Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 9:12 PM, wrote:

snip

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

It is proof that my antenna worked

A light bulb will "work" as an antenna.

That does not mean a light bulb is anywhere near an optimal antenna.

- even though it violates your
"chart".

No, it does not violate any chart, it just means you are in a rage that
someone implied something you used was less than perfect.

And it proves you can copy and paste - but you don't
understand what you're pasting.

I have asked you time and again what it is that you think the chart
shows but your only response to date has been to rage that I don't know
and you have a WAS.


--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
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.

The whole point of which is that you used a less than optimal antenna
for DX and then became outraged that someone dared to imply your
antenna was less than perfect.


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.

Where is your explanation that you have been asked for many times
now?

If you actually had anything factual to say you would have said it
long ago so you could gloat in your superiority but the only thing
you seem able to say is that I don't understand what I did.

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.

You gave proof of nothing, just ranting rage about having a WAS,
which I am beginning to doubt.

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.

You STILL refuse understand that gain and pattern numbers for an antenna
have meaning but awards do 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.



I never said that. Prove where I did.

In response to Izur Kockenhan, Sun, 16 Nov 2014 06:18:04:

"He thinks the charts he copies/pastes are the last word and apply to
all dipoles."

Or were you in such a rage that you missed the part where it was
said several times the chart was in wavelengths?


--
Jim Pennino

On 11/22/2014 11:04 PM, wrote:
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.




You can't accept the fact that an antenna that "sucks" wouldn't be able
to get QSL cards from all 50 states on 80 meters.

But you can't accept that because it disagrees with your fantasies.

And you're attempts to say I'm "in a rage" are hilarious. I never get
mad at trolls. You aren't worth the effort.

But you, OTOH, are totally ****ed off because I'm bursting your bubble.

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

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

On 11/22/2014 11:10 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 9:12 PM, wrote:

snip

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

It is proof that my antenna worked

A light bulb will "work" as an antenna.


OK, let's see you get WAS on 80 meters with a light bulb.

That does not mean a light bulb is anywhere near an optimal antenna.

- even though it violates your
"chart".

No, it does not violate any chart, it just means you are in a rage that
someone implied something you used was less than perfect.


Sure it does. You said any 80 meter dipole under 100' "sucks". Then
you use the chart that you cut and pasted to prove it.

And it proves you can copy and paste - but you don't
understand what you're pasting.

I have asked you time and again what it is that you think the chart
shows but your only response to date has been to rage that I don't know
and you have a WAS.



I'm not going to waste my time - you'll just say I'm in a rage. You
have no idea what you're talking about.

And you seem to be hooked on saying I'm "in a rage". I guess you're
just trying to deflect your own feelings. Here's a clue - I'm not in a
rage over you or any other troll. You're not worth it.

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

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

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

The whole point of which is that you used a less than optimal antenna
for DX and then became outraged that someone dared to imply your
antenna was less than perfect.


That is NOT WHAT YOU SAID. Do I need to paste your exact words a *third
time*? Is your memory that short?


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.

Where is your explanation that you have been asked for many times
now?


I'm not going to waste my time on trying to teach a pig to sing.

If you actually had anything factual to say you would have said it
long ago so you could gloat in your superiority but the only thing
you seem able to say is that I don't understand what I did.


I did, and you discarded it because it disagreed with your fantasies.

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.

You gave proof of nothing, just ranting rage about having a WAS,
which I am beginning to doubt.


ROFLMAO! Trying to change the subject again? Just like the troll you are.

Tell me how to get WAS on 80 meters with an antenna that "sucks".
People are eager to know.

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.

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


You fail to understand the awards are, in part, a measurement of
*performance of your station*. That includes the antenna. Tell me how
to get 80 meter WAS on a light bulb. After all, you claimed it works as
an antenna!

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.

In response to Izur Kockenhan, Sun, 16 Nov 2014 06:18:04:

"He thinks the charts he copies/pastes are the last word and apply to
all dipoles."


Which does not say the numbers expressed were not relevant. But you're
too stoopid to understand that. More proof you don't understand the
chart you cut and pasted.

Or were you in such a rage that you missed the part where it was
said several times the chart was in wavelengths?



No rage here, troll (yet another attempt at ad hominim attacks and to
try to deflect the discussion because it violates your fantasies).
Trolls like you aren't worth it. But then I can see you're just
attempting to deflect your own feelings.

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

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

On 11/21/2014 6:41 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 5:47 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Wayne
writes


wrote in message ...


For those that do not have a firm understanding of what the chart of
dipole height over ground shows, I offer the following explanation.

The charts show, for a dipole antenna at various heights in wavelengths
over perfect, very good, average, and extremely poor ground, the gain
and elevation angle of the antenna main lobe.

The main lobe is where the majority of the energy is radiated.

To understand what the charts mean in the real world, first you have
to understand a little bit about propagation of RF.

For a dipole antenna, there are two modes of propagation that are
relevant,
and those are NVIS (Near Vertical Incidence Skywave) and skywave which
is sometimes called skip.

Both modes depend on the RF being reflected or refracted back toward
Earth by the ionosphere.

For NVIS mode, the RF is directed straight up, that is an elevation
angle
close to 90 degrees is desired. The range of NVIS communications is on
the order of 50 - 650 km, depending on the state of the ionosphere. The
amateur bands where this is effective is limited primarily to the 160M
to 40M band, again depending on the state of the ionosphere. It is not
impossible to have NVIS communications on the higher bands, just much
less probable to happen.

For skywave mode, a low elevation mode is desired. Most of the
literature
recommends angles of 30 degees or less. In this mode the RF "bounces"
at more obtuse angles, and with good conditions in the ionosphere, more
than once, providing communication over global distances. Skywave
depends heavily on the condition of the ionosphere and during sunspot
peaks often occurs well past 10M.

