Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
John S wrote:
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? Yeah, why not, there's nobody posting much of anything but Jerry Stuckle hallucinating about some imaginary 80M dipole I was supposed to have had. -- Jim Pennino |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ================== |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ================== |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |