About Us

Jerry Stuckle · November 18th 14, 01:26 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

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

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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole.	Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA	Antenna	8	February 24th 11 10:22 PM
Safety ground versus RF ground for a 2nd Floor shack	jawod	Antenna	11	March 14th 06 02:38 AM
Transforming your simple Ground Rod into a Ground Anchor : Is It Worth The Work ? - You Decide !	RHF	Shortwave	10	December 24th 05 10:09 PM
Ground Or Not To Ground Receiving Antenna In Storm ?	Robert11	Antenna	32	December 20th 05 01:52 AM
Improving ground for a Vertical dipole worth it ?	.J.S...	Antenna	9	February 25th 05 12:06 AM

Menu

About Us