A dipole over ground

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

The following shows the effect on elevation pattern for a 1/2 wave
dipole antenna over ground at various heights for perfect, very good,
average, and extremely ground.

The important value to note is the elevation angle for the main lobe.

Generally for DX an elevation angle at or below 30 degrees is desirable
and for NVIS an angle above 60 degrees.

The elevation angles apply to any dipole type antenna, such as a G5RV,
OCF dipole, etc. but the absolute gain values will be quite different.

Also some types of dipoles have more lobes than the two of the 1/2
wave dipole; those lobes will still be elevated.

Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
Height gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90
0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66
0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50
0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41
0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35
0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31
0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28
0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25
0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23
0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21
0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20
0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18
0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17
0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16
0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15
0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15
0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14


Special note:

Most people understand that the results of an antenna analysis program
reflect the material used to construct the antenna and the type of
ground, if any, used for the analysis, are an approximation, and are
not accurate to 27 decimal places.

Further, most people also understand that absent them being a part of
the model used for the analysis, objects in the near field of the antenna,
such as, but not limited to, 20 foot prision walls, blimp hangers,
skyscrapers, a deluge of biblical proportions, giant sequoia trees,
hovering 2 mile wide alien spacecraft, hords of locusts, large gold
deposits under the antenna, battles between Autobots and Decepticons,
beached aircraft carriers, and stadium domes may well effect the
actual antenna perfomance.

Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited.

Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer
errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The following shows the effect on elevation pattern for a 1/2 wave
dipole antenna over ground at various heights for perfect, very good,
average, and extremely ground.
The important value to note is the elevation angle for the main lobe.
Generally for DX an elevation angle at or below 30 degrees is desirable
and for NVIS an angle above 60 degrees.
The elevation angles apply to any dipole type antenna, such as a G5RV,
OCF dipole, etc. but the absolute gain values will be quite different.
Also some types of dipoles have more lobes than the two of the 1/2
wave dipole; those lobes will still be elevated.
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90
0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66
0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50
0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41
0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35
0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31
0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28
0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25
0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23
0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21
0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20
0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18
0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17
0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16
0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15
0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15
0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14
Most people understand that the results of an antenna analysis program
reflect the material used to construct the antenna and the type of
ground, if any, used for the analysis, are an approximation, and are
not accurate to 27 decimal places.
Further, most people also understand that absent them being a part of
the model used for the analysis, objects in the near field of the antenna,
such as, but not limited to, 20 foot prision walls, blimp hangers,
skyscrapers, a deluge of biblical proportions, giant sequoia trees,
hovering 2 mile wide alien spacecraft, hords of locusts, large gold
deposits under the antenna, battles between Autobots and Decepticons,
beached aircraft carriers, and stadium domes may well effect the
actual antenna perfomance.
Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited.
Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer
errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.

Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Jerry Stuckle <***@attglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

You should see someone about getting that stick pulled out that is
firmly shoved up your butt.

After you do that, you can comment on the repeatable data I posted.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

You should see someone about getting that stick pulled out that is
firmly shoved up your butt.
After you do that, you can comment on the repeatable data I posted.

ROFLMAO! At least my head isn't there - like yours is.

Sure, you can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what you're
cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

You've made yourself perfectly clear in multiple comments. You don't
understand a thing about dipoles.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

You should see someone about getting that stick pulled out that is
firmly shoved up your butt.
After you do that, you can comment on the repeatable data I posted.

ROFLMAO! At least my head isn't there - like yours is.

So where are your insightful comments on the data or is puerile drivel
all you've got?

<snip puerile drivel>

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

You should see someone about getting that stick pulled out that is
firmly shoved up your butt.
After you do that, you can comment on the repeatable data I posted.

ROFLMAO! At least my head isn't there - like yours is.

So where are your insightful comments on the data or is puerile drivel
all you've got?
<snip puerile drivel>

I've presented proof already you're full of crap. Not that your
statements need any refutation - they are among the most stoopid I've
seen on usenet - and that's pretty stoopid.

But I am not going to get into a technical argument with you. I don't
debate the defenseless. I just let their statements stand on their own.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

You should see someone about getting that stick pulled out that is
firmly shoved up your butt.
After you do that, you can comment on the repeatable data I posted.

ROFLMAO! At least my head isn't there - like yours is.

