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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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 .

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

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

manual calculation of a horizontal Lambda/2-dipol over perfect ground in
height of Lambda/2

www.leobaumann.de/horDipolOPG.pdf

Izur Kockenhan

Izur Kockenhan wrote:
manual calculation of a horizontal Lambda/2-dipol over perfect ground in
height of Lambda/2

www.leobaumann.de/horDipolOPG.pdf

Izur Kockenhan

The broadside nulls are missing.



--
Jim Pennino

Jim Pennino wrote:

The broadside nulls are missing.


A dipol over perfect ground has no broadside nulls. A dipol in free space
has alongside nulls. Pls. check out with 4NEC2.

Have a nice weekend

Izur Kockenhan

Izur Kockenhan wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:

The broadside nulls are missing.


A dipol over perfect ground has no broadside nulls. A dipol in free space
has alongside nulls. Pls. check out with 4NEC2.

Have a nice weekend

Izur Kockenhan

Correct; the broadside pattern is flattened, not nulled, over perfect
ground which doesn't show too well in the 3-D plot.


--
Jim Pennino