| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
November 16th 14, 10:04 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
#3
November 16th 14, 10:32 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ================== |
|
#4
November 16th 14, 11:10 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#5
November 16th 14, 11:34 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
A dipole over ground
|
|
#6
November 16th 14, 11:50 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#7
November 17th 14, 01:26 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
|
A dipole over ground
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
| Safety ground versus RF ground for a 2nd Floor shack | Antenna | |||
| Transforming your simple Ground Rod into a Ground Anchor : Is It Worth The Work ? - You Decide ! | Shortwave | |||
| Ground Or Not To Ground Receiving Antenna In Storm ? | Antenna | |||
| Improving ground for a Vertical dipole worth it ? | Antenna | |||
Hybrid Mode