So where are your insightful comments on the data or is puerile drivel
all you've got?
<snip puerile drivel>

But I am not going to get into a technical argument with you.

You have no technical arguments.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

You should see someone about getting that stick pulled out that is
firmly shoved up your butt.
After you do that, you can comment on the repeatable data I posted.

ROFLMAO! At least my head isn't there - like yours is.

So where are your insightful comments on the data or is puerile drivel
all you've got?
<snip puerile drivel>

But I am not going to get into a technical argument with you.

You have no technical arguments.

I do. But you don't understand anything more complicated than 2+2=4.

I know better than to try to have an intellectual discussion with an idiot.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

You should see someone about getting that stick pulled out that is
firmly shoved up your butt.
After you do that, you can comment on the repeatable data I posted.

ROFLMAO! At least my head isn't there - like yours is.

So where are your insightful comments on the data or is puerile drivel
all you've got?
<snip puerile drivel>

But I am not going to get into a technical argument with you.

You have no technical arguments.

I do.

So where is it?

<snip puerile drivel>

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

You should see someone about getting that stick pulled out that is
firmly shoved up your butt.
After you do that, you can comment on the repeatable data I posted.

ROFLMAO! At least my head isn't there - like yours is.

So where are your insightful comments on the data or is puerile drivel
all you've got?
<snip puerile drivel>

But I am not going to get into a technical argument with you.

You have no technical arguments.

I do.

So where is it?
<snip puerile drivel>

ROFLMAO!

Right here:

From your post on Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:12:37:

"Any dipole type antenna will suck on 75M if mounted less than about
100 feet, or about .4 wavelengths."

And other posts.

People who make such comments have no idea what they are talking about.
You can cut and paste all you want. But I don't wrestle pigs.

Are you sure you aren't Big G under another name? You two act the same.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

You should see someone about getting that stick pulled out that is
firmly shoved up your butt.
After you do that, you can comment on the repeatable data I posted.

ROFLMAO! At least my head isn't there - like yours is.

So where are your insightful comments on the data or is puerile drivel
all you've got?
<snip puerile drivel>

But I am not going to get into a technical argument with you.

You have no technical arguments.

I do.

So where is it?
<snip puerile drivel>

ROFLMAO!
"Any dipole type antenna will suck on 75M if mounted less than about
100 feet, or about .4 wavelengths."

Yep, and as one can see from the data, an antenna mounted less than
about .4 wavelengths high sends most of the energy into the clouds.

So what is your technical arguement about that?

Or perhaps you are still fixating on the fact that the original poster
said the antenna sucked and I used the phrase "will suck" in response?

<snip remaining puerile drivel>

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 11/16/2014 6:10 PM, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

Nothing important.

You obviously have no idea what the chart is showing.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Nothing important.
You obviously have no idea what the chart is showing.

So that is your entire technical arguement?

So what, then, is the chart showing if not that as the height of a dipole
decreases from 1/2 wavelength, the main lobe elevation angle increases
until it becomes straight up?

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 11/16/2014 6:50 PM, ***@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

Noting important.

You can copy/paste charts, but have no understanding as to what they
mean. And trying to carry on a technical discussion with you is a
complete waste of time.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Noting important.
You can copy/paste charts, but have no understanding as to what they
mean. And trying to carry on a technical discussion with you is a
complete waste of time.

So where is YOUR technical discussion of the data or is childish
insults all you have?

[John S]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Noting important.
You can copy/paste charts, but have no understanding as to what they
mean. And trying to carry on a technical discussion with you is a
complete waste of time.

So where is YOUR technical discussion of the data or is childish
insults all you have?

This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.

By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."

You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by John S

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Noting important.
You can copy/paste charts, but have no understanding as to what they
mean. And trying to carry on a technical discussion with you is a
complete waste of time.

So where is YOUR technical discussion of the data or is childish
insults all you have?

This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.
By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."
You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

John, you're right. I should know better than to try to wrestle with a
pig. It gets both dirty and the pig enjoys it.

I'll stop and let Jim continue to shoot himself in the foot. I just
hope too many newbies don't fall for his crap.

[n***@wt.net]

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by John S

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Noting important.
You can copy/paste charts, but have no understanding as to what they
mean. And trying to carry on a technical discussion with you is a
complete waste of time.

So where is YOUR technical discussion of the data or is childish
insults all you have?

