On 11/22/2014 3:59 PM, FBMboomer wrote:
On 11/21/2014 7:32 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 8:19 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

I've also run dipoles - I got WAS on 75 meters from Iowa with an
inverted VEE running from 50' to near ground. And I had a strong
signal
on the Iowa 75M SSB net.

I have lots of strong signal reports from around the country on 6M AM
running 3W into a 2 foot collapsible whip.

Of course it was at the height of sunspot cycle 19 and says NOTHING
about
the effectiveness of the antenna.




Which has absolutely nothing to do with your comment about a dipole on
75 meters. But you're too stoopid to understand that.

Jeez,

Take it easy Jerry.

Just calling out the troll for what he is.

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

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

On 11/22/2014 5:04 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

The only topic to discuss when you go off into one of your delusional
rages and say I said things completly opposite to what I did say would
be where you could get professional help for your raging delusions.



Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

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

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

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 4:01:08 PM UTC-6,
NVIS is generally defined as aiming the power straight up and the S
in NVIS stands for "Skywave". So if you want to be pendatic, you are
correct.

However, if you look at the links above, the real world DOES make
a distinction between NVIS and skywave.

I'll have to read through them, but myself, I consider any signal
which is reflected off the ionosphere back to the target receiver, as
being skywave, no matter if the angle is 90 or 10 degrees.
If it doesn't use the ionosphere, it's not skywave. Sometimes you can
have a mix of path modes. IE: being able to receive both the skywave,
but also the ground or space wave. In most cases like that, the NVIS
path will overwhelm the ground or space wave unless the two stations
are very close together.

On 11/22/2014 5:33 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 4:01:08 PM UTC-6,
NVIS is generally defined as aiming the power straight up and the S
in NVIS stands for "Skywave". So if you want to be pendatic, you are
correct.

However, if you look at the links above, the real world DOES make
a distinction between NVIS and skywave.

I'll have to read through them, but myself, I consider any signal
which is reflected off the ionosphere back to the target receiver, as
being skywave, no matter if the angle is 90 or 10 degrees.
If it doesn't use the ionosphere, it's not skywave. Sometimes you can
have a mix of path modes. IE: being able to receive both the skywave,
but also the ground or space wave. In most cases like that, the NVIS
path will overwhelm the ground or space wave unless the two stations
are very close together.


You are correct - NVIS is a form of skywave. And it is considered by
experts in the field to be a form of skywave (hence the "S" in NVIS),
although for much shorter distances than skywaves utilizing a lower
angle of radiation.

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

And the whole point of the 6M statement was that QSL cards or WAS
awards say absolutely nothing about antenna patterns.



Once again you try to change the subject so that you don't have to admit
you are wrong. In case you haven't figured out - 6 meters and 80 meters
are two entirely different bands with completely different propagation
effects. Trying to tie the two together is just an attempt to deflect
the conversation.

I'll just chalk up your total inability to read and understand what
I actually wrote to your current delusional rage.

But in case you get a glimmer of rationality, here is the essence of
my statement: "QSL cards or WAS awards say absolutely nothing about
antenna patterns".




--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 5:04 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

The only topic to discuss when you go off into one of your delusional
rages and say I said things completly opposite to what I did say would
be where you could get professional help for your raging delusions.



Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

Which topic would that be, the fact that anyone who would dare imply
that an antenna built by Jerry Stuckle is anything other than the gold
standard, perfect antenna to which all other antennas should be compared
causes you to fly into a rage?



--
Jim Pennino

On 11/22/2014 6:28 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

And the whole point of the 6M statement was that QSL cards or WAS
awards say absolutely nothing about antenna patterns.



Once again you try to change the subject so that you don't have to admit
you are wrong. In case you haven't figured out - 6 meters and 80 meters
are two entirely different bands with completely different propagation
effects. Trying to tie the two together is just an attempt to deflect
the conversation.

I'll just chalk up your total inability to read and understand what
I actually wrote to your current delusional rage.

But in case you get a glimmer of rationality, here is the essence of
my statement: "QSL cards or WAS awards say absolutely nothing about
antenna patterns".





And once again you dismiss something that disagrees with your fantasies.
Just like a troll.

FYI - you don't get QSL cards without a working antenna.

On second thought - maybe YOU do.

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

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

On 11/22/2014 6:30 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 5:04 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

The only topic to discuss when you go off into one of your delusional
rages and say I said things completly opposite to what I did say would
be where you could get professional help for your raging delusions.



Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

Which topic would that be, the fact that anyone who would dare imply
that an antenna built by Jerry Stuckle is anything other than the gold
standard, perfect antenna to which all other antennas should be compared
causes you to fly into a rage?




Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 6:28 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

And the whole point of the 6M statement was that QSL cards or WAS
awards say absolutely nothing about antenna patterns.

Once again you try to change the subject so that you don't have to admit
you are wrong. In case you haven't figured out - 6 meters and 80 meters
are two entirely different bands with completely different propagation
effects. Trying to tie the two together is just an attempt to deflect
the conversation.

I'll just chalk up your total inability to read and understand what
I actually wrote to your current delusional rage.

But in case you get a glimmer of rationality, here is the essence of
my statement: "QSL cards or WAS awards say absolutely nothing about
antenna patterns".


And once again you dismiss something that disagrees with your fantasies.
Just like a troll.

Missed the whole point yet again, didn't you?

Still in a rage, aren't you?

FYI - you don't get QSL cards without a working antenna.

FYI a QSL card is not a measurement of antenna gain or pattern.


--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle wrote:


snip

Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you
are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll.

You have changed the topic so many times now I lose track.

First it was the effects of antenna height in wavelengths.

Then it was something about you not liking my response to someone who
said their antenna sucked.

Then it was something about you having a WAS thus proving your antenna
was wonderful.

Then it was something about 80M and 6M being different when I said that
signal reports do not measure antenna gain or pattern.

Which topic do you want?


--
Jim Pennino