A dipole over ground
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 1:27 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:32 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/15/2014 9:17 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

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.

You should see someone about getting that stick pulled out that is
firmly shoved up your butt.

After you do that, you can comment on the repeatable data I posted.




ROFLMAO! At least my head isn't there - like yours is.

So where are your insightful comments on the data or is puerile drivel
all you've got?

snip puerile drivel



But I am not going to get into a technical argument with you.

You have no technical arguments.



I do.

So where is it?

snip puerile drivel


--
Jim Pennino

A dipole over ground
 

Helmut Wabnig [email protected] --- -.dotat wrote:

snip

I have seen people talking about NVIS antennas for DX.

w.

Which makes no sense as NVIS stands for Near Vertical Incidence Skywave,
which means most of the power goes near vertical so the maximum
communication range of that mode is around 400 miles.

This is a short article that talks about NVIS antennas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_ve...idence_skywave


--
Jim Pennino

A dipole over ground
 

On 11/16/2014 5:04 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 1:27 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:32 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/15/2014 9:17 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

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.

You should see someone about getting that stick pulled out that is
firmly shoved up your butt.

After you do that, you can comment on the repeatable data I posted.




ROFLMAO! At least my head isn't there - like yours is.

So where are your insightful comments on the data or is puerile drivel
all you've got?

snip puerile drivel



But I am not going to get into a technical argument with you.

You have no technical arguments.



I do.

So where is it?

snip puerile drivel



ROFLMAO!

Right he

From your post on Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:12:37:

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

And other posts.

People who make such comments have no idea what they are talking about.
You can cut and paste all you want. But I don't wrestle pigs.

Are you sure you aren't Big G under another name? You two act the same.

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

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

A dipole over ground
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 5:04 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 1:27 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 12:32 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/15/2014 9:17 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

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.

You should see someone about getting that stick pulled out that is
firmly shoved up your butt.

After you do that, you can comment on the repeatable data I posted.




ROFLMAO! At least my head isn't there - like yours is.

So where are your insightful comments on the data or is puerile drivel
all you've got?

snip puerile drivel



But I am not going to get into a technical argument with you.

You have no technical arguments.



I do.

So where is it?

snip puerile drivel



ROFLMAO!

Right he

From your post on Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:12:37:

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

Yep, and as one can see from the data, an antenna mounted less than
about .4 wavelengths high sends most of the energy into the clouds.

So what is your technical arguement about that?

Or perhaps you are still fixating on the fact that the original poster
said the antenna sucked and I used the phrase "will suck" in response?

snip remaining puerile drivel


--
Jim Pennino

A dipole over ground
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:11:49 +0100, Helmut Wabnig [email protected] ---
-.dotat wrote:

I have seen people talking about NVIS antennas for DX.
w.

They may actually have a point. The problem is the assumption that
when bouncing RF off the ionosphere, the angle of incidence is equal
to the angle of refraction. In other words, to do DX, you need a low
angle of incidence.

I got the clue long ago, when I noticed that spinning a beam (yagi)
antenna, often resulted in little or no change in signal strength. It
wasn't all the time, but it did happen often enough for me to notice.
The explanation offered by Eric Nichols, KL7AJ is that sometimes, the
signal appears to be coming from directly overhead. I've uploaded a
copy of his Dec 2010 QST article (and added a text layer to make it
searchable):
"HP Ionospheric propagation may not happen the way you think it does"
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/HF-Circular-Polarization/
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/HF-Circular-Polarization/QST_Dec_2010_p33-37.pdf
"The answer is rather simple, once one recognizes that those
signals are circularly polarized. Actually it’s coming from
straight overhead."

I built a copy of his setup using junk parts and tested it with WWV
15MHz. I would agree that the signal is certainly circular polarized,
but I'm not 100.0% sure that it's always arriving from directly
overhead.

Please note that NVIS is limited by the maximum usable frequency of
the F layer and is usually used only on 80 and 40 meters during the
day, and 160 and 80 meters at night:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_vertical_incidence_skywave

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

A dipole over ground
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 18:33:16 -0000, wrote:

It all lines up in ASCII; if the spacing is screwed up, you are likely
viewing it as HTML.

Your table has tabs between the columns, which shows up nicely in
readers that convert tabs to 8 character columns, but blows up on
readers that convert tabs to 1 or 4 character columns.

The message header on Wayne's message shows:
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
which is probably the problem.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

A dipole over ground
 

On 11/16/2014 6:10 PM, wrote:

Nothing important.

You obviously have no idea what the chart is showing.

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

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

A dipole over ground
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 6:10 PM, wrote:

Nothing important.

You obviously have no idea what the chart is showing.

So that is your entire technical arguement?

So what, then, is the chart showing if not that as the height of a dipole
decreases from 1/2 wavelength, the main lobe elevation angle increases
until it becomes straight up?



--
Jim Pennino

A dipole over ground
 

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 18:33:16 -0000, wrote:

It all lines up in ASCII; if the spacing is screwed up, you are likely
viewing it as HTML.

Your table has tabs between the columns, which shows up nicely in
readers that convert tabs to 8 character columns, but blows up on
readers that convert tabs to 1 or 4 character columns.

The message header on Wayne's message shows:
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
which is probably the problem.

Life was simpler when everyone was using a VT100 to read USENET.


--
Jim Pennino

A dipole over ground
 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 23:53:50 -0000, wrote:

Life was simpler when everyone was using a VT100 to read USENET.

Simpler? Surely, you jest. I've never used a real vt100/vt102 or
ANSI terminal for anything more than a door stop, but have had to deal
with plenty of emulators. It wasn't easy emulating DEC's moving
target escape sequences, that would change with every model and
revision. Remember vttest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vttest
Literally everything I tried failed at least one part of the test,
including the original DEC terminals. Then, Unix with TERMCAP and
TERMINFO arrived, at which point I gave up trying to emulate
vt100/vt102 terminals, and moved on to broken ANSI X3.64 attempts with
proprietary "enhancements":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code
http://www.markcrocker.com/rexxtipsntricks/rxtt28.2.0777.html
I thought I was finally free of the emulation nightmares, when I was
introduced to X-terminals and xterm, which reset the learning curve
over by adding a display manager, desktop manager, and xterm to the
emulation mess. Can't win. As soon as something finally works, it's
replaced immediately by something that doesn't.

At no time during all these "improvements" did any of the terminal
servers, emulators, or kludges ever properly deal with 2,4,8 character
tab indents. Extra credit to the C programmers who would format their
code in "pretty type", but didn't feel it necessary to put opposing
curly braces in the same column, which would have made tab expansion
easy. Oh yeah... setting tab stops beyond the right wrap margin
usually produced "unexpected results".

At this time, I'm using Forte Agent to read usenet news. Among the
options and settings can be found a myriad of kludges, tricks,
work-around's, and outright butchery that fixes many of the
aforementioned abomination and more, all of which were probably based
on the mistakes found in the original vt100/vt102.

http://i2.wp.com/rundiabetes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/vt100-logo.jpg
That's the Vermont 100 mile ride/run for diabetes.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558