This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.
By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."
You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

John, you're right. I should know better than to try to wrestle with a
pig. It gets both dirty and the pig enjoys it.
I'll stop and let Jim continue to shoot himself in the foot. I just
hope too many newbies don't fall for his crap.

I don't see where he's shot himself in the foot. Maybe leaning towards
a DXers point of view as far as the desired pattern he'd like to see at
first, but other than that, I don't see any real problems with anything
else he has posted.

And I agree that you can work DX fairly well with a low 80m dipole,
as I've done it several times, but it is true that a higher dipole will
be much better as far as the lower angles.
I still think a good vertical is overall the best for DX myself..
On 40m, my elevated full size ground plane used to tear my 40 ft high
dipole a new one on paths to VK and such. Even my mobile antenna was
better for DX vs that dipole.. And much the same would happen on 80m,
and 160m for that matter.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by n***@wt.net

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by John S

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Noting important.
You can copy/paste charts, but have no understanding as to what they
mean. And trying to carry on a technical discussion with you is a
complete waste of time.

So where is YOUR technical discussion of the data or is childish
insults all you have?

This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.
By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."
You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

John, you're right. I should know better than to try to wrestle with a
pig. It gets both dirty and the pig enjoys it.
I'll stop and let Jim continue to shoot himself in the foot. I just
hope too many newbies don't fall for his crap.

I don't see where he's shot himself in the foot. Maybe leaning towards
a DXers point of view as far as the desired pattern he'd like to see at
first, but other than that, I don't see any real problems with anything
else he has posted.
And I agree that you can work DX fairly well with a low 80m dipole,
as I've done it several times, but it is true that a higher dipole will
be much better as far as the lower angles.
I still think a good vertical is overall the best for DX myself..
On 40m, my elevated full size ground plane used to tear my 40 ft high
dipole a new one on paths to VK and such. Even my mobile antenna was
better for DX vs that dipole.. And much the same would happen on 80m,
and 160m for that matter.

Don't be concerned, it is just Jerry Stuckle being Jerry Stuckle.

Anyone who has the audacity to even suggest that anything Jerry Stuckle
says, uses, built, does, or was ever associated with is anything other
than gold standard perfect is immediately labled one or more of lier,
ignorant and troll.

And yes, I do tend toward performance for DX as do most (Jerry Stuckle;
notice I used the word "most") hams as is shown by the huge number of
DX awards and the utter lack of any awards for NVIS operation.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by n***@wt.net

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by John S

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Noting important.
You can copy/paste charts, but have no understanding as to what they
mean. And trying to carry on a technical discussion with you is a
complete waste of time.

So where is YOUR technical discussion of the data or is childish
insults all you have?

This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.
By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."
You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

John, you're right. I should know better than to try to wrestle with a
pig. It gets both dirty and the pig enjoys it.
I'll stop and let Jim continue to shoot himself in the foot. I just
hope too many newbies don't fall for his crap.

I don't see where he's shot himself in the foot. Maybe leaning towards
a DXers point of view as far as the desired pattern he'd like to see at
first, but other than that, I don't see any real problems with anything
else he has posted.

To quote him:

"Any dipole type antenna will suck on 75M if mounted less than about
100 feet, or about .4 wavelengths."

Which is flat out wrong - as hundreds of thousands of hams around the
world will attest.

How many hams do you know who can put up 2 100'+ towers to hang an 80
meter dipole from? I guess all those active on 80 meters, according to
him.

Post by n***@wt.net
And I agree that you can work DX fairly well with a low 80m dipole,
as I've done it several times, but it is true that a higher dipole will
be much better as far as the lower angles.
I still think a good vertical is overall the best for DX myself..
On 40m, my elevated full size ground plane used to tear my 40 ft high
dipole a new one on paths to VK and such. Even my mobile antenna was
better for DX vs that dipole.. And much the same would happen on 80m,
and 160m for that matter.

How can you do that with a dipole that "sucks"?

[n***@wt.net]

Post by Jerry Stuckle
"Any dipole type antenna will suck on 75M if mounted less than about
100 feet, or about .4 wavelengths."
Which is flat out wrong - as hundreds of thousands of hams around the
world will attest.

