About Us

Jerry Stuckle · November 15th 14, 01:39 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

On 11/14/2014 4:26 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 3:55 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You ignore the fact this is an idealized environment. That is NEVER the
case in a real installation.

You ignore the fact this is modeled on an AVERAGE environment.

But you claim it is an absolute fact that an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap. This is solid proof.

I never made any such claim nor did I say "an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap".

That's true. You said is sucks. Let me quote you:

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

I posted the NUMBERS for an AVERAGE situation.

And claimed the numbers as an absolute.

If you wish to disucss "crap", then first define "crap" in numbers.

If you wish to discus "suck", then first define "suck" in numbers.

I have WAS on 75 SSB (from Iowa) with an inverted Vee. The top was only
50' in the air. And late at night in the wintertime I had pretty solid
communications over much of the continental U.S. (back in the late 70's
and early 80's).

Big whoop.

The post wasn't about how many QSL cards have been collected, it was
about antenna patterns.

And I wouldn't have gotten that coverage with an antenna that was "crap".

Again, I never said anything was "crap"; that is your word and has no
meaning until defined.

You did say "suck" for any dipole under 60' - I can pull up the post (in
another thread) if you wish - but you already denied you said it in that
thread, despite the direct quite.

Here you said it would "suck". That is YOUR word and has no meaning
until defined.

Antennas NEVER work "as predicted" - and anyone who claims they do does
not understand antenna operation.

Any prediction is as good as the model used to make the prediction.

If one can not build a model that is accurate to about two digit accuracy,
then they shouldn't be trying to build models.

Then tell my why my antenna regularly had a solid signal if it was
"crap"? And BTW - I suspect the vast majority of hams on 80 meters have
antennas much lower than your claimed 100' - yet they get out quite well.

You really do not undertand things like "optimal", do you?

You really do not understand things like "suck", to you?

And once again, I never said anything was "crap"; that is your word and
has no meaning until defined.

Not in this thread - but you did in another thread. Here you said "suck".

So much for your "crap". Theory is fine - but only as far as you can
apply it to the real world.

Most people do not have a problem with applying theory to the real
world, but apparently you do. I couldn't care less.

Yes, you really do have a problem with mixing theory and real world.

And once again, I never said anything was "crap"; that is your word and
has no meaning until defined.

Once again, you didn't say "crap" in this thread - you said "suck". But
you DID say "crap" in another thread. Do I need to paste THAT quote, also?

Until you can prove your "crap" and "suck" theories, you are full of
"crap" and your theories "suck". And don't try to quote ideal
situations. Look at the REAL WORLD.

You neglect that the vast majority of people on 80 meters (including me)
use antennas which are less than 100' above the ground - yet we work the
band quite well. And our signals are not "crap", nor do they "suck".

Now if YOU have a problem with an 80 meter antenna, that's YOUR problem.
Not the rest of the world's.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

[email protected] · November 15th 14, 03:02 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 4:26 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 3:55 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You ignore the fact this is an idealized environment. That is NEVER the
case in a real installation.

You ignore the fact this is modeled on an AVERAGE environment.

But you claim it is an absolute fact that an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap. This is solid proof.

I never made any such claim nor did I say "an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap".

That's true. You said is sucks. Let me quote you:

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

That was in response to the original poster who said his antenna sucked,
not me.

I posted the NUMBERS for an AVERAGE situation.

And claimed the numbers as an absolute.

I never made any such claim.

snip remaining repetitive puerile drivel

--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle · November 15th 14, 01:27 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

On 11/14/2014 10:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 4:26 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 3:55 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You ignore the fact this is an idealized environment. That is NEVER the
case in a real installation.

You ignore the fact this is modeled on an AVERAGE environment.

But you claim it is an absolute fact that an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap. This is solid proof.

I never made any such claim nor did I say "an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap".

That's true. You said is sucks. Let me quote you:

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

That was in response to the original poster who said his antenna sucked,
not me.

It is still your statement.

I posted the NUMBERS for an AVERAGE situation.

And claimed the numbers as an absolute.

I never made any such claim.

snip remaining repetitive puerile drivel

Your claim was that such antennas suck. Period. No qualifications.
That is the definition of an absolute.

But you're never wrong, are you? Even when presented with the facts.
You just try to weasel out of it and/or ignore other applicable comments.

Shows you for your true colors. All hot air but no understanding.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

[email protected] · November 15th 14, 05:58 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 10:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 4:26 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 3:55 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You ignore the fact this is an idealized environment. That is NEVER the
case in a real installation.

You ignore the fact this is modeled on an AVERAGE environment.

But you claim it is an absolute fact that an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap. This is solid proof.

I never made any such claim nor did I say "an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap".

That's true. You said is sucks. Let me quote you:

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

That was in response to the original poster who said his antenna sucked,
not me.

It is still your statement.

It was the posters statement and my response to that statement.

snip remaining puerile drivel

--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle · November 15th 14, 06:40 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

On 11/15/2014 12:58 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 10:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 4:26 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 3:55 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You ignore the fact this is an idealized environment. That is NEVER the
case in a real installation.

You ignore the fact this is modeled on an AVERAGE environment.

But you claim it is an absolute fact that an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap. This is solid proof.

I never made any such claim nor did I say "an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap".

That's true. You said is sucks. Let me quote you:

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

That was in response to the original poster who said his antenna sucked,
not me.

It is still your statement.

It was the posters statement and my response to that statement.

snip remaining puerile drivel

Wrong again, as the archives prove. And you can't lie your way out of it.

You can copy and paste. But you do not UNDERSTAND.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

[email protected] · November 15th 14, 06:58 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 12:40:29 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/15/2014 12:58 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 10:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 4:26 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 3:55 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You ignore the fact this is an idealized environment. That is NEVER the
case in a real installation.

You ignore the fact this is modeled on an AVERAGE environment.

But you claim it is an absolute fact that an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap. This is solid proof.

I never made any such claim nor did I say "an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap".

That's true. You said is sucks. Let me quote you:

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

That was in response to the original poster who said his antenna sucked,
not me.

It is still your statement.

It was the posters statement and my response to that statement.

snip remaining puerile drivel

Wrong again, as the archives prove. And you can't lie your way out of it.

You can copy and paste. But you do not UNDERSTAND.

So much drama, so little time... :|

Jerry Stuckle · November 15th 14, 07:01 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

On 11/15/2014 1:58 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 12:40:29 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/15/2014 12:58 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 10:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 4:26 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/14/2014 3:55 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You ignore the fact this is an idealized environment. That is NEVER the
case in a real installation.

You ignore the fact this is modeled on an AVERAGE environment.

But you claim it is an absolute fact that an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap. This is solid proof.

I never made any such claim nor did I say "an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap".

That's true. You said is sucks. Let me quote you:

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

That was in response to the original poster who said his antenna sucked,
not me.

It is still your statement.

It was the posters statement and my response to that statement.

snip remaining puerile drivel

Wrong again, as the archives prove. And you can't lie your way out of it.

You can copy and paste. But you do not UNDERSTAND.

So much drama, so little time... :|

I just don't want people to think his crap is the truth. It's far from
it.

He makes all kinds of claims - which knowledgeable people know are
false. But others might get the wrong idea.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Menu

About Us