|
Dipoles, why height matters
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. -- Jim Pennino |
Dipoles, why height matters
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. |
Dipoles, why height matters
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! -- Ian |
Dipoles, why height matters
Ian Jackson wrote:
snip 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! Try reading these: http://www.qsl.net/wb5ude/nvis/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_ve...idence_skywave http://www.w0ipl.net/ECom/NVIS/nvis.htm http://kv5r.com/ham-radio/nvis-antennas/ http://www.arrl.org/nvis -- Jim Pennino |
Dipoles, why height matters
On Friday, November 21, 2014 4:47:12 PM UTC-6, 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! -- Ian Dunno.. I've run some pretty low dipoles that did well for NVIS paths. Mostly when camping. I had one out at Lake Amistad that was about 8 ft off the ground, and I was only running 10w out with a FT-7. I was S9 or slightly over to most of the other guys in the state. When I'm at the dirt patch my dipole is usually only about 25 ft or so at the apex, and it does fairly well as long as the band is not buggered up, which happens quite a bit in the early evening, or in the winter when the MUF drops down real low. Saying that, I would probably choose the high dipole also if I had a choice. :) It would still do OK for NVIS, and a lot better than the low one on DX paths. |
Dipoles, why height matters
On 11/21/2014 5:22 PM, Wayne wrote:
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. Gee, according to jimp, your antenna should have "sucked". But then he isn't interested in facts that contradict his fantasies. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Dipoles, why height matters
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. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Dipoles, why height matters
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. -- Jim Pennino |
Dipoles, why height matters
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 5:22 PM, Wayne wrote: snip 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. Gee, according to jimp, your antenna should have "sucked". Which shows you are incapapble of understanding the difference between NVIS propagation and skywave propagation or anything else that I wrote. If you did understand it, you would know that what he said is TOTALLY consistant with what I wrote. But then he isn't interested in facts that contradict his fantasies. But then your aren't interested in facts that contradict your fantasies. -- Jim Pennino |
Dipoles, why height matters
On 11/21/2014 8:22 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 5:22 PM, Wayne wrote: snip 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. Gee, according to jimp, your antenna should have "sucked". Which shows you are incapapble of understanding the difference between NVIS propagation and skywave propagation or anything else that I wrote. Nope, I understand them a lot better than you do. And his comments had NOTHING to do with what you said. According to you, his antenna "sucked". Period. No qualification. If you did understand it, you would know that what he said is TOTALLY consistant with what I wrote. And once again you are trying to weasel out of what you said. Just like a troll. But then he isn't interested in facts that contradict his fantasies. But then your aren't interested in facts that contradict your fantasies. No, you aren't. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Dipoles, why height matters
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. But it has EVERYTHING to do with your comment about WAS. But you are so enraged about being correct you can not understand that. -- Jim Pennino |
Dipoles, why height matters
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 8:22 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 5:22 PM, Wayne wrote: snip 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. Gee, according to jimp, your antenna should have "sucked". Which shows you are incapapble of understanding the difference between NVIS propagation and skywave propagation or anything else that I wrote. Nope, I understand them a lot better than you do. And his comments had NOTHING to do with what you said. According to you, his antenna "sucked". Period. No qualification. My god you are delusional when you are raging. If you did understand it, you would know that what he said is TOTALLY consistant with what I wrote. And once again you are trying to weasel out of what you said. Just like a troll. My god you are delusional when you are raging. -- Jim Pennino |
Dipoles, why height matters
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message ... 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! A 20 foot high 75 meter dipole wouldn't be my first choice for an antenna. At the time, that was the highest supports I had available. I just dusted off EZNEC and out of curiosity ran the plot for a 75 meter dipole at 20 feet over "real" ground. The max lobe was 9.36 dbi straight up at 90 degrees and a 3 db down beamwidth of 99.4 degrees. The 3 db down points were at 40.3 degrees and 139.7 degrees. So at least according to EZNEC, and my own personal experience for short range HF communication on 75 meters, a low dipole is a pretty good choice. |