I guess it would depend on how one defines "sucks"..
Myself, reading between the lines, I was fairly sure he was talking
about working dx. And compared to a high dipole, or a vertical, or
other better antennas, one might be compelled to say the low version
sucks. Whatever.. I don't see the statement a large enough problem
to warrant a drama fest, which of course if I were the one making
your type of comments, you and Rick would be on my ass faster than
flies flock to doo-doo.. Calling me a drama queen or some such, when in
reality anything I've ever said to the one who I best not mention,
pales in comparison to the vigor in which you attack Jim for something
I consider pretty much a non issue, being I realized right from the start
he was likely concentrating on dx paths and didn't care about NVIS.

Maybe he was slightly carried away on how bad a low dipole might be to
those paths, but who cares.. He wasn't that far off the mark when you
compare the two. The high dipole would likely smoke the low dipole on
long paths.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
How many hams do you know who can put up 2 100'+ towers to hang an 80
meter dipole from? I guess all those active on 80 meters, according to
him.

I doubt it, but I do know a few..

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by n***@wt.net
And I agree that you can work DX fairly well with a low 80m dipole,
as I've done it several times, but it is true that a higher dipole will
be much better as far as the lower angles.
I still think a good vertical is overall the best for DX myself..
On 40m, my elevated full size ground plane used to tear my 40 ft high
dipole a new one on paths to VK and such. Even my mobile antenna was
better for DX vs that dipole.. And much the same would happen on 80m,
and 160m for that matter.

How can you do that with a dipole that "sucks"?

Hummm.. When my ground plane was generally 4 S units better than my dipole
which was at about 40 ft high, or slightly more than a quarter wave up, using
both the received reports, and my own received signals from VK to verify
the reciprocal operation, and when it's a fact that even my puny mobile whip
would outdo the 40 ft high dipole on those paths, I would not have any problems
with anyone saying that my dipole sucked on those long paths.
In comparison, it did indeed.

Whatever.. If you and Rick are going to jump my ass and call me a drama
queen for being far less obnoxious than you have been, don't be surprised
if I call you on worse behavior than I've ever shown to the one who shalt
not be mentioned. Pot+kettle=black.

Time to give it a rest. We got your point. Many times over.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by n***@wt.net

Post by Jerry Stuckle
"Any dipole type antenna will suck on 75M if mounted less than about
100 feet, or about .4 wavelengths."
Which is flat out wrong - as hundreds of thousands of hams around the
world will attest.

I guess it would depend on how one defines "sucks"..
Myself, reading between the lines, I was fairly sure he was talking
about working dx. And compared to a high dipole, or a vertical, or
other better antennas, one might be compelled to say the low version
sucks. Whatever.. I don't see the statement a large enough problem
to warrant a drama fest, which of course if I were the one making
your type of comments, you and Rick would be on my ass faster than
flies flock to doo-doo.. Calling me a drama queen or some such, when in
reality anything I've ever said to the one who I best not mention,
pales in comparison to the vigor in which you attack Jim for something
I consider pretty much a non issue, being I realized right from the start
he was likely concentrating on dx paths and didn't care about NVIS.
Maybe he was slightly carried away on how bad a low dipole might be to
those paths, but who cares.. He wasn't that far off the mark when you
compare the two. The high dipole would likely smoke the low dipole on
long paths.

Actually, he wasn't talking about DX at all. If you look at the
previous comments, they were about ground wave propagation on 80 meters,
not DX.

And I didn't create the drama fest; if he would have just admitted his
statement was incorrect, all would have been dropped. But no, he had to
carry on with how his statement was right and the rest of the ham world
is wrong.

Post by n***@wt.net

Post by Jerry Stuckle
How many hams do you know who can put up 2 100'+ towers to hang an 80
meter dipole from? I guess all those active on 80 meters, according to
him.

I doubt it, but I do know a few..

I know a few, also. And their signals are not significantly better than
anyone else's. And back in the 70's I was able to work a club station
with 40/80 dipoles at 130' AGL. They didn't work that much better than
the inverted Vs I had running from 50' to near ground.

Post by n***@wt.net

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by n***@wt.net
And I agree that you can work DX fairly well with a low 80m dipole,
as I've done it several times, but it is true that a higher dipole will
be much better as far as the lower angles.
I still think a good vertical is overall the best for DX myself..
On 40m, my elevated full size ground plane used to tear my 40 ft high
dipole a new one on paths to VK and such. Even my mobile antenna was
better for DX vs that dipole.. And much the same would happen on 80m,
and 160m for that matter.

