|
A dipole over ground
Sal M. O'Nella wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... On 11/15/2014 4:38 PM, wrote: The following Perfect V good Avg Ext poor Height gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev 0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90 0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90 0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66 0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50 0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41 0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35 0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31 0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28 0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25 0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23 0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21 0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20 0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18 0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17 0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16 0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15 0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15 0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14 snip ================================= Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it. Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K =================================== Among the very few things I know for sure is this: There is no call for you to be as rude as you are. John Markham, KD6VKW, usually posting as "Sal." Uh-oh, you have called into question the word of the great and mighty Jerry Stuckle, keeper of the ultimate truth of life, the universe, and everything. Prepare to be appropriately chastised blasphemer. -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
On 11/18/2014 6:17 PM, Sal M. O'Nella wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... On 11/15/2014 4:38 PM, wrote: The following Perfect V good Avg Ext poor Height gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev 0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90 0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90 0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66 0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50 0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41 0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35 0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31 0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28 0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25 0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23 0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21 0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20 0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18 0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17 0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16 0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15 0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15 0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14 snip ================================= Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it. Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K =================================== Among the very few things I know for sure is this: There is no call for you to be as rude as you are. John Markham, KD6VKW, usually posting as "Sal." You can see from his reply to you... -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
wrote in message ... Sal M. O'Nella wrote: "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... On 11/15/2014 4:38 PM, wrote: The following Perfect V good Avg Ext poor Height gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev 0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90 0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90 0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66 0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50 0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41 0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35 0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31 0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28 0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25 0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23 0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21 0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20 0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18 0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17 0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16 0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15 0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15 0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14 snip ================================= Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it. Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K =================================== Among the very few things I know for sure is this: There is no call for you to be as rude as you are. John Markham, KD6VKW, usually posting as "Sal." Uh-oh, you have called into question the word of the great and mighty Jerry Stuckle, keeper of the ultimate truth of life, the universe, and everything. Prepare to be appropriately chastised blasphemer. ================================================== ======== I get it, unlike he who missed your wry sarcasm. :-) "Sal" |
A dipole over ground
On 11/20/2014 2:09 AM, Sal M. O'Nella wrote:
wrote in message ... Sal M. O'Nella wrote: "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... On 11/15/2014 4:38 PM, wrote: The following Perfect V good Avg Ext poor Height gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev 0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90 0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90 0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66 0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50 0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41 0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35 0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31 0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28 0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25 0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23 0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21 0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20 0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18 0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17 0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16 0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15 0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15 0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14 snip ================================= Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it. Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K =================================== Among the very few things I know for sure is this: There is no call for you to be as rude as you are. John Markham, KD6VKW, usually posting as "Sal." Uh-oh, you have called into question the word of the great and mighty Jerry Stuckle, keeper of the ultimate truth of life, the universe, and everything. Prepare to be appropriately chastised blasphemer. ================================================== ======== I get it, unlike he who missed your wry sarcasm. :-) "Sal" No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll. However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole. And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look back through this newsgroup and you'll see it. Then he uses some figures for a theoretical installation (which can never occur in the real world) to prove his statement. And when shown he's wrong in a real operating environment, he just dismisses the proof. Fortunately, millions of hams around the world know he's wrong, and all of the activity on 80/75 meters is proof. But Jimbo will NEVER admit he's wrong. He never could be - he suffers from delusions of perfection. It's all in this newsgroup. All you have to do is look - instead of jumping on one post I made calling him what he is. However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have experience in how wrong he is. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll. You throw the word "troll" around a lot when someone disagrees with one of your pronouncements; do you even know what it means? However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole. And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look back through this newsgroup and you'll see it. That would take magic as I have never in my life put up any sort of 80M dipole nor have I ever in my life lived anywhere that the lot was big enough to put up an 80M dipole. I once put up a 40-30-20-15-10 trap dipole, and even with all the shortening from the traps, there still wasn't enough land to add 80M. You are a lier. snip remaining babbling nonsense -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
On 11/20/2014 12:55 PM, the troll wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll. You throw the word "troll" around a lot when someone disagrees with one of your pronouncements; do you even know what it means? Yes, I know what it means. And you are a perfect example. However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole. And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look back through this newsgroup and you'll see it. That would take magic as I have never in my life put up any sort of 80M dipole nor have I ever in my life lived anywhere that the lot was big enough to put up an 80M dipole. I once put up a 40-30-20-15-10 trap dipole, and even with all the shortening from the traps, there still wasn't enough land to add 80M. You are a lier. Then you should take back your previous statement, troll. snip remaining babbling nonsense -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/20/2014 12:55 PM, the troll wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll. You throw the word "troll" around a lot when someone disagrees with one of your pronouncements; do you even know what it means? Yes, I know what it means. And you are a perfect example. Right... troll One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue. However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole. And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look back through this newsgroup and you'll see it. That would take magic as I have never in my life put up any sort of 80M dipole nor have I ever in my life lived anywhere that the lot was big enough to put up an 80M dipole. I once put up a 40-30-20-15-10 trap dipole, and even with all the shortening from the traps, there still wasn't enough land to add 80M. You are a lier. Then you should take back your previous statement, troll. As I never stated that I had ever at any time put up an 80M dipole of any kind, I have nothing to take back, lier. -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
On 11/15/2014 7:33 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/15/2014 4:38 PM, wrote: The following shows the effect on elevation pattern for a 1/2 wave dipole antenna over ground at various heights for perfect, very good, average, and extremely ground. The important value to note is the elevation angle for the main lobe. Generally for DX an elevation angle at or below 30 degrees is desirable and for NVIS an angle above 60 degrees. The elevation angles apply to any dipole type antenna, such as a G5RV, OCF dipole, etc. but the absolute gain values will be quite different. Also some types of dipoles have more lobes than the two of the 1/2 wave dipole; those lobes will still be elevated. Perfect V good Avg Ext poor Height gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev 0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90 0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90 0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66 0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50 0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41 0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35 0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31 0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28 0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25 0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23 0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21 0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20 0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18 0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17 0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16 0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15 0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15 0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14 Special note: Most people understand that the results of an antenna analysis program reflect the material used to construct the antenna and the type of ground, if any, used for the analysis, are an approximation, and are not accurate to 27 decimal places. Further, most people also understand that absent them being a part of the model used for the analysis, objects in the near field of the antenna, such as, but not limited to, 20 foot prision walls, blimp hangers, skyscrapers, a deluge of biblical proportions, giant sequoia trees, hovering 2 mile wide alien spacecraft, hords of locusts, large gold deposits under the antenna, battles between Autobots and Decepticons, beached aircraft carriers, and stadium domes may well effect the actual antenna perfomance. Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited. Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer errors spotted in this article were put there because I could. Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it. Jerry, all the crap on this thread is your fault because of your statement above. Can you even imagine how it might have gone had you been a gentleman or had remained silent? Shame on you for this and shame on Jim for continuing to bait you. You two are ruining this group. |
