| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#26
November 23rd 14, 04:21 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
Dipoles, why height matters
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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| All tax related matters and International tax matters. | Boatanchors | |||
| All tax related matters and International tax matters. | Scanner | |||
| Israel's Identity: It Matters! | Shortwave | |||
| ISRAEL'S IDENTITY: IT MATTERS! | Shortwave | |||
| Antenna height vs roof height | Antenna | |||
Threaded Mode