How can you do that with a dipole that "sucks"?

Hummm.. When my ground plane was generally 4 S units better than my dipole
which was at about 40 ft high, or slightly more than a quarter wave up, using
both the received reports, and my own received signals from VK to verify
the reciprocal operation, and when it's a fact that even my puny mobile whip
would outdo the 40 ft high dipole on those paths, I would not have any problems
with anyone saying that my dipole sucked on those long paths.
In comparison, it did indeed.

OK for you, but I've never had a mobile (Hustler with appropriate traps)
work better than a good old fashioned dipole at a few feet.

I also had a 5 band vertical (HyGain 18AVQ, ground mounted). It worked
better than the V some times, and worse other times - usually worse.
The V was my main antenna.

Post by n***@wt.net
Whatever.. If you and Rick are going to jump my ass and call me a drama
queen for being far less obnoxious than you have been, don't be surprised
if I call you on worse behavior than I've ever shown to the one who shalt
not be mentioned. Pot+kettle=black.
Time to give it a rest. We got your point. Many times over.

No, I'm not going to jump your ass. You're trying to carry on a
reasonable conversation. I'll leave the for Jim. He's well known for
that action.

[Brian Gregory]

Post by John S
This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.
By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."
You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

You should see uk.radio.amateur -- it's like a cesspit of weirdos all
accusing each other of everything from simple lack of technical
knowledge up to child molestation.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Brian Gregory

Post by John S
This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.
By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."
You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

You should see uk.radio.amateur -- it's like a cesspit of weirdos all
accusing each other of everything from simple lack of technical knowledge
up to child molestation.

Which is why there's a CFV open in uk.net.news.config to create a moderated
version where such madness cannot take root.

[atec77]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Which is why there's a CFV open in uk.net.news.config to create a moderated
version where such madness cannot take root.

I wish it were true but a determined fool can damage anything including
a moderated , I seriously might have to plonk sticky as the man is
digging an even deeper rut

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Which is why there's a CFV open in uk.net.news.config to create a moderated
version where such madness cannot take root.

I wish it were true but a determined fool can damage anything including a
moderated , I seriously might have to plonk sticky as the man is digging an even deeper rut

Perhaps, but the general ambience of a moderated group should be
significantly more pleasant than the open sewer that uk.radio.amateur has
been for a decade and that several groups in rra.* are threatening to
become.

[atec77]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
Which is why there's a CFV open in uk.net.news.config to create a moderated
version where such madness cannot take root.

I wish it were true but a determined fool can damage anything including a
moderated , I seriously might have to plonk sticky as the man is digging an even deeper rut

Perhaps, but the general ambience of a moderated group should be
significantly more pleasant than the open sewer that uk.radio.amateur has
been for a decade and that several groups in rra.* are threatening to
become.

you are correct of course , kinda ""be careful what you wish for""

[Michael Black]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Gregory

Post by John S
This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.
By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."
You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

You should see uk.radio.amateur -- it's like a cesspit of weirdos all
accusing each other of everything from simple lack of technical knowledge
up to child molestation.

Which is why there's a CFV open in uk.net.news.config to create a moderated
version where such madness cannot take root.

And it's not going to solve our problem, which is only a problem when the
UK spills over into the international groups.

You keep crossposting your little announcements, so we see the spew as a
result. If nobody cross-posted to the UK group, much of this would
disappear, unless you people are actually leaving the UK group to stalk
others who come here.

Michael

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Michael Black

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Gregory

Post by John S
This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.
By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."
You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

You should see uk.radio.amateur -- it's like a cesspit of weirdos all
accusing each other of everything from simple lack of technical knowledge
up to child molestation.

Which is why there's a CFV open in uk.net.news.config to create a moderated
version where such madness cannot take root.

And it's not going to solve our problem, which is only a problem when the
UK spills over into the international groups.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Post by Michael Black

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole

Post by Brian Gregory

Post by John S
This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.
By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."
You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

You should see uk.radio.amateur -- it's like a cesspit of weirdos all
accusing each other of everything from simple lack of technical knowledge
up to child molestation.

Which is why there's a CFV open in uk.net.news.config to create a moderated
version where such madness cannot take root.

