A dipole over ground
 

On 11/16/2014 6:50 PM, wrote:

Noting important.

You can copy/paste charts, but have no understanding as to what they
mean. And trying to carry on a technical discussion with you is a
complete waste of time.

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

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

A dipole over ground
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 6:50 PM, wrote:

Noting important.

You can copy/paste charts, but have no understanding as to what they
mean. And trying to carry on a technical discussion with you is a
complete waste of time.

So where is YOUR technical discussion of the data or is childish
insults all you have?



--
Jim Pennino

A dipole over ground
 

On 11/17/2014 11:56 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 6:50 PM, wrote:

Noting important.

You can copy/paste charts, but have no understanding as to what they
mean. And trying to carry on a technical discussion with you is a
complete waste of time.

So where is YOUR technical discussion of the data or is childish
insults all you have?

This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.

By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."

You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

A dipole over ground
 

On 11/17/2014 2:34 PM, John S wrote:
On 11/17/2014 11:56 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 6:50 PM, wrote:

Noting important.

You can copy/paste charts, but have no understanding as to what they
mean. And trying to carry on a technical discussion with you is a
complete waste of time.

So where is YOUR technical discussion of the data or is childish
insults all you have?

This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.

By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."

You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

John, you're right. I should know better than to try to wrestle with a
pig. It gets both dirty and the pig enjoys it.

I'll stop and let Jim continue to shoot himself in the foot. I just
hope too many newbies don't fall for his crap.

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

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

A dipole over ground
 

On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:05:35 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/17/2014 2:34 PM, John S wrote:
On 11/17/2014 11:56 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 6:50 PM, wrote:

Noting important.

You can copy/paste charts, but have no understanding as to what they
mean. And trying to carry on a technical discussion with you is a
complete waste of time.

So where is YOUR technical discussion of the data or is childish
insults all you have?

This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.

By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."

You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

John, you're right. I should know better than to try to wrestle with a
pig. It gets both dirty and the pig enjoys it.

I'll stop and let Jim continue to shoot himself in the foot. I just
hope too many newbies don't fall for his crap.

I don't see where he's shot himself in the foot. Maybe leaning towards
a DXers point of view as far as the desired pattern he'd like to see at
first, but other than that, I don't see any real problems with anything
else he has posted.

And I agree that you can work DX fairly well with a low 80m dipole,
as I've done it several times, but it is true that a higher dipole will
be much better as far as the lower angles.
I still think a good vertical is overall the best for DX myself..
On 40m, my elevated full size ground plane used to tear my 40 ft high
dipole a new one on paths to VK and such. Even my mobile antenna was
better for DX vs that dipole.. And much the same would happen on 80m,
and 160m for that matter.

A dipole over ground
 

A dipole over ground
 

On 11/17/2014 7:28 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:05:35 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/17/2014 2:34 PM, John S wrote:
On 11/17/2014 11:56 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/16/2014 6:50 PM, wrote:

Noting important.

You can copy/paste charts, but have no understanding as to what they
mean. And trying to carry on a technical discussion with you is a
complete waste of time.

So where is YOUR technical discussion of the data or is childish
insults all you have?

This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.

By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."

You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

John, you're right. I should know better than to try to wrestle with a
pig. It gets both dirty and the pig enjoys it.

I'll stop and let Jim continue to shoot himself in the foot. I just
hope too many newbies don't fall for his crap.

I don't see where he's shot himself in the foot. Maybe leaning towards
a DXers point of view as far as the desired pattern he'd like to see at
first, but other than that, I don't see any real problems with anything
else he has posted.


To quote him:

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

Which is flat out wrong - as hundreds of thousands of hams around the
world will attest.

How many hams do you know who can put up 2 100'+ towers to hang an 80
meter dipole from? I guess all those active on 80 meters, according to
him.


And I agree that you can work DX fairly well with a low 80m dipole,
as I've done it several times, but it is true that a higher dipole will
be much better as far as the lower angles.
I still think a good vertical is overall the best for DX myself..
On 40m, my elevated full size ground plane used to tear my 40 ft high
dipole a new one on paths to VK and such. Even my mobile antenna was
better for DX vs that dipole.. And much the same would happen on 80m,
and 160m for that matter.


How can you do that with a dipole that "sucks"?

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

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

A dipole over ground
 

On Monday, November 17, 2014 7:26:44 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

To quote him:

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

Which is flat out wrong - as hundreds of thousands of hams around the
world will attest.

I guess it would depend on how one defines "sucks"..
Myself, reading between the lines, I was fairly sure he was talking
about working dx. And compared to a high dipole, or a vertical, or
other better antennas, one might be compelled to say the low version
sucks. Whatever.. I don't see the statement a large enough problem
to warrant a drama fest, which of course if I were the one making
your type of comments, you and Rick would be on my ass faster than
flies flock to doo-doo.. Calling me a drama queen or some such, when in
reality anything I've ever said to the one who I best not mention,
pales in comparison to the vigor in which you attack Jim for something
I consider pretty much a non issue, being I realized right from the start
he was likely concentrating on dx paths and didn't care about NVIS.