A dipole over ground
wrote in message
... troll One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue. Physician, heal thyself. |
A dipole over ground
gareth wrote:
wrote in message ... troll One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue. Physician, heal thyself. And what does this topic or group have to do with physicians, gas bag? -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
|
A dipole over ground
John S wrote:
On 11/20/2014 2:50 PM, wrote: gareth wrote: wrote in message ... troll One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue. Physician, heal thyself. And what does this topic or group have to do with physicians, gas bag? You took the bait, Jim. Did you really need to do that? Yeah, why not, there's nobody posting much of anything but Jerry Stuckle hallucinating about some imaginary 80M dipole I was supposed to have had. -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
On 11/20/2014 3:19 PM, John S wrote:
On 11/15/2014 7:33 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/15/2014 4:38 PM, wrote: The following shows the effect on elevation pattern for a 1/2 wave dipole antenna over ground at various heights for perfect, very good, average, and extremely ground. The important value to note is the elevation angle for the main lobe. Generally for DX an elevation angle at or below 30 degrees is desirable and for NVIS an angle above 60 degrees. The elevation angles apply to any dipole type antenna, such as a G5RV, OCF dipole, etc. but the absolute gain values will be quite different. Also some types of dipoles have more lobes than the two of the 1/2 wave dipole; those lobes will still be elevated. Perfect V good Avg Ext poor Height gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev 0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90 0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90 0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66 0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50 0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41 0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35 0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31 0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28 0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25 0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23 0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21 0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20 0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18 0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17 0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16 0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15 0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15 0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14 Special note: Most people understand that the results of an antenna analysis program reflect the material used to construct the antenna and the type of ground, if any, used for the analysis, are an approximation, and are not accurate to 27 decimal places. Further, most people also understand that absent them being a part of the model used for the analysis, objects in the near field of the antenna, such as, but not limited to, 20 foot prision walls, blimp hangers, skyscrapers, a deluge of biblical proportions, giant sequoia trees, hovering 2 mile wide alien spacecraft, hords of locusts, large gold deposits under the antenna, battles between Autobots and Decepticons, beached aircraft carriers, and stadium domes may well effect the actual antenna perfomance. Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited. Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer errors spotted in this article were put there because I could. Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it. Jerry, all the crap on this thread is your fault because of your statement above. Can you even imagine how it might have gone had you been a gentleman or had remained silent? Shame on you for this and shame on Jim for continuing to bait you. You two are ruining this group. Why? Because I call a troll what he is? You don't like it - quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I will continue to call trolls exactly what they are. I'm long past the age that I give a damn what trolls or anonymous posters care about. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
On 21/11/2014 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snipped Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any Jerry, all the crap on this thread is your fault because of your statement above. Can you even imagine how it might have gone had you been a gentleman or had remained silent? Shame on you for this and shame on Jim for continuing to bait you. You two are ruining this group. Why? Because I call a troll what he is? because you abuse anyone whos opinion differs from yours no matter how wrong ( thats often?) You don't like it - quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I will continue to call trolls exactly what they are. so you have no regards for the opinion of others especially when you are wrong I'm long past the age that I give a damn what trolls or anonymous posters care about. bury your face in a pillow sticky , do a favour eh . we have two ears and one mouth for a reason sticky , time for you to use them in proportion . |
A dipole over ground
On 11/20/2014 2:08 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/20/2014 12:55 PM, the troll wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll. You throw the word "troll" around a lot when someone disagrees with one of your pronouncements; do you even know what it means? Yes, I know what it means. And you are a perfect example. Right... troll One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue. However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole. And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look back through this newsgroup and you'll see it. That would take magic as I have never in my life put up any sort of 80M dipole nor have I ever in my life lived anywhere that the lot was big enough to put up an 80M dipole. I once put up a 40-30-20-15-10 trap dipole, and even with all the shortening from the traps, there still wasn't enough land to add 80M. You are a lier. Then you should take back your previous statement, troll. As I never stated that I had ever at any time put up an 80M dipole of any kind, I have nothing to take back, lier. Ah, so now you claim you've never put up an 80 meter dipole - but you're an expert on them! ROFLMAO! And you can't even spell "liar". Some "expert". -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