And it's not going to solve our problem, which is only a problem when the
UK spills over into the international groups.

Sent too soon!

What I was going to say is; No, the moderated group won't instantly stop
the spillover but, overtime, the moderated group will allow the heat to die
down in ukra, leading to less squabbles and less spillover.

It's worth noting that there's only one person who regularly crossposts;
Gareth. He does it to fire up a shitstorm, and usually succeeds.

[gareth]

Post by Stephen Thomas Cole
It's worth noting that there's only one person who regularly crossposts;
Gareth. He does it to fire up a shitstorm, and usually succeeds.

I wish to discuss things of a technical nature that interest me, but those
who do not understand the material proclaim that it is there to stir up
a hornets' nest and thereby seek to justify their own ad hominem attacks.

Physician, heal thyself

[atec77]

Post by Brian Gregory

Post by John S
This is why this group is suffering. Individually, not because of you,
Jim, nor you Jerry. But, together you both have some kind of need to
insult each other for at least 14 posts. Each of you seem to have the
kind of ego that will not allow the other to have the last word.
By your actions, you run other innocent posters away. What the hell is
wrong with saying, "Ok, you disagree with me. I disagree with you, as
well. So what? Let's get on with the discussion."
You both have technical knowledge to share with those us who have less
knowledge than the two of you. Can't you find a way to help us instead
of fighting?

You should see uk.radio.amateur -- it's like a cesspit of weirdos all
accusing each other of everything from simple lack of technical
knowledge up to child molestation.

The degree of discourse and the manner of presentation in that group
might well be a social malady regarding the population of the island
and specific social ineptitude .

not that there is anything wrong with that (sic)

[gareth]

Post by Brian Gregory
You should see uk.radio.amateur -- it's like a cesspit of weirdos all
accusing each other of everything from simple lack of technical knowledge
up to child molestation.

It has certainly become a cesspit since you joined two years ago and
made it so. You arrived seeking advice, which was freely given to you,
although you ignored it; then you set out on a campaign of drawing
attention to yourself by picking on each established radio amateur
in turn and subjecting him to the most appalling vendetta of one
offensive remark after another, despite that you had no standing
yourself either through having no licence, or the CB-equivalent
Fools' Licence.

It has been suggested many times that if you alone were to decamp
from ura, then things would improve no end.

However, if someone demonstrates a "simple lack of technical
knowledge" then he has no place in a NG for amateur radio, for,
unlike CB Radio which is the operator's hobby for those who buy their
riges off the shelf and send then back if ever needing repair*****, Amateur
Radio is a whole-life technical pursuit for those who are motivated
by technical interest and curiosity.

***** Notwithstanding that there are legions of
CBers-masquerading-as-radio-amateurs
polluting the bands these days, many even with the Yank Extra Class Licence
or the
Brit Full Licence.

[gareth]

Apologies, I thought that I was responding to M6CIR and not you, Brian.

Post by gareth

Post by Brian Gregory
You should see uk.radio.amateur -- it's like a cesspit of weirdos all
accusing each other of everything from simple lack of technical knowledge
up to child molestation.

It has certainly become a cesspit since you joined two years ago and
made it so. You arrived seeking advice, which was freely given to you,
although you ignored it; then you set out on a campaign of drawing
attention to yourself by picking on each established radio amateur
in turn and subjecting him to the most appalling vendetta of one
offensive remark after another, despite that you had no standing
yourself either through having no licence, or the CB-equivalent
Fools' Licence.
It has been suggested many times that if you alone were to decamp
from ura, then things would improve no end.
However, if someone demonstrates a "simple lack of technical
knowledge" then he has no place in a NG for amateur radio, for,
unlike CB Radio which is the operator's hobby for those who buy their
riges off the shelf and send then back if ever needing repair*****, Amateur
Radio is a whole-life technical pursuit for those who are motivated
by technical interest and curiosity.
***** Notwithstanding that there are legions of
CBers-masquerading-as-radio-amateurs
polluting the bands these days, many even with the Yank Extra Class
Licence or the
Brit Full Licence.

[Sal M. O'Nella]

The following >
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90
0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66
0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50
0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41
0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35
0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31
0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28
0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25
0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23
0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21
0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20
0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18
0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17
0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16
0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15
0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15
0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14

< snip >
=================================
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
***@attglobal.net
===================================

Among the very few things I know for sure is this: There is no call for you
to be as rude as you are.

