet. And back then argumentative crumongeons like you would have had their UUNET node blacklisted as wasting bandwidth. ROFLMAO! Before Arpanet, there was NOTHING. Usenet didn't exist! It functioned over Arpanet. Caught you in another lie. Sorry, wrong answer Mr Expert At Everything. USENET news was originally distributed via UUCP and dial up modems. The first USENET connection to the ARPANET was through UC Berkley in 1980. It wasn't until the late 80's that USENET started to migrate away from UUCP and modems to NNTP and network links. FWIW, I was a UUCP leaf node in the early 80's. Wrong answer. Usenet was started under ARPANET in the early to mid 70's. Before that ARPANET was used mainly for email and ftp. The email evolved into email lists, but something more was needed, which lead to the forerunners of NNTP servers. You have that exactly backward. USENET started on dial up modem and as I said the first "network" connection was through UC Berkley which had both. It took almost a decade for USENET to transition to primarily network feeds. These were very basic; really not much more than an open email reader. No threading, for instance. But it served its purpose in that it allowed people to post a message and have it retrieved. Later came some niceties such as threading. Pure babble. You may have accessed it via a modem, but those of us who were on ARPANET had direct access to it. Yeah, after USENET had been around for years and years. -- Jim Pennino |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/29/2014 11:05 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 11:32 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 9:57 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 9:17 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 4:29 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 2:35 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/28/2014 1:55 PM, W5DXP wrote: On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: You don't need my permission to stop trolling. If it was a troll, it was for a good cause. Just consider yourself to have been Elmered in reasonable, ethical behavior. The rest is up to you. Trolls always think they're in the right. Pot, kettle, black. Ah, yes, another well-known troll (in multiple newsgroups) has to have his say. Have you EVER added ANYTHING positive to a usenet conversation? In ANY newsgroup? I didn't think so. Yes, I positively believe you are an argumentative crumongeon. And FYI I know for a fact several of the people you have been calling uneducated and refuse to get off your high horse and have an actual discussion do have BSEE degrees. And you never answered my question - because you NEVER have added anything positive to ANY usenet conversation. And I have yet to see anyone who has claimed they have a BSEE degree. Please show me where they said that. No one said it anywhere in recent posts, but obviously I have been reading these groups a LOT longer than you have. How can that be when you've shown you can't read? FYI, I've probably been reading these newsgroups a LOT longer than you. I quit a few years ago because of trolls like you. Please feel free to quit again. Have you been reading them since the 1970's? They were around even back then when it was known as arpanet. And back then we didn't have trolls. Yes, I have been and when I started reading them there was no arpanet. And back then argumentative crumongeons like you would have had their UUNET node blacklisted as wasting bandwidth. ROFLMAO! Before Arpanet, there was NOTHING. Usenet didn't exist! It functioned over Arpanet. Caught you in another lie. Sorry, wrong answer Mr Expert At Everything. USENET news was originally distributed via UUCP and dial up modems. The first USENET connection to the ARPANET was through UC Berkley in 1980. It wasn't until the late 80's that USENET started to migrate away from UUCP and modems to NNTP and network links. FWIW, I was a UUCP leaf node in the early 80's. Wrong answer. Usenet was started under ARPANET in the early to mid 70's. Before that ARPANET was used mainly for email and ftp. The email evolved into email lists, but something more was needed, which lead to the forerunners of NNTP servers. You have that exactly backward. USENET started on dial up modem and as I said the first "network" connection was through UC Berkley which had both. It took almost a decade for USENET to transition to primarily network feeds. These were very basic; really not much more than an open email reader. No threading, for instance. But it served its purpose in that it allowed people to post a message and have it retrieved. Later came some niceties such as threading. Pure babble. You may have accessed it via a modem, but those of us who were on ARPANET had direct access to it. Yeah, after USENET had been around for years and years. You have no idea what you are talking about. Usenet hadn't "been around for years and years" like you claim. Where's your proof? But then trolls will claim anything, even without proof. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
antenna theory made easy