On 11/20/2014 8:48 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 21/11/2014 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: snipped Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any Jerry, all the crap on this thread is your fault because of your statement above. Can you even imagine how it might have gone had you been a gentleman or had remained silent? Shame on you for this and shame on Jim for continuing to bait you. You two are ruining this group. Why? Because I call a troll what he is? because you abuse anyone whos opinion differs from yours no matter how wrong ( thats often?) Only trolls - which, BTW, includes you. Most people on usenet I have a lot of respect for. You don't like it - quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I will continue to call trolls exactly what they are. so you have no regards for the opinion of others especially when you are wrong I'm long past the age that I give a damn what trolls or anonymous posters care about. bury your face in a pillow sticky , do a favour eh . we have two ears and one mouth for a reason sticky , time for you to use them in proportion . You should speak for yourself - and you're third grade name calling, something that only trolls do. More proof. No wonder you want to remain anonymous. If I were as stoopid as you, I wouldn't want anyone else to know, either. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/20/2014 2:08 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/20/2014 12:55 PM, the troll wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll. You throw the word "troll" around a lot when someone disagrees with one of your pronouncements; do you even know what it means? Yes, I know what it means. And you are a perfect example. Right... troll One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue. However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole. And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look back through this newsgroup and you'll see it. That would take magic as I have never in my life put up any sort of 80M dipole nor have I ever in my life lived anywhere that the lot was big enough to put up an 80M dipole. I once put up a 40-30-20-15-10 trap dipole, and even with all the shortening from the traps, there still wasn't enough land to add 80M. You are a lier. Then you should take back your previous statement, troll. As I never stated that I had ever at any time put up an 80M dipole of any kind, I have nothing to take back, lier. Ah, so now you claim you've never put up an 80 meter dipole - but you're an expert on them! ROFLMAO! I know enough to understand what the elevation angles in this data mean and that a diple is a dipole: Perfect V good Avg Ext poor Height gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev 0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90 0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90 0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66 0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50 0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41 0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35 0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31 0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28 0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25 0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23 0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21 0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20 0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18 0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17 0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16 0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15 0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15 0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14 And you can't even spell "liar". Some "expert". Special note: Most people understand that the results of an antenna analysis program reflect the material used to construct the antenna and the type of ground, if any, used for the analysis, are an approximation, and are not accurate to 27 decimal places. Further, most people also understand that absent them being a part of the model used for the analysis, objects in the near field of the antenna, such as, but not limited to, 20 foot prision walls, blimp hangers, skyscrapers, a deluge of biblical proportions, giant sequoia trees, hovering 2 mile wide alien spacecraft, hords of locusts, large gold deposits under the antenna, battles between Autobots and Decepticons, beached aircraft carriers, and stadium domes may well effect the actual antenna perfomance. Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited. Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer errors spotted in this article were put there because I could. -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
On 21/11/2014 12:56 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:onymous
bury your face in a pillow sticky , do a favour eh . we have two ears and one mouth for a reason sticky , time for you to use them in proportion . You should speak for yourself - I have did and will continue to do so old man and you're third grade name calling, something that only trolls do. now thats untrue no matter how many times you falsely make the claim No wonder you want to remain anonymous. common sense dictates that move , something you have sfa off old man If I were as stoopid as you, you mean as smart , having demonstrated yet again how silly you really are I wouldn't want anyone else to know, either. then stop typing and remain quite , we might forget how silly you are but most certainly you cant resist my charms |
A dipole over ground
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have experience in how wrong he is. ================================================== ============= This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload it all at once. I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby. I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all. particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there. What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the continuity of the thread but I'll manage. "Sal" |
A dipole over ground
On 11/20/2014 10:49 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/20/2014 2:08 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/20/2014 12:55 PM, the troll wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll. You throw the word "troll" around a lot when someone disagrees with one of your pronouncements; do you even know what it means? Yes, I know what it means. And you are a perfect example. Right... troll One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue. However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole. And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look back through this newsgroup and you'll see it. That would take magic as I have never in my life put up any sort of 80M dipole nor have I ever in my life lived anywhere that the lot was big enough to put up an 80M dipole. I once put up a 40-30-20-15-10 trap dipole, and even with all the shortening from the traps, there still wasn't enough land to add 80M. You are a lier. Then you should take back your previous statement, troll. As I never stated that I had ever at any time