John Markham, KD6VKW, usually posting as "Sal."

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by Sal M. O'Nella

The following >
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90
0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66
0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50
0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41
0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35
0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31
0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28
0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25
0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23
0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21
0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20
0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18
0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17
0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16
0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15
0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15
0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14

< snip >
=================================
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
===================================
Among the very few things I know for sure is this: There is no call for you
to be as rude as you are.
John Markham, KD6VKW, usually posting as "Sal."

When dealing with troll, you need to work at their level. You obviously
haven't been around here much.

I'm too old to care what trolls think of me.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Sal M. O'Nella

The following >
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90
0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66
0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50
0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41
0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35
0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31
0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28
0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25
0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23
0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21
0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20
0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18
0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17
0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16
0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15
0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15
0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14

< snip >
=================================
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
===================================
Among the very few things I know for sure is this: There is no call for you
to be as rude as you are.
John Markham, KD6VKW, usually posting as "Sal."

Uh-oh, you have called into question the word of the great and mighty
Jerry Stuckle, keeper of the ultimate truth of life, the universe, and
everything.

Prepare to be appropriately chastised blasphemer.

[Sal M. O'Nella]

Post by Sal M. O'Nella

The following >
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90
0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66
0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50
0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41
0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35
0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31
0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28
0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25
0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23
0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21
0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20
0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18
0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17
0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16
0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15
0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15
0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14

< snip >
=================================
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
===================================
Among the very few things I know for sure is this: There is no call for you
to be as rude as you are.
John Markham, KD6VKW, usually posting as "Sal."

Uh-oh, you have called into question the word of the great and mighty
Jerry Stuckle, keeper of the ultimate truth of life, the universe, and
everything.

Prepare to be appropriately chastised blasphemer.
==========================================================

I get it, unlike he who missed your wry sarcasm. :-)

"Sal"

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Sal M. O'Nella

The following >
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90
0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66
0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50
0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41
0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35
0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31
0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28
0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25
0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23
0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21
0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20
0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18
0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17
0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16
0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15
0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15
0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14

< snip >
=================================
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
===================================
Among the very few things I know for sure is this: There is no call for you
to be as rude as you are.
John Markham, KD6VKW, usually posting as "Sal."

Uh-oh, you have called into question the word of the great and mighty
Jerry Stuckle, keeper of the ultimate truth of life, the universe, and
everything.
Prepare to be appropriately chastised blasphemer.
==========================================================
I get it, unlike he who missed your wry sarcasm. :-)
"Sal"

No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll.

However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole.
And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the
antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look
back through this newsgroup and you'll see it.

Then he uses some figures for a theoretical installation (which can
never occur in the real world) to prove his statement. And when shown
he's wrong in a real operating environment, he just dismisses the proof.

Fortunately, millions of hams around the world know he's wrong, and all
of the activity on 80/75 meters is proof.

But Jimbo will NEVER admit he's wrong. He never could be - he suffers
from delusions of perfection.

It's all in this newsgroup. All you have to do is look - instead of
jumping on one post I made calling him what he is.

However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have
experience in how wrong he is.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Jerry Stuckle <***@attglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll.

You throw the word "troll" around a lot when someone disagrees with one
of your pronouncements; do you even know what it means?

Post by Jerry Stuckle
However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole.
And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the
antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look
back through this newsgroup and you'll see it.

That would take magic as I have never in my life put up any sort of
80M dipole nor have I ever in my life lived anywhere that the lot was
big enough to put up an 80M dipole.

I once put up a 40-30-20-15-10 trap dipole, and even with all the
shortening from the traps, there still wasn't enough land to add 80M.

You are a lier.

<snip remaining babbling nonsense>

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll.

You throw the word "troll" around a lot when someone disagrees with one
of your pronouncements; do you even know what it means?

Yes, I know what it means. And you are a perfect example.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole.
And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the
antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look
back through this newsgroup and you'll see it.

That would take magic as I have never in my life put up any sort of
80M dipole nor have I ever in my life lived anywhere that the lot was
big enough to put up an 80M dipole.
I once put up a 40-30-20-15-10 trap dipole, and even with all the
shortening from the traps, there still wasn't enough land to add 80M.
You are a lier.

