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.

Perhaps you can get all the antenna manufacturers to specify their
antennas in terms of signal reports and QSL cards instead of those
useless numbers like gain and pattern.


--
Jim Pennino

On 11/22/2014 7:10 PM, wrote:
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.



You don't get QSL cards without a working antenna.

On second thought - YOU probably do.

It is very interesting that you accept reports which agree with your
fantasies, but not those which conflict with those fantasies.

How like a troll.

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

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

On 11/22/2014 7:39 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.

Perhaps you can get all the antenna manufacturers to specify their
antennas in terms of signal reports and QSL cards instead of those
useless numbers like gain and pattern.



And you refuse to answer the question, instead trying to divert the
conversation (again). It shows you're full of crap - just like all trolls.

I rest my case.

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

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

On 11/22/2014 7:21 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.

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.


I called your statement into question because you said any 80 meter
antenna under 100' (a little over 1/4 wavelength) sucked.

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


Yes, I proved you were wrong with your statement about wavelengths.

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


You're the one who brought up 6M, not me.

Which topic do you want?



I haven't changed the topic at all. But you have tried to do so -
several times.

Just like the troll you are - keep trying to change the topic, but when
someone calls you on it, you blame them. It's not going to work, though.

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 7:10 PM, wrote:
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.



You don't get QSL cards without a working antenna.

A QSL card says nothing about how well an antenna works.

If QSL cards were a valid metric, all the antenna manufacturers could
do away with those useless pattern and gain numbers and rate all their
antennas by the number of QSL cards it will collect.

I can see it now; the Jerry Stuckle gold standard antenna with a
5.0 kQSL rating.


--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 7:39 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.

Perhaps you can get all the antenna manufacturers to specify their
antennas in terms of signal reports and QSL cards instead of those
useless numbers like gain and pattern.



And you refuse to answer the question, instead trying to divert the
conversation (again). It shows you're full of crap - just like all trolls.

Which question was that, why QSL cards or awards are irrelevant as a
measure of antenna performance like you keep trying to claim?



--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 7:21 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.

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.


I called your statement into question because you said any 80 meter
antenna under 100' (a little over 1/4 wavelength) sucked.

That's not quite what I said, but in any case ANY dipole mounted at
less than 1/2 wavelength high will NOT perform as well for DX as a
a dipole mounted 1/2 wave length high or higher.

You can see that from the charts I produced or any book on electromagnetic
theory.

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

Yes, I proved you were wrong with your statement about wavelengths.

No, you just babbled nonsense about a WAS somehow magically says
something about antenna gain and pattern.

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


You're the one who brought up 6M, not me.

You STILL refuse understand that gain and pattern numbers for an antenna
have meaning but awards go not, which was the ENTIRE POINT of the 6M
statments.

Which topic do you want?

I haven't changed the topic at all. But you have tried to do so -
several times.

Oh, I forgot the one where you stupidly said that numbers expressed
in wavelenths were not relevant to all dipoles.


--
Jim Pennino

On 11/22/2014 9:18 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 7:21 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.

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.


I called your statement into question because you said any 80 meter
antenna under 100' (a little over 1/4 wavelength) sucked.

That's not quite what I said, but in any case ANY dipole mounted at
less than 1/2 wavelength high will NOT perform as well for DX as a
a dipole mounted 1/2 wave length high or higher.


It is EXACTLY what you said - except for the parentheses, which I added.

You can see that from the charts I produced or any book on electromagnetic
theory.


Yes, you can copy and paste charts. But you don't UNDERSTAND them.

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

Yes, I proved you were wrong with your statement about wavelengths.

No, you just babbled nonsense about a WAS somehow magically says
something about antenna gain and pattern.


I gave you proof that you were wrong. But you just discard it because
it violates your fantasies.

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


You're the one who brought up 6M, not me.

You STILL refuse understand that gain and pattern numbers for an antenna
have meaning but awards go not, which was the ENTIRE POINT of the 6M
statments.


Oh, I understand all right. You're just a troll who keeps trying to
change the subject when met with facts that match his fantasies.

Which topic do you want?

I haven't changed the topic at all. But you have tried to do so -
several times.

Oh, I forgot the one where you stupidly said that numbers expressed
in wavelenths were not relevant to all dipoles.



I never said that. Prove where I did.

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

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

On 11/22/2014 9:11 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 7:10 PM, wrote:
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.



You don't get QSL cards without a working antenna.

A QSL card says nothing about how well an antenna works.

If QSL cards were a valid metric, all the antenna manufacturers could
do away with those useless pattern and gain numbers and rate all their
antennas by the number of QSL cards it will collect.

I can see it now; the Jerry Stuckle gold standard antenna with a
5.0 kQSL rating.



You don't get QSL's from all 50 states on 80 meters with an antenna that
"sucks". But you can't accept that fact because it violates your fantasies.

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

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

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You don't get QSL's from all 50 states on 80 meters with an antenna that
"sucks". But you can't accept that fact because it violates your fantasies.

QSL cards say nothing about an antenna's performance, but you can't
accept the fact because you are in a rage that someone implied that
something you used was less than perfect.



--
Jim Pennino