|
A dipole over ground
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. -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
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. -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
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. Sure, you can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it. You've made yourself perfectly clear in multiple comments. You don't understand a thing about dipoles. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
manual calculation of a horizontal Lambda/2-dipol over perfect ground in
height of Lambda/2 www.leobaumann.de/horDipolOPG.pdf Izur Kockenhan |
A dipole over ground
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 -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
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 |
A dipole over ground
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 |
A dipole over ground
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 I've presented proof already you're full of crap. Not that your statements need any refutation - they are among the most stoopid I've seen on usenet - and that's pretty stoopid. But I am not going to get into a technical argument with you. I don't debate the defenseless. I just let their statements stand on their own. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
A dipole over ground
On 11/15/2014 10:51 PM, 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 You're arguing with an idiot. He thinks the charts he copies/pastes are the last word and apply to all dipoles. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
wrote in message ... 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. snip 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 I'm having trouble wading through the data, probably because of column headings. Let's take the first line. 0.10 Would be the height I get lost after that. Is 8.6 the gain over perfect ground, 6.3 over good, etc. What are the 90's? Wayne W5GIE/6 |
A dipole over ground
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:38:10 -0000, 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. This might help: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/horizontal-dipole/ Animated GIF of the horizontal 1/2 wave dipole over a "moderate" ground at various heights: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/horizontal-dipole/horiz-dipole.gif There's a big problem with the GIF. I couldn't convince 4NEC2 to fix the scale on the gain plot. So, it changes in the middle of the annimation. The outer ring is +5dBi for 0.1 to 0.3 wavelengths height, and +10dBi for the others. I'll try to fix that later. NEC deck for 4NEC2: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/horizontal-dipole/Dipole.nec -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
A dipole over ground
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. -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
Wayne wrote:
wrote in message ... 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. snip 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 I'm having trouble wading through the data, probably because of column headings. Let's take the first line. 0.10 Would be the height I get lost after that. Is 8.6 the gain over perfect ground, 6.3 over good, etc. What are the 90's? Wayne W5GIE/6 Height is the height in wavelengths. gain is the gain of the main lobe. @ elev is the elevation angle of the main lobe; 90 means straight up. And there are three sets for perfect, very good, average, and extremely poor ground. It all lines up in ASCII; if the spacing is screwed up, you are likely viewing it as HTML. -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
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 |
A dipole over ground
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 21:38:10 -0000, 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. This might help: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/horizontal-dipole/ Animated GIF of the horizontal 1/2 wave dipole over a "moderate" ground at various heights: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/horizontal-dipole/horiz-dipole.gif There's a big problem with the GIF. I couldn't convince 4NEC2 to fix the scale on the gain plot. So, it changes in the middle of the annimation. The outer ring is +5dBi for 0.1 to 0.3 wavelengths height, and +10dBi for the others. I'll try to fix that later. NEC deck for 4NEC2: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/horizontal-dipole/Dipole.nec Yeah, graphs are better than tables of data any day. -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
wrote in message ... Wayne wrote: wrote in message ... 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. snip 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 I'm having trouble wading through the data, probably because of column headings. Let's take the first line. 0.10 Would be the height I get lost after that. Is 8.6 the gain over perfect ground, 6.3 over good, etc. What are the 90's? Wayne W5GIE/6 # Height is the height in wavelengths. # gain is the gain of the main lobe. # @ elev is the elevation angle of the main lobe; 90 means straight up. # And there are three sets for perfect, very good, average, and extremely # poor ground. # It all lines up in ASCII; if the spacing is screwed up, you are likely # viewing it as HTML. Not using HTML, but your explanation clears it up. Thanks. |
A dipole over ground
|
A dipole over ground
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. But you don't understand anything more complicated than 2+2=4. I know better than to try to have an intellectual discussion with an idiot. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
|
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 |
A dipole over ground
Helmut Wabnig [email protected] --- -.dotat wrote:
snip I have seen people talking about NVIS antennas for DX. w. Which makes no sense as NVIS stands for Near Vertical Incidence Skywave, which means most of the power goes near vertical so the maximum communication range of that mode is around 400 miles. This is a short article that talks about NVIS antennas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_ve...idence_skywave -- Jim Pennino |