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip You have no idea what you are talking about. Usenet hadn't "been around for years and years" like you claim. Where's your proof? "Usenet is a worldwide distributed Internet discussion system. It was developed from the general purpose UUCP dial-up network architecture." "Usenet is one of the oldest computer network communications systems still in widespread use." "It was originally built on the "poor man's ARPANET," employing UUCP as its transport protocol to offer mail and file transfers, as well as announcements through the newly developed news software such as A News." "Usenet was connected to ARPANET through UC Berkeley which had connections to both Usenet and ARPANET." "By 1983, the number of UUCP hosts had grown to 550, nearly doubling to 940 in 1984." "Since the Internet boom of the 1990s, almost all Usenet distribution is over NNTP." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet Or you can find the same thing at: http://www.tldp.org/LDP/nag/node256.html http://www.giganews.com/usenet-history/origins.html Among other places. But then trolls will claim anything, even without proof. Self declared experts at everything hate it when it is pointed out to them they are wrong. -- Jim Pennino |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/29/2014 11:48 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip You have no idea what you are talking about. Usenet hadn't "been around for years and years" like you claim. Where's your proof? "Usenet is a worldwide distributed Internet discussion system. It was developed from the general purpose UUCP dial-up network architecture." "Usenet is one of the oldest computer network communications systems still in widespread use." "It was originally built on the "poor man's ARPANET," employing UUCP as its transport protocol to offer mail and file transfers, as well as announcements through the newly developed news software such as A News." "Usenet was connected to ARPANET through UC Berkeley which had connections to both Usenet and ARPANET." "By 1983, the number of UUCP hosts had grown to 550, nearly doubling to 940 in 1984." "Since the Internet boom of the 1990s, almost all Usenet distribution is over NNTP." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet Or you can find the same thing at: http://www.tldp.org/LDP/nag/node256.html http://www.giganews.com/usenet-history/origins.html Among other places. Gee, you can cut and paste. But none of these references discuss anything about the programs on ARPANET which led these programs. And the Berkley link to ARPANET occurred very early and is what made Usenet viable. Many of those using earlier versions started their own NNTP servers (before NNTP there was no real standardization - mainly email and telnet). Usenet didn't just appear out of nowhere, although the articles seem to indicate it did. It was the result of several years of experimentation by people all over the country (and to a limited extent, around the world). But then trolls will claim anything, even without proof. Self declared experts at everything hate it when it is pointed out to them they are wrong. Yea, you really do hate being shown you are wrong. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
antenna theory made easy
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/29/2014 11:48 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip You have no idea what you are talking about. Usenet hadn't "been around for years and years" like you claim. Where's your proof? "Usenet is a worldwide distributed Internet discussion system. It was developed from the general purpose UUCP dial-up network architecture." "Usenet is one of the oldest computer network communications systems still in widespread use." "It was originally built on the "poor man's ARPANET," employing UUCP as its transport protocol to offer mail and file transfers, as well as announcements through the newly developed news software such as A News." "Usenet was connected to ARPANET through UC Berkeley which had connections to both Usenet and ARPANET." "By 1983, the number of UUCP hosts had grown to 550, nearly doubling to 940 in 1984." "Since the Internet boom of the 1990s, almost all Usenet distribution is over NNTP." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet Or you can find the same thing at: http://www.tldp.org/LDP/nag/node256.html http://www.giganews.com/usenet-history/origins.html Among other places. Gee, you can cut and paste. But none of these references discuss anything about the programs on ARPANET which led these programs. That is because USENET preceded ARPANET, you babbling fool. And the Berkley link to ARPANET occurred very early and is what made Usenet viable. Many of those using earlier versions started their own NNTP servers (before NNTP there was no real standardization - mainly email and telnet). No, it did not as very few systems were or could be connected to ARPANET at that time. The vast majority of sites passing USENET were modem connected until the late 80's by which time there was no ARPANET. Usenet didn't just appear out of nowhere, although the articles seem to indicate it did. It was the result of several years of experimentation by people all over the country (and to a limited extent, around the world). True, but irrelevant to how traffic was carried. Traffic was UUCP over modem connections because that was all that was available and affordable to most sites until the Internet boom. But then trolls will claim anything, even without proof. Self declared experts at everything hate it when it is pointed out to them they are wrong. Yea, you really do hate being shown you are wrong. What a laugh you are struggling to maintain your superiority to othere. -- Jim Pennino |
antenna theory made easy
On 1/29/2014 3:15 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 1/29/2014 11:48 AM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip You have no idea what you are talking about. Usenet hadn't "been around for years and years" like you claim. Where's your proof? "Usenet is a worldwide distributed Internet discussion system. It was developed from the general purpose UUCP dial-up network architecture." "Usenet is one of the oldest computer network communications systems still in widespread use." "It was originally built on the "poor man's ARPANET," employing UUCP as its transport protocol to offer mail and file transfers, as well as announcements through the newly developed news software such as A News." "Usenet was connected to ARPANET through UC Berkeley which had connections to both Usenet and ARPANET." "By 1983, the number of UUCP hosts had grown to 550, nearly doubling to 940 in 1984." "Since the Internet boom of the 1990s, almost all Usenet distribution is over NNTP." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet Or you can find the same thing at: http://www.tldp.org/LDP/nag/node256.html http://www.giganews.com/usenet-history/origins.html Among other places. Gee, you can cut and paste. But none of these references discuss anything about the programs on ARPANET which led these programs. That is because USENET preceded ARPANET, you babbling fool. You have no idea. ARPANET started in the 60's. And the Berkley link to ARPANET occurred very early and is what made Usenet viable. Many of those using earlier versions started their own NNTP servers (before NNTP there was no real standardization - mainly email and telnet). No, it did not as very few systems were or could be connected to ARPANET at that time. The vast majority of sites passing USENET were modem connected until the late 80's by which time there was no ARPANET. Yes, the link to ARPANET is what made Usenet useful. Before that, it was just a few, mostly single-user, systems using slow modems (i.e. 300 baud) that connected to another system. This usually occurred in the middle of the night, and one system would only call one or two others due to the long distance rates. Not many people used it because it could take days for a message to go from one end of the system to another, depending on the direction of travel (generally faster east to west). And unless you had a node in your town (not too many of them), it was a long distance call. Once Berkeley linked it into ARPANET (which was almost as fast as today's internet - while link speeds were slower, traffic was also lower), updates on ARPANET servers were much faster, and Usenet took off. By the late 80's, pretty much everything had moved to the Internet, with some people providing modem links. Usenet didn't just appear out of nowhere, although the articles seem to indicate it did. It was the result of several years of experimentation by people all over the country (and to a limited extent, around the world). True, but irrelevant to how traffic was carried. Traffic was UUCP over modem connections because that was all that was available and affordable to most sites until the Internet boom. Irrelevant because it doesn't conform to your story? I think not. It is QUITE relevant; without that history, usenet as we know it would not have occurred. We might have *something* - but probably not *this*. Maybe that would have been a good thing - then trolls like you could be banned. But then trolls will claim anything, even without proof. Self declared experts at everything hate it when it is pointed out to them they are wrong. Yea, you really do hate being shown you are wrong. What a laugh you are struggling to maintain your superiority to othere. Unlike you, I don't care if people think I am superior or not. All I care about is setting the record straight. You seem to be the one always bringing up superiority issues. But then trolls always try to pin their problems on others. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
antenna theory made easy
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip You seem to be the one always bringing up superiority issues. But then trolls always try to pin their problems on others. The only "problem" I have is big mouthed, self appointed experts in everything such as yourself. -- Jim Pennino |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com