On 11/23/2014 12:20 PM, John S wrote:
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!


I should also add - I will not speak to him where something is not being
recorded. At least here he can't claim I've said things I never did say
- and when he does, I can call him on it. I can also prove he has said
the things he claims he never said.

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

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

On 11/23/2014 4:10 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 1:11 PM, wrote:
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.


Yes, and in rephrasing it, you completely changed the meaning.

No, I did not change the meanging.

The bottom line is, and always has been, you went into a multipost rage
because it was implied something you did was less than perfect.

And you are still raging about it.



Yes, you changed the meaning. And let's see your proof that I went in
to a rage, troll. But you can't - you're projecting your own feelings.
Just like a troll.

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

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

Percy Picacity wrote:
On 2014-11-23 20:54:25 +0000, Jerry Stuckle said:




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.

He's already agreed with you that that was not an accurate assessment
and didn't represent his overall judgement, just a careless reiteration
of what someone else said; and that was about 4000 posts ago!

No, he said nothing like that until after about 4000 posts.

Up until then I was a troll, a liar, didn't know what the chart I produced
meant, etc.



--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 4:06 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

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.

No, you went into a multipost rage over the implication something you
did was less than perfect.




Your proof?

Your post after post after post.

--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 4:22 PM, Percy Picacity wrote:
On 2014-11-23 20:54:25 +0000, Jerry Stuckle said:




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.

He's already agreed with you that that was not an accurate assessment
and didn't represent his overall judgement, just a careless reiteration
of what someone else said; and that was about 4000 posts ago!


No, he has never admitted that. He has tried to explain it away - but
never said his assessment was inaccurate. In fact, he has repeatedly
argued the opposite.

He's talking about you.


--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 4:07 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

ssnip

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.

You went into a multipost rage when it was implied that something you
did was less than perfect and you are still raging about it.



Your proof, troll?

Your post after post after post.

The bottom line is that it was implied that something you did, used, made,
worked with, said, or observed was less than perfect, at which point you
went off into one of your usual rages.

Once the rage starts, the other person is a troll, an anonymous troll, a
liar, ignorant, stupid and a few other of your usual ad hominem responses.

Once the rage really gets going, you start interpreting what the other
person says as having the opposite meaning to what was said and saying
the other person said things that were never said.

During the rage you go off onto tangets based on your misinterpretation of
the other persons responses that can only be seen though your blood lust
filled eyes.

The rage will often continue across topics and sometimes even groups
as blood lust within you boils over.

This will continue until everyone else gives up and you have the last
word.

You are just an egomaniacal playground bully.


--
Jim Pennino

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

Yes, you changed the meaning. And let's see your proof that I went in
to a rage, troll. But you can't - you're projecting your own feelings.
Just like a troll.

The bottom line is that it was implied that something you did, used, made,
worked with, said, or observed was less than perfect, at which point you
went off into one of your usual rages.

Once the rage starts, the other person is a troll, an anonymous troll, a
liar, ignorant, stupid and a few other of your usual ad hominem responses.

Once the rage really gets going, you start interpreting what the other
person says as having the opposite meaning to what was said and saying
the other person said things that were never said.

During the rage you go off onto tangets based on your misinterpretation of
the other persons responses that can only be seen though your blood lust
filled eyes.

The rage will often continue across topics and sometimes even groups
as blood lust within you boils over.

This will continue until everyone else gives up and you have the last
word.

You are just an egomaniacal playground bully.


--
Jim Pennino

On 11/23/2014 5:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 4:06 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

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.

No, you went into a multipost rage over the implication something you
did was less than perfect.




Your proof?

Your post after post after post.


Your proof? You don't have any, troll.

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

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

On 11/23/2014 5:03 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/23/2014 4:22 PM, Percy Picacity wrote:
On 2014-11-23 20:54:25 +0000, Jerry Stuckle said:




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.

He's already agreed with you that that was not an accurate assessment
and didn't represent his overall judgement, just a careless reiteration
of what someone else said; and that was about 4000 posts ago!


No, he has never admitted that. He has tried to explain it away - but
never said his assessment was inaccurate. In fact, he has repeatedly
argued the opposite.

He's talking about you.



ROFLMAO! The troll doesn't even understand when someone else is talking
about him!


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

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

On 11/23/2014 4:41 PM, wrote:
Percy Picacity wrote:
On 2014-11-23 20:54:25 +0000, Jerry Stuckle said:




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.

He's already agreed with you that that was not an accurate assessment
and didn't represent his overall judgement, just a careless reiteration
of what someone else said; and that was about 4000 posts ago!

No, he said nothing like that until after about 4000 posts.

Up until then I was a troll, a liar, didn't know what the chart I produced
meant, etc.




And you still are a troll.

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

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