Dipoles, why height matters
On 11/21/2014 8:56 PM, wrote:
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. But it has EVERYTHING to do with your comment about WAS. But you are so enraged about being correct you can not understand that. Nope. It has NOTHING to do with a dipole on 75 meters - which is the subject of this thread. You're just trying to derail the conversation so you don't have to admit you're wrong. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Dipoles, why height matters
On 11/21/2014 8:58 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 8:22 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 5:22 PM, Wayne wrote: snip 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. Gee, according to jimp, your antenna should have "sucked". Which shows you are incapapble of understanding the difference between NVIS propagation and skywave propagation or anything else that I wrote. Nope, I understand them a lot better than you do. And his comments had NOTHING to do with what you said. According to you, his antenna "sucked". Period. No qualification. My god you are delusional when you are raging. Read your own words. YOU said it - not me. If you did understand it, you would know that what he said is TOTALLY consistant with what I wrote. And once again you are trying to weasel out of what you said. Just like a troll. My god you are delusional when you are raging. 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 ================== |
Dipoles, why height matters
In message ,
writes Ian Jackson wrote: snip 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! Try reading these: http://www.qsl.net/wb5ude/nvis/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_ve...idence_skywave http://www.w0ipl.net/ECom/NVIS/nvis.htm http://kv5r.com/ham-radio/nvis-antennas/ http://www.arrl.org/nvis Thanks, I'll certainly have a good read of those articles. But regardless of what they say, in a typical amateur scenario, I still reckon that at (say) 300 miles, an 80m signal from a dipole at 100' is likely to be stronger than one from one at 20' (or even at 60'). -- Ian |
Dipoles, why height matters
El 22-11-14 3:01, Wayne escribió:
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message ... 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! A 20 foot high 75 meter dipole wouldn't be my first choice for an antenna. At the time, that was the highest supports I had available. I just dusted off EZNEC and out of curiosity ran the plot for a 75 meter dipole at 20 feet over "real" ground. The max lobe was 9.36 dbi straight up at 90 degrees and a 3 db down beamwidth of 99.4 degrees. The 3 db down points were at 40.3 degrees and 139.7 degrees. Maybe you confused directivity (D) with gain (G), or used a wrong simulation paramater. A 20' high half wave dipole for 75m over average soil has about D = 9 dBi. However because of the heat dissipation into the soil below the antenna, the actual gain will be around 3 dBi. In other words about 75% of the RF energy is dissipated into the ground. Is this problem? frequently not, as the link budget on 75/80m has lots of margin under average conditions. Only onder worse conditions (large D-layer absorption and/or high local noise level at the target location) the one with the highest EIRP (=gain*power) will make the QSO. Several years during JOTA we had a better then average NVIS antenna for 80 m (with elevated reflection wires and a well fertilized production field). With 100W input we get complaints about why we were using a PA (we don't have one!). We decided to use a QRP TRX (10W) so the FT101ZD could be used for 40 m. We had no complaints about the signal. So on average there is nothing wrong when using an NVIS antenna with say 6 dB less performance (compared to an optimized one). Nowadays we use a "downgraded version". about 3..4 dB loss of gain, but it can be installed within 20% of the time required for the big one. So at least according to EZNEC, and my own personal experience for short range HF communication on 75 meters, a low dipole is a pretty good choice. -- Wim PA3DJS Please remove abc first in case of PM |
Dipoles, why height matters
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , writes Ian Jackson wrote: snip 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! Try reading these: http://www.qsl.net/wb5ude/nvis/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_ve...idence_skywave http://www.w0ipl.net/ECom/NVIS/nvis.htm http://kv5r.com/ham-radio/nvis-antennas/ http://www.arrl.org/nvis Thanks, I'll certainly have a good read of those articles. But regardless of what they say, in a typical amateur scenario, I still reckon that at (say) 300 miles, an 80m signal from a dipole at 100' is likely to be stronger than one from one at 20' (or even at 60'). As 300 miles is at the upper end of NVIS and the lower end for skywave, it would be a crap shoot. NVIS distance is typically 30-400 miles. -- Jim Pennino |
Dipoles, why height matters
