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
 

On 11/15/2014 3:38 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.



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.

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
 

On 11/21/2014 1:18 PM, wrote:
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.

I think that would be a worthwhile effort, Jim. Who knows how many it
may help? Please just ignore any response from the Stuckle. It will only
discourage the rest of us.

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.

I didn't hear any DX either, but what a thrill it was that my first
contact was Oklahoma City from Dallas beneath high tension lines using a
military surplus receiver on an antenna such as you describe. It was an
exciting time.

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