Now since a dipole with a main lobe at 90 degrees still has some gain
at low angles, though it can be 20 to 60 dB down from the main lobe,
when conditions are very good some stations can still be heard by
skywave mode, though it is a rarity and can not be depended on.

Conversely a dipole with a low elevation angle of the main lobe has some
gain at very high angles and can occasionly hear stations by NVIS mode,
but again it is a rarity.

The bottom line of all this is that if you desire NVIS communications,
you should mount your dipole at a height where the elevation angle is
close to 90 degrees while if you desire long distance communications
you should mount your dipole at a height where the elevation angle is
less than 30 degrees, or higher if possible.

If the required height is impractical at your location, then the
alternative is a ground mounted vertical or a close to ground mounted
ground plane antenna, which will have an elevation angle in the 20
degree range.

Along the lines of a "testimonial"...
I once lived in the center of a state that had an active 75 meter net.
At one point I was asked to be one of the net control stations because
of my consistent strong signals within the net.

The secret? A 75 meter dipole at 20 feet with 100 watts.
On longer paths, of course, the "big boys" kicked my butt big time.

Despite the obvious theory, and over 50 years in amateur radio, I still
find it hard to believe that, in real life, an 80m dipole at (say) 20'
ever really outperforms (at any distance) one at (say) 100'. Given the
choice, I know which one I would choose!

I never said a dipole at 20' outperforms one at 100'. But I DID say a
dipole at 20' does NOT necessarily "suck". It can be a good antenna,
depending on a lot of other factors.

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.

Doesn't sound like it "sucked" to me.

If you two really have balls, you will get on Skype, look at each other,
and hash out your differences there. Or, maybe become friends.

It can happen!

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




You can't accept the fact that an antenna that "sucks" wouldn't be able
to get QSL cards from all 50 states on 80 meters.

Anything that conducts, from a light bulb to a set of bed springs can
act as an antenna and some contacts can be made; I've done it with
both.

Simply because something "works" says nothing about how well it works.

You are simply unable to accept the fact that something you had could
have worked better, thus you rant and fume and go off on tangents.



--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 11:10 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 9:12 PM, wrote:

snip

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

It is proof that my antenna worked

A light bulb will "work" as an antenna.


OK, let's see you get WAS on 80 meters with a light bulb.

Anything that conducts, from a light bulb to a set of bed springs can
act as an antenna and some contacts can be made; I've done it with
both.

Simply because something "works" says nothing about how well it works.

You are simply unable to accept the fact that something you had could
have worked better, thus you rant and fume and go off on tangents.


--
Jim Pennino

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

The whole point of which is that you used a less than optimal antenna
for DX and then became outraged that someone dared to imply your
antenna was less than perfect.


That is NOT WHAT YOU SAID. Do I need to paste your exact words a *third
time*? Is your memory that short?

You are correct, it wasn't those exact words, but it was exactly that
rephrased.

You are simply unable to accept the fact that something you had could
have worked better, thus you rant and fume and go off on tangents.

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

Where is your explanation that you have been asked for many times
now?


I'm not going to waste my time on trying to teach a pig to sing.

What means you have nothing to say about the charts other than your
antenna worked so that must be the standard to which all other antennas
should be compared.

If you actually had anything factual to say you would have said it
long ago so you could gloat in your superiority but the only thing
you seem able to say is that I don't understand what I did.


I did, and you discarded it because it disagreed with your fantasies.

You have never said ANYTHING other than your antenna worked so that
must be the standard to which all other antennas should be compared.

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.

You gave proof of nothing, just ranting rage about having a WAS,
which I am beginning to doubt.


ROFLMAO! Trying to change the subject again? Just like the troll you are.

YOU are the one that keeps bringing up having a WAS as proof of how
wonderful your antenna was.

Tell me how to get WAS on 80 meters with an antenna that "sucks".
People are eager to know.

Anything that conducts, from a light bulb to a set of bed springs can
act as an antenna and some contacts can be made; I've done it with
both.

Simply because something "works" says nothing about how well it works.

You are simply unable to accept the fact that something you had could
have worked better, thus you rant and fume and go off on tangents.

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.

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


You fail to understand the awards are, in part, a measurement of
*performance of your station*. That includes the antenna. Tell me how
to get 80 meter WAS on a light bulb. After all, you claimed it works as
an antenna!

Anything that conducts, from a light bulb to a set of bed springs can
act as an antenna and some contacts can be made; I've done it with
both.

Simply because something "works" says nothing about how well it works.

You are simply unable to accept the fact that something you had could
have worked better, thus you rant and fume and go off on tangents.

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.

In response to Izur Kockenhan, Sun, 16 Nov 2014 06:18:04:

"He thinks the charts he copies/pastes are the last word and apply to
all dipoles."


Which does not say the numbers expressed were not relevant.

If you think the numbers are relevant, why do you continue to rant?

You are simply unable to accept the fact that something you had could
have worked better, thus you rant and fume and go off on tangents.

--
Jim Pennino

On 11/23/2014 12:59 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 11:04 PM, wrote:
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.




You can't accept the fact that an antenna that "sucks" wouldn't be able
to get QSL cards from all 50 states on 80 meters.

Anything that conducts, from a light bulb to a set of bed springs can
act as an antenna and some contacts can be made; I've done it with
both.

Simply because something "works" says nothing about how well it works.

You are simply unable to accept the fact that something you had could
have worked better, thus you rant and fume and go off on tangents.




Where did I say something could not have worked better? Or are you
trying to put words in my mouth, again? That's what trolls do, after all.

All I said was your comment about an 80 meter dipole under 100' off the
ground sucks is wrong. And I supplied the proof for it.

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

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