put up an 80M dipole of any kind, I have nothing to take back, lier. Ah, so now you claim you've never put up an 80 meter dipole - but you're an expert on them! ROFLMAO! I know enough to understand what the elevation angles in this data mean and that a diple is a dipole: You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no idea *what the chart shows*. snip And you can't even spell "liar". Some "expert". Special note: Most people understand that the results of an antenna analysis program reflect the material used to construct the antenna and the type of ground, if any, used for the analysis, are an approximation, and are not accurate to 27 decimal places. In your case they aren't accurate to -2 decimal places. Further, most people also understand that absent them being a part of the model used for the analysis, objects in the near field of the antenna, such as, but not limited to, 20 foot prision walls, blimp hangers, skyscrapers, a deluge of biblical proportions, giant sequoia trees, hovering 2 mile wide alien spacecraft, hords of locusts, large gold deposits under the antenna, battles between Autobots and Decepticons, beached aircraft carriers, and stadium domes may well effect the actual antenna perfomance. Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited. Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer errors spotted in this article were put there because I could. Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. But you have to prove your stoopidity by opening your mouth anyway. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
On 11/21/2014 1:45 AM, Sal M. O'Nella wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have experience in how wrong he is. ================================================== ============= This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload it all at once. I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby. I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all. particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there. Yea, right. You claim to be KD6VKW, with the name "Sal M. O'Nella". But that call is registered to John Markham. Either your name or your call is a lie. So much for any vestige of respectability you might have once had. What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the continuity of the thread but I'll manage. "Sal" I am friendly and courteous to most people. But obviously you haven't been on usenet very much. I've been on it almost as long as I've been a ham - since it was Arpanet. Usenet used to be a friendly place where people enjoyed talking to each other. Nowadays it has way too many trolls and idiots. It doesn't help to ignore these folks. They only keep on with their crap. But they do fool people new to the group for a while. However, if you stick around, you'll see their true colors. As for you never speaking to me again - do you *REALLY* think I care? Especially someone who claims something he is not? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
On 11/21/2014 12:38 AM, the well-known troll atec77 wrote:
On 21/11/2014 12:56 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:onymous bury your face in a pillow sticky , do a favour eh . we have two ears and one mouth for a reason sticky , time for you to use them in proportion . You should speak for yourself - I have did and will continue to do so old man and you're third grade name calling, something that only trolls do. now thats untrue no matter how many times you falsely make the claim You're right. Third graders do it, also. Which are you? No wonder you want to remain anonymous. common sense dictates that move , something you have sfa off old man ROFLMAO! If I were as stoopid as you, you mean as smart , having demonstrated yet again how silly you really are Nope, I mean as stoopid as you are. But trolls don't understand just how stoopid they are - as you have once again proven. I wouldn't want anyone else to know, either. then stop typing and remain quite , we might forget how silly you are but most certainly you cant resist my charms Yes, I suggest you do so. No one here cares what trolls like you say - other than maybe other trolls. No wonder you try to remain anonymous. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't want anyone else to know how stoopid I was, either. Unlike you, I'm not ashamed of what I say - and not afraid and have to hide behind an 'nym and a fake email address. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no idea *what the chart shows*. That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly refuse to address what it is that the chart does show. Those are two traits of a real troll. snip -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
On 11/21/2014 8:25 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 1:45 AM, Sal M. O'Nella wrote: "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have experience in how wrong he is. ================================================== ============= This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload it all at once. I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby. I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all. particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there. Yea, right. You claim to be KD6VKW, with the name "Sal M. O'Nella". But that call is registered to John Markham. Either your name or your call is a lie. So much for any vestige of respectability you might have once had. What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the continuity of the thread but I'll manage. "Sal" Sal, you have been here for quite a while and readers know it. He does not deserve any further replies from you. I am friendly and courteous to most people. But obviously you haven't been on usenet very much. I've been on it almost as long as I've been a ham - since it was Arpanet. I doubt that. Can you prove it? Usenet used to be a friendly place where people enjoyed talking to each other. Nowadays it has way too many trolls and idiots. It doesn't help to ignore these folks. They only keep on with their crap. Like you. But they do fool people new to the group for a while. However, if you stick around, you'll see their true colors. Like you. As for you never speaking to me again - do you *REALLY* think I care? Especially someone who claims something he is not? It is patently clear that you do care. Otherwise, why are you posting? You are a disgrace on the ham radio community. And, since you don't care what others think of you, I would expect no reply. |
A dipole over ground