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 ================== |
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 |
A dipole over ground
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:11:49 +0100, Helmut Wabnig [email protected] ---
-.dotat wrote: I have seen people talking about NVIS antennas for DX. w. They may actually have a point. The problem is the assumption that when bouncing RF off the ionosphere, the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of refraction. In other words, to do DX, you need a low angle of incidence. I got the clue long ago, when I noticed that spinning a beam (yagi) antenna, often resulted in little or no change in signal strength. It wasn't all the time, but it did happen often enough for me to notice. The explanation offered by Eric Nichols, KL7AJ is that sometimes, the signal appears to be coming from directly overhead. I've uploaded a copy of his Dec 2010 QST article (and added a text layer to make it searchable): "HP Ionospheric propagation may not happen the way you think it does" http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/HF-Circular-Polarization/ http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/HF-Circular-Polarization/QST_Dec_2010_p33-37.pdf "The answer is rather simple, once one recognizes that those signals are circularly polarized. Actually it’s coming from straight overhead." I built a copy of his setup using junk parts and tested it with WWV 15MHz. I would agree that the signal is certainly circular polarized, but I'm not 100.0% sure that it's always arriving from directly overhead. Please note that NVIS is limited by the maximum usable frequency of the F layer and is usually used only on 80 and 40 meters during the day, and 160 and 80 meters at night: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_vertical_incidence_skywave -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
A dipole over ground
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 18:33:16 -0000, wrote:
It all lines up in ASCII; if the spacing is screwed up, you are likely viewing it as HTML. Your table has tabs between the columns, which shows up nicely in readers that convert tabs to 8 character columns, but blows up on readers that convert tabs to 1 or 4 character columns. The message header on Wayne's message shows: X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 which is probably the problem. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
A dipole over ground
|
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 |
A dipole over ground
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 18:33:16 -0000, wrote: It all lines up in ASCII; if the spacing is screwed up, you are likely viewing it as HTML. Your table has tabs between the columns, which shows up nicely in readers that convert tabs to 8 character columns, but blows up on readers that convert tabs to 1 or 4 character columns. The message header on Wayne's message shows: X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 which is probably the problem. Life was simpler when everyone was using a VT100 to read USENET. -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 23:53:50 -0000, wrote:
Life was simpler when everyone was using a VT100 to read USENET. Simpler? Surely, you jest. I've never used a real vt100/vt102 or ANSI terminal for anything more than a door stop, but have had to deal with plenty of emulators. It wasn't easy emulating DEC's moving target escape sequences, that would change with every model and revision. Remember vttest? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vttest Literally everything I tried failed at least one part of the test, including the original DEC terminals. Then, Unix with TERMCAP and TERMINFO arrived, at which point I gave up trying to emulate vt100/vt102 terminals, and moved on to broken ANSI X3.64 attempts with proprietary "enhancements": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code http://www.markcrocker.com/rexxtipsntricks/rxtt28.2.0777.html I thought I was finally free of the emulation nightmares, when I was introduced to X-terminals and xterm, which reset the learning curve over by adding a display manager, desktop manager, and xterm to the emulation mess. Can't win. As soon as something finally works, it's replaced immediately by something that doesn't. At no time during all these "improvements" did any of the terminal servers, emulators, or kludges ever properly deal with 2,4,8 character tab indents. Extra credit to the C programmers who would format their code in "pretty type", but didn't feel it necessary to put opposing curly braces in the same column, which would have made tab expansion easy. Oh yeah... setting tab stops beyond the right wrap margin usually produced "unexpected results". At this time, I'm using Forte Agent to read usenet news. Among the options and settings can be found a myriad of kludges, tricks, work-around's, and outright butchery that fixes many of the aforementioned abomination and more, all of which were probably based on the mistakes found in the original vt100/vt102. http://i2.wp.com/rundiabetes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/vt100-logo.jpg That's the Vermont 100 mile ride/run for diabetes. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
A dipole over ground
|
A dipole over ground
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? -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
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? |
A dipole over ground
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. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
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. 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. |
A dipole over ground
