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

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

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?

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.

snip remaining babbling nonsense


--
Jim Pennino

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.

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.

snip remaining babbling nonsense



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

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

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.



--
Jim Pennino

wrote in message
...

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.


Physician, heal thyself.

gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...

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.


Physician, heal thyself.

And what does this topic or group have to do with physicians, gas bag?


--
Jim Pennino

On 11/20/2014 2:50 PM, wrote:
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...

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.


Physician, heal thyself.

And what does this topic or group have to do with physicians, gas bag?

You took the bait, Jim. Did you really need to do that?

I am depressed that adult licensed amateur radio operators can be so
juvenile. Is this how you conduct yourselves on the air? In person?

You are a discredit to the amateur community as well as all of society.

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!

And you can't even spell "liar". Some "expert".

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

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

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:

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

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.

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 Pennino

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

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