On 11/21/2014 8:30 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 12:38 AM, the well-known troll atec77 wrote: On 21/11/2014 12:56 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:onymous bury your face in a pillow sticky , do a favour eh . we have two ears and one mouth for a reason sticky , time for you to use them in proportion . You should speak for yourself - I have did and will continue to do so old man and you're third grade name calling, something that only trolls do. now thats untrue no matter how many times you falsely make the claim You're right. Third graders do it, also. Which are you? No wonder you want to remain anonymous. common sense dictates that move , something you have sfa off old man ROFLMAO! If I were as stoopid as you, you mean as smart , having demonstrated yet again how silly you really are Nope, I mean as stoopid as you are. But trolls don't understand just how stoopid they are - as you have once again proven. I wouldn't want anyone else to know, either. then stop typing and remain quite , we might forget how silly you are but most certainly you cant resist my charms Yes, I suggest you do so. No one here cares what trolls like you say - other than maybe other trolls. No wonder you try to remain anonymous. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't want anyone else to know how stoopid I was, either. Unlike you, I'm not ashamed of what I say - and not afraid and have to hide behind an 'nym and a fake email address. Well, you have demonstrated that you are so stupid that you cannot even spell stupid. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stoopid&defid=3449463 |
A dipole over ground
|
A dipole over ground
John S wrote:
snip Jim, the special note is not really necessary. I think we all understand your efforts in simulation. Please try to not be baited by the Stuckle. It is up to the interested readers to take in your data and then formulate questions which I know you are willing to answer. It may require extreme self-control by you to refuse to respond to him, but that is the only way this will work. I implore all readers to ignore and not reply to the Stuckle. I am still waiting to hear what HE thinks the chart means. I think most amateurs understand the implications of elevation angle, but since there are likely some neewbies that don't, I may write up an explanation. There was no Internet back in 1964, and about 4 years before I took my first college level electromagnetics course, when I was a novice and wondering why I never seemed to hear any DX on my 40M dipole at 15 feet. -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
|
A dipole over ground
On 22/11/2014 4:31 AM, John S wrote:
Well, you have demonstrated that you are so stupid that you cannot even spell stupid. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stoopid&defid=3449463 He has been reading the rod speed book of internet stupidity lie enough and still no one believes you |
A dipole over ground
On 22/11/2014 4:24 AM, John S wrote:
As for you never speaking to me again - do you *REALLY* think I care? Especially someone who claims something he is not? It is patently clear that you do care. Otherwise, why are you posting? You are a disgrace on the ham radio community. And, since you don't care what others think of you, I would expect no reply. The allure of being the last poster is inescapable ( that's sticky proving he is the troll) google rod speed for a clue about his play book and the sticky motivation |
A dipole over ground
On 11/21/2014 12:45 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no idea *what the chart shows*. That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly refuse to address what it is that the chart does show. Those are two traits of a real troll. snip I've tried explaining it to you in the past. But you discard any attempts at proof I provide. So don't try to tell me I haven't provided any proof. It's just what a troll does. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
On 11/21/2014 1:24 PM, John S wrote:
On 11/21/2014 8:25 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 1:45 AM, Sal M. O'Nella wrote: "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have experience in how wrong he is. ================================================== ============= This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload it all at once. I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby. I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all. particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there. Yea, right. You claim to be KD6VKW, with the name "Sal M. O'Nella". But that call is registered to John Markham. Either your name or your call is a lie. So much for any vestige of respectability you might have once had. What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the continuity of the thread but I'll manage. "Sal" Sal, you have been here for quite a while and readers know it. He does not deserve any further replies from you. Sal has not "been here for quite a while" - as a search of Google Groups proves. I am friendly and courteous to most people. But obviously you haven't been on usenet very much. I've been on it almost as long as I've been a ham - since it was Arpanet. I doubt that. Can you prove it? Why should I? Usenet used to be a friendly place where people enjoyed talking to each other. Nowadays it has way too many trolls and idiots. It doesn't help to ignore these folks. They only keep on with their crap. Like you. Yes, you are. But they do fool people new to the group for a while. However, if you stick around, you'll see their true colors. Like you. Yes, you are. As for you never speaking to me again - do you *REALLY* think I care? Especially someone who claims something he is not? It is patently clear that you do care. Otherwise, why are you posting? You are a disgrace on the ham radio community. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether I care or not. I just want others to know who the trolls are. And there are a couple here who are widely known in multiple newsgroups. And, since you don't care what others think of you, I would expect no reply. Ah, so you can get the last word in? Just like a troll wants? Of course, I KNOW you'll just HAVE to respond! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
On 11/21/2014 3:54 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 22/11/2014 4:24 AM, John S wrote: As for you never speaking to me again - do you *REALLY* think I care? Especially someone who claims something he is not? It is patently clear that you do care. Otherwise, why are you posting? You are a disgrace on the ham radio community. And, since you don't care what others think of you, I would expect no reply. The allure of being the last poster is inescapable ( that's sticky proving he is the troll) google rod speed for a clue about his play book and the sticky motivation Why don't you go back to alt.politics, aus.tv.pay, aus.legal or any of the many other newsgroups where you are a well-known troll? Maybe you can't fool people there any more? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
On 11/21/2014 1:31 PM, John S wrote:
