| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
November 15th 14, 06:58 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
It is a truism
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... :| |
|
#3
November 15th 14, 07:01 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is a truism
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 ================== |
|
#4
November 15th 14, 07:07 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is a truism
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 1:01:20 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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. Yet, when I do the same with the one who's name shalt not be mentioned, I'm a drama queen.. :/ |
|
#5
November 17th 14, 01:47 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is a truism
El 15-11-14 20:01, Jerry Stuckle escribió:
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 wrote: On 11/14/2014 10:02 PM, wrote: Jerry wrote: On 11/14/2014 4:26 PM, wrote: Jerry wrote: On 11/14/2014 3:55 PM, wrote: Jerry 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. It is not just a matter of little drama. There is a subject named "a short 160m antenna - loading and hats". Simulation results were presented for a 0.029lambda long radiator over REAL ground. The only reason I gave a reaction was to avoid that other people might get a wrong idea. The statements on the loading coil are very likely valid, but the gain figures are far from reality considering the conditions stated. Other issue was radiation from a rotating permament magnet. Some people act in a way that is far from constructive, misleading, or even insulting. The misleading reactions may give less instructed readers a wrong idea. -- Wim PA3DJS Please remove abc first in case of PM |
|
#6
November 17th 14, 06:02 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is a truism
Wimpie wrote:
El 15-11-14 20:01, Jerry Stuckle escribió: 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 wrote: On 11/14/2014 10:02 PM, wrote: Jerry wrote: On 11/14/2014 4:26 PM, wrote: Jerry wrote: On 11/14/2014 3:55 PM, wrote: Jerry 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. It is not just a matter of little drama. There is a subject named "a short 160m antenna - loading and hats". Simulation results were presented for a 0.029lambda long radiator over REAL ground. The only reason I gave a reaction was to avoid that other people might get a wrong idea. The statements on the loading coil are very likely valid, but the gain figures are far from reality considering the conditions stated. I never concidered the gain figures to have any particular importance. The whole point was the effects of loading on impedance. I should have done the whole thing in free space to avoid confusing things with ground issues. -- Jim Pennino |
|
#7
November 17th 14, 11:02 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is a truism
El 17-11-14 19:02, escribió:
wrote: El 15-11-14 20:01, Jerry Stuckle escribió: 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 wrote: On 11/14/2014 10:02 PM, wrote: Jerry wrote: On 11/14/2014 4:26 PM, wrote: Jerry wrote: On 11/14/2014 3:55 PM, wrote: Jerry 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. It is not just a matter of little drama. There is a subject named "a short 160m antenna - loading and hats". Simulation results were presented for a 0.029lambda long radiator over REAL ground. The only reason I gave a reaction was to avoid that other people might get a wrong idea. The statements on the loading coil are very likely valid, but the gain figures are far from reality considering the conditions stated. I never concidered the gain figures to have any particular importance. The whole point was the effects of loading on impedance. I should have done the whole thing in free space to avoid confusing things with ground issues. This is fully clear now, but it took several posts from my side, and replies from your side of course, before you changed the conditions. We all aren't perfect and we may (sometimes) provide incomplete, or even wrong replies. If this happens nothing is wrong, someone will correct us, or provide the additional information. If someone starts insulting, why we can't make sure that contributions remain constructive and that |Ref. Coeff. (insult)| 1 ? Now |Ref. Coeff. (insult)| 1 frequently. -- Wim PA3DJS Please remove abc first in case of PM |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
