About Us

Wimpie[_2_] · November 17th 14, 11:02 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

El 17-11-14 19:02, escribiÃ³:
wrote:
El 15-11-14 20:01, Jerry Stuckle escribiÃ³:
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

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