On 11/21/2014 8:30 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 12:38 AM, the well-known troll atec77 wrote: On 21/11/2014 12:56 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:onymous bury your face in a pillow sticky , do a favour eh . we have two ears and one mouth for a reason sticky , time for you to use them in proportion . You should speak for yourself - I have did and will continue to do so old man and you're third grade name calling, something that only trolls do. now thats untrue no matter how many times you falsely make the claim You're right. Third graders do it, also. Which are you? No wonder you want to remain anonymous. common sense dictates that move , something you have sfa off old man ROFLMAO! If I were as stoopid as you, you mean as smart , having demonstrated yet again how silly you really are Nope, I mean as stoopid as you are. But trolls don't understand just how stoopid they are - as you have once again proven. I wouldn't want anyone else to know, either. then stop typing and remain quite , we might forget how silly you are but most certainly you cant resist my charms Yes, I suggest you do so. No one here cares what trolls like you say - other than maybe other trolls. No wonder you try to remain anonymous. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't want anyone else to know how stoopid I was, either. Unlike you, I'm not ashamed of what I say - and not afraid and have to hide behind an 'nym and a fake email address. Well, you have demonstrated that you are so stupid that you cannot even spell stupid. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stoopid&defid=3449463 Nope, in your case it is STOOPID. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 12:45 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no idea *what the chart shows*. That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly refuse to address what it is that the chart does show. Those are two traits of a real troll. snip I've tried explaining it to you in the past. But you discard any attempts at proof I provide. So don't try to tell me I haven't provided any proof. All you have provided as proof is "I got a WAS" which is NOT proof of antenna performance. -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
On Friday, November 21, 2014 3:17:32 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 1:24 PM, John S wrote: On 11/21/2014 8:25 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 1:45 AM, Sal M. O'Nella wrote: "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have experience in how wrong he is. ================================================== ============= This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload it all at once. I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby. I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all. particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there. Yea, right. You claim to be KD6VKW, with the name "Sal M. O'Nella". But that call is registered to John Markham. Either your name or your call is a lie. So much for any vestige of respectability you might have once had. What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the continuity of the thread but I'll manage. "Sal" Sal, you have been here for quite a while and readers know it. He does not deserve any further replies from you. Sal has not "been here for quite a while" - as a search of Google Groups proves. He most certainly has. A *whole lot* longer than you have, which as far as I can remember has been a couple of years or so. I've been here since the later 1990's, and Google likely does not show me going back that far either. It's not a reliable source being as they seem to have culled a lot of older posts. |
A dipole over ground
On Friday, November 21, 2014 5:31:52 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Sal has not "been here for quite a while" - as a search of Google Groups proves. He most certainly has. A *whole lot* longer than you have, which as far as I can remember has been a couple of years or so. I've been here since the later 1990's, and Google likely does not show me going back that far either. It's not a reliable source being as they seem to have culled a lot of older posts. Also, if one changes their email address, that would be a reason they would not show up. I show myself going back to 2000, but I've actually been here longer than that. It seems my mid-late 1990's posts runnoft for some reason. |
A dipole over ground
On 11/21/2014 5:06 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 12:45 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no idea *what the chart shows*. That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly refuse to address what it is that the chart does show. Those are two traits of a real troll. snip I've tried explaining it to you in the past. But you discard any attempts at proof I provide. So don't try to tell me I haven't provided any proof. All you have provided as proof is "I got a WAS" which is NOT proof of antenna performance. It is more proof that you have that your figures are wrong! And actual propagation reports are more accurate than theoretical charts. But you're always right. And you discount anything that disagrees with your fantasies. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
On 11/21/2014 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Friday, November 21, 2014 3:17:32 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 1:24 PM, John S wrote: On 11/21/2014 8:25 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 1:45 AM, Sal M. O'Nella wrote: "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message ... However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have experience in how wrong he is. ================================================== ============= This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload it all at once. I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby. I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all. particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there. Yea, right. You claim to be KD6VKW, with the name "Sal M. O'Nella". But that call is registered to John Markham. Either your name or your call is a lie. So much for any vestige of respectability you might have once had. What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the continuity of the thread but I'll manage. "Sal" Sal, you have been here for quite a while and readers know it. He does not deserve any further replies from you. Sal has not "been here for quite a while" - as a search of Google Groups proves. He most certainly has. A *whole lot* longer than you have, which as far as I can remember has been a couple of years or so. I've been here since the later 1990's, and Google likely does not show me going back that far either. It's not a reliable source being as they seem to have culled a lot of older posts. Only the late 1990's? ROFLAMO! And Google Groups shows the truth. It goes back to at least the middle 90's - they did, after all, buy deja-news. And no, they have not "culled a lot of older posts". If you think so, please prove it. As a matter of fact, I was in this group while it was still arpanet - it existed back in the 70's. So much for your "theories". -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com