Maybe he was slightly carried away on how bad a low dipole might be to
those paths, but who cares.. He wasn't that far off the mark when you
compare the two. The high dipole would likely smoke the low dipole on
long paths.



How many hams do you know who can put up 2 100'+ towers to hang an 80
meter dipole from? I guess all those active on 80 meters, according to
him.

I doubt it, but I do know a few..



And I agree that you can work DX fairly well with a low 80m dipole,
as I've done it several times, but it is true that a higher dipole will
be much better as far as the lower angles.
I still think a good vertical is overall the best for DX myself..
On 40m, my elevated full size ground plane used to tear my 40 ft high
dipole a new one on paths to VK and such. Even my mobile antenna was
better for DX vs that dipole.. And much the same would happen on 80m,
and 160m for that matter.


How can you do that with a dipole that "sucks"?

Hummm.. When my ground plane was generally 4 S units better than my dipole
which was at about 40 ft high, or slightly more than a quarter wave up, using
both the received reports, and my own received signals from VK to verify
the reciprocal operation, and when it's a fact that even my puny mobile whip
would outdo the 40 ft high dipole on those paths, I would not have any problems
with anyone saying that my dipole sucked on those long paths.
In comparison, it did indeed.

Whatever.. If you and Rick are going to jump my ass and call me a drama
queen for being far less obnoxious than you have been, don't be surprised
if I call you on worse behavior than I've ever shown to the one who shalt
not be mentioned. Pot+kettle=black.

Time to give it a rest. We got your point. Many times over.

A dipole over ground
 

On 11/17/2014 9:14 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 17, 2014 7:26:44 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

To quote him:

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

Which is flat out wrong - as hundreds of thousands of hams around the
world will attest.

I guess it would depend on how one defines "sucks"..
Myself, reading between the lines, I was fairly sure he was talking
about working dx. And compared to a high dipole, or a vertical, or
other better antennas, one might be compelled to say the low version
sucks. Whatever.. I don't see the statement a large enough problem
to warrant a drama fest, which of course if I were the one making
your type of comments, you and Rick would be on my ass faster than
flies flock to doo-doo.. Calling me a drama queen or some such, when in
reality anything I've ever said to the one who I best not mention,
pales in comparison to the vigor in which you attack Jim for something
I consider pretty much a non issue, being I realized right from the start
he was likely concentrating on dx paths and didn't care about NVIS.

Maybe he was slightly carried away on how bad a low dipole might be to
those paths, but who cares.. He wasn't that far off the mark when you
compare the two. The high dipole would likely smoke the low dipole on
long paths.


Actually, he wasn't talking about DX at all. If you look at the
previous comments, they were about ground wave propagation on 80 meters,
not DX.

And I didn't create the drama fest; if he would have just admitted his
statement was incorrect, all would have been dropped. But no, he had to
carry on with how his statement was right and the rest of the ham world
is wrong.



How many hams do you know who can put up 2 100'+ towers to hang an 80
meter dipole from? I guess all those active on 80 meters, according to
him.

I doubt it, but I do know a few..


I know a few, also. And their signals are not significantly better than
anyone else's. And back in the 70's I was able to work a club station
with 40/80 dipoles at 130' AGL. They didn't work that much better than
the inverted Vs I had running from 50' to near ground.



And I agree that you can work DX fairly well with a low 80m dipole,
as I've done it several times, but it is true that a higher dipole will
be much better as far as the lower angles.
I still think a good vertical is overall the best for DX myself..
On 40m, my elevated full size ground plane used to tear my 40 ft high
dipole a new one on paths to VK and such. Even my mobile antenna was
better for DX vs that dipole.. And much the same would happen on 80m,
and 160m for that matter.


How can you do that with a dipole that "sucks"?

Hummm.. When my ground plane was generally 4 S units better than my dipole
which was at about 40 ft high, or slightly more than a quarter wave up, using
both the received reports, and my own received signals from VK to verify
the reciprocal operation, and when it's a fact that even my puny mobile whip
would outdo the 40 ft high dipole on those paths, I would not have any problems
with anyone saying that my dipole sucked on those long paths.
In comparison, it did indeed.


OK for you, but I've never had a mobile (Hustler with appropriate traps)
work better than a good old fashioned dipole at a few feet.

I also had a 5 band vertical (HyGain 18AVQ, ground mounted). It worked
better than the V some times, and worse other times - usually worse.
The V was my main antenna.

Whatever.. If you and Rick are going to jump my ass and call me a drama
queen for being far less obnoxious than you have been, don't be surprised
if I call you on worse behavior than I've ever shown to the one who shalt
not be mentioned. Pot+kettle=black.

Time to give it a rest. We got your point. Many times over.



No, I'm not going to jump your ass. You're trying to carry on a
reasonable conversation. I'll leave the for Jim. He's well known for
that action.

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

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

A dipole over ground
 

"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."