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. 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. Don't be concerned, it is just Jerry Stuckle being Jerry Stuckle. Anyone who has the audacity to even suggest that anything Jerry Stuckle says, uses, built, does, or was ever associated with is anything other than gold standard perfect is immediately labled one or more of lier, ignorant and troll. And yes, I do tend toward performance for DX as do most (Jerry Stuckle; notice I used the word "most") hams as is shown by the huge number of DX awards and the utter lack of any awards for NVIS operation. -- Jim Pennino |
A dipole over ground
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 ================== |
A dipole over ground
On Monday, November 17, 2014 7:26:44 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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. I guess it would depend on how one defines "sucks".. Myself, reading between the lines, I was fairly sure he was talking about working dx. And compared to a high dipole, or a vertical, or other better antennas, one might be compelled to say the low version sucks. Whatever.. I don't see the statement a large enough problem to warrant a drama fest, which of course if I were the one making your type of comments, you and Rick would be on my ass faster than flies flock to doo-doo.. Calling me a drama queen or some such, when in reality anything I've ever said to the one who I best not mention, pales in comparison to the vigor in which you attack Jim for something I consider pretty much a non issue, being I realized right from the start he was likely concentrating on dx paths and didn't care about NVIS. Maybe he was slightly carried away on how bad a low dipole might be to those paths, but who cares.. He wasn't that far off the mark when you compare the two. The high dipole would likely smoke the low dipole on long paths. 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. I doubt it, but I do know a few.. 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"? Hummm.. When my ground plane was generally 4 S units better than my dipole which was at about 40 ft high, or slightly more than a quarter wave up, using both the received reports, and my own received signals from VK to verify the reciprocal operation, and when it's a fact that even my puny mobile whip would outdo the 40 ft high dipole on those paths, I would not have any problems with anyone saying that my dipole sucked on those long paths. In comparison, it did indeed. Whatever.. If you and Rick are going to jump my ass and call me a drama queen for being far less obnoxious than you have been, don't be surprised if I call you on worse behavior than I've ever shown to the one who shalt not be mentioned. Pot+kettle=black. Time to give it a rest. We got your point. Many times over. |
A dipole over ground
On 11/17/2014 9:14 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 17, 2014 7:26:44 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: 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. I guess it would depend on how one defines "sucks".. Myself, reading between the lines, I was fairly sure he was talking about working dx. And compared to a high dipole, or a vertical, or other better antennas, one might be compelled to say the low version sucks. Whatever.. I don't see the statement a large enough problem to warrant a drama fest, which of course if I were the one making your type of comments, you and Rick would be on my ass faster than flies flock to doo-doo.. Calling me a drama queen or some such, when in reality anything I've ever said to the one who I best not mention, pales in comparison to the vigor in which you attack Jim for something I consider pretty much a non issue, being I realized right from the start he was likely concentrating on dx paths and didn't care about NVIS. Maybe he was slightly carried away on how bad a low dipole might be to those paths, but who cares.. He wasn't that far off the mark when you compare the two. The high dipole would likely smoke the low dipole on long paths. Actually, he wasn't talking about DX at all. If you look at the previous comments, they were about ground wave propagation on 80 meters, not DX. And I didn't create the drama fest; if he would have just admitted his statement was incorrect, all would have been dropped. But no, he had to carry on with how his statement was right and the rest of the ham world is wrong. 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. I doubt it, but I do know a few.. I know a few, also. And their signals are not significantly better than anyone else's. And back in the 70's I was able to work a club station with 40/80 dipoles at 130' AGL. They didn't work that much better than the inverted Vs I had running from 50' to near ground. 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"? Hummm.. When my ground plane was generally 4 S units better than my dipole which was at about 40 ft high, or slightly more than a quarter wave up, using both the received reports, and my own received signals from VK to verify the reciprocal operation, and when it's a fact that even my puny mobile whip would outdo the 40 ft high dipole on those paths, I would not have any problems with anyone saying that my dipole sucked on those long paths. In comparison, it did indeed. OK for you, but I've never had a mobile (Hustler with appropriate traps) work better than a good old fashioned dipole at a few feet. I also had a 5 band vertical (HyGain 18AVQ, ground mounted). It worked better than the V some times, and worse other times - usually worse. The V was my main antenna. Whatever.. If you and Rick are going to jump my ass and call me a drama queen for being far less obnoxious than you have been, don't be surprised if I call you on worse behavior than I've ever shown to the one who shalt not be mentioned. Pot+kettle=black. Time to give it a rest. We got your point. Many times over. No, I'm not going to jump your ass. You're trying to carry on a reasonable conversation. I'll leave the for Jim. He's well known for that action. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
A dipole over ground
"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." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com