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 8:56 PM, wrote: 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. But it has EVERYTHING to do with your comment about WAS. But you are so enraged about being correct you can not understand that. Nope. It has NOTHING to do with a dipole on 75 meters - which is the subject of this thread. You're just trying to derail the conversation so you don't have to admit you're wrong. Strawman arguement in an attempt to deflect the arguement from your WAS statements. -- Jim Pennino |
Dipoles, why height matters
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/21/2014 8:58 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 8:22 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 5:22 PM, Wayne wrote: snip 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. Gee, according to jimp, your antenna should have "sucked". Which shows you are incapapble of understanding the difference between NVIS propagation and skywave propagation or anything else that I wrote. Nope, I understand them a lot better than you do. And his comments had NOTHING to do with what you said. According to you, his antenna "sucked". Period. No qualification. My god you are delusional when you are raging. Read your own words. YOU said it - not me. If you did understand it, you would know that what he said is TOTALLY consistant with what I wrote. And once again you are trying to weasel out of what you said. Just like a troll. My god you are delusional when you are raging. Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll. My god you are delusional when you are raging. -- Jim Pennino |
Dipoles, why height matters
In message ,
writes Ian Jackson wrote: In message , writes Ian Jackson wrote: snip 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! Try reading these: http://www.qsl.net/wb5ude/nvis/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_ve...idence_skywave http://www.w0ipl.net/ECom/NVIS/nvis.htm http://kv5r.com/ham-radio/nvis-antennas/ http://www.arrl.org/nvis Thanks, I'll certainly have a good read of those articles. But regardless of what they say, in a typical amateur scenario, I still reckon that at (say) 300 miles, an 80m signal from a dipole at 100' is likely to be stronger than one from one at 20' (or even at 60'). As 300 miles is at the upper end of NVIS and the lower end for skywave NVIS IS skywave - only that it's more straight up-and-down than at an angle. It's only a matter (literally) of degree, and there's no real point at which NVIS becomes 'normal' skywave. , it would be a crap shoot. NVIS distance is typically 30-400 miles. OK, let's make it a bit less - say 50 or 100 miles. I still feel that, in practice, a dipole at 100' would be unlikely to be less effective than at 20'. On the other hand, if you only want to lay down a signal out to less than 400 miles, there's no point in going to the trouble of putting the dipole at 100'. Apart from cost etc, this would also unnecessarily cause QRM to reception outside your intended target area. -- Ian |
Dipoles, why height matters
On 11/22/2014 1:07 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 8:56 PM, wrote: 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. But it has EVERYTHING to do with your comment about WAS. But you are so enraged about being correct you can not understand that. Nope. It has NOTHING to do with a dipole on 75 meters - which is the subject of this thread. You're just trying to derail the conversation so you don't have to admit you're wrong. Strawman arguement in an attempt to deflect the arguement from your WAS statements. 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. Just like the troll you are. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
Dipoles, why height matters
On 11/22/2014 1:09 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 8:58 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 8:22 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 5:22 PM, Wayne wrote: snip 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. Gee, according to jimp, your antenna should have "sucked". Which shows you are incapapble of understanding the difference between NVIS propagation and skywave propagation or anything else that I wrote. Nope, I understand them a lot better than you do. And his comments had NOTHING to do with what you said. According to you, his antenna "sucked". Period. No qualification. My god you are delusional when you are raging. Read your own words. YOU said it - not me. If you did understand it, you would know that what he said is TOTALLY consistant with what I wrote. And once again you are trying to weasel out of what you said. Just like a troll. My god you are delusional when you are raging. Once again you refuse to discuss the topic. Instead of admitting you are wrong, you are making ad hominim attacks. How like a troll. My god you are delusional when you are raging. 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 ================== |
Dipoles, why height matters
On 11/22/2014 7:21 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , writes Ian Jackson wrote: snip 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! Try reading these: http://www.qsl.net/wb5ude/nvis/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_ve...idence_skywave http://www.w0ipl.net/ECom/NVIS/nvis.htm http://kv5r.com/ham-radio/nvis-antennas/ http://www.arrl.org/nvis Thanks, I'll certainly have a good read of those articles. But regardless of what they say, in a typical amateur scenario, I still reckon that at (say) 300 miles, an 80m signal from a dipole at 100' is likely to be stronger than one from one at 20' (or even at 60'). Yes, intuitively it certainly seems like the higher antenna will perform better. However, I have a chart about loop antennas that rates the 75 meter loop highest in NVIS gain at 25 feet high. I included the pdf file if it comes through. Mine at 33 feet makes a pretty good NVIS antenna. Will never know what it would do at 100 feet. |
Dipoles, why height matters
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. |
Dipoles, why height matters
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , writes Ian Jackson wrote: In message , writes Ian Jackson wrote: snip 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! Try reading these: http://www.qsl.net/wb5ude/nvis/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_ve...idence_skywave http://www.w0ipl.net/ECom/NVIS/nvis.htm http://kv5r.com/ham-radio/nvis-antennas/ http://www.arrl.org/nvis Thanks, I'll certainly have a good read of those articles. But regardless of what they say, in a typical amateur scenario, I still reckon that at (say) 300 miles, an 80m signal from a dipole at 100' is likely to be stronger than one from one at 20' (or even at 60'). As 300 miles is at the upper end of NVIS and the lower end for skywave NVIS IS skywave - only that it's more straight up-and-down than at an angle. It's only a matter (literally) of degree, and there's no real point at which NVIS becomes 'normal' skywave. 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. it would be a crap shoot. NVIS distance is typically 30-400 miles. OK, let's make it a bit less - say 50 or 100 miles. I still feel that, in practice, a dipole at 100' would be unlikely to be less effective than at 20'. The experience of all the world's militaries and those others who have done actual measurements come to a contrary conclusion. -- Jim Pennino |
Dipoles, why height matters
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/22/2014 1:07 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 8:56 PM, wrote: 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. But it has EVERYTHING to do with your comment about WAS. But you are so enraged about being correct you can not understand that. Nope. It has NOTHING to do with a dipole on 75 meters - which is the subject of this thread. You're just trying to derail the conversation so you don't have to admit you're wrong. Strawman arguement in an attempt to deflect the arguement from your WAS statements. 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. Yet another strawman arguement; the pattern of a dipole expressed in terms of wavelengths is the same at 3 MHz and 3 GHz. And during sunspot peaks you get the same NVIS and skywave effects at 6M. And the whole point of the 6M statement was that QSL cards or WAS awards say absolutely nothing about antenna patterns. -- Jim Pennino |
Dipoles, why height matters
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. -- Jim Pennino |
Dipoles, why height matters
On 11/22/2014 5:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/22/2014 1:07 PM, wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/21/2014 8:56 PM, wrote: 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. But it has EVERYTHING to do with your comment about WAS. But you are so enraged about being correct you can not understand that. Nope. It has NOTHING to do with a dipole on 75 meters - which is the subject of this thread. You're just trying to derail the conversation so you don't have to admit you're wrong. Strawman arguement in an attempt to deflect the arguement from your WAS statements. 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. Yet another strawman arguement; the pattern of a dipole expressed in terms of wavelengths is the same at 3 MHz and 3 GHz. And during sunspot peaks you get the same NVIS and skywave effects at 6M. 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. Just like the troll you are. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Dipoles, why height matters
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 ================== |
Dipoles, why height matters
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 ================== |
Dipoles, why height matters
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. |
Dipoles, why height matters
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 ================== |
Dipoles, why height matters
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 |
Dipoles, why height matters
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 |
Dipoles, why height matters
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 ================== |
Dipoles, why height matters
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 ================== |
Dipoles, why height matters
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 |
Dipoles, why height matters
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com