Then you should take back your previous statement, troll.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip remaining babbling nonsense>

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll.

You throw the word "troll" around a lot when someone disagrees with one
of your pronouncements; do you even know what it means?

Yes, I know what it means. And you are a perfect example.

Right...

troll

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being
self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others
on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by
his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of
ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular
phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as
straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the
essence of the issue.

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole.
And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the
antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look
back through this newsgroup and you'll see it.

That would take magic as I have never in my life put up any sort of
80M dipole nor have I ever in my life lived anywhere that the lot was
big enough to put up an 80M dipole.
I once put up a 40-30-20-15-10 trap dipole, and even with all the
shortening from the traps, there still wasn't enough land to add 80M.
You are a lier.

Then you should take back your previous statement, troll.

As I never stated that I had ever at any time put up an 80M dipole of
any kind, I have nothing to take back, lier.

[gareth]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
troll
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being
self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others
on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by
his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of
ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular
phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as
straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the
essence of the issue.

Physician, heal thyself.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by gareth

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
troll
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being
self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others
on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by
his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of
ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular
phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as
straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the
essence of the issue.

Physician, heal thyself.

And what does this topic or group have to do with physicians, gas bag?

[John S]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by gareth

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
troll
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being
self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others
on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by
his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of
ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular
phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as
straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the
essence of the issue.

Physician, heal thyself.

And what does this topic or group have to do with physicians, gas bag?

You took the bait, Jim. Did you really need to do that?

I am depressed that adult licensed amateur radio operators can be so
juvenile. Is this how you conduct yourselves on the air? In person?

You are a discredit to the amateur community as well as all of society.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by John S

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by gareth

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
troll
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being
self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others
on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by
his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of
ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular
phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as
straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the
essence of the issue.

Physician, heal thyself.

And what does this topic or group have to do with physicians, gas bag?

You took the bait, Jim. Did you really need to do that?

Yeah, why not, there's nobody posting much of anything but Jerry Stuckle
hallucinating about some imaginary 80M dipole I was supposed to have
had.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll.

You throw the word "troll" around a lot when someone disagrees with one
of your pronouncements; do you even know what it means?

Yes, I know what it means. And you are a perfect example.

Right...
troll
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being
self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others
on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by
his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of
ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular
phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as
straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the
essence of the issue.

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole.
And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the
antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look
back through this newsgroup and you'll see it.

That would take magic as I have never in my life put up any sort of
80M dipole nor have I ever in my life lived anywhere that the lot was
big enough to put up an 80M dipole.
I once put up a 40-30-20-15-10 trap dipole, and even with all the
shortening from the traps, there still wasn't enough land to add 80M.
You are a lier.

Then you should take back your previous statement, troll.

As I never stated that I had ever at any time put up an 80M dipole of
any kind, I have nothing to take back, lier.

Ah, so now you claim you've never put up an 80 meter dipole - but you're
an expert on them! ROFLMAO!

And you can't even spell "liar". Some "expert".

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll.

You throw the word "troll" around a lot when someone disagrees with one
of your pronouncements; do you even know what it means?

Yes, I know what it means. And you are a perfect example.

Right...
troll
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being
self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others
on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by
his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of
ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular
phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as
straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the
essence of the issue.

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole.
And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the
antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look
back through this newsgroup and you'll see it.

That would take magic as I have never in my life put up any sort of
80M dipole nor have I ever in my life lived anywhere that the lot was
big enough to put up an 80M dipole.
I once put up a 40-30-20-15-10 trap dipole, and even with all the
shortening from the traps, there still wasn't enough land to add 80M.
You are a lier.

Then you should take back your previous statement, troll.

As I never stated that I had ever at any time put up an 80M dipole of
any kind, I have nothing to take back, lier.

Ah, so now you claim you've never put up an 80 meter dipole - but you're
an expert on them! ROFLMAO!

I know enough to understand what the elevation angles in this data mean
and that a diple is a dipole:

Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
Height gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev gain @ elev
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90
0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66
0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50
0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41
0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35
0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31
0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28
0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25
0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23
0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21
0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20
0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18
0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17
0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16
0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15
0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15
0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14

Post by Jerry Stuckle
And you can't even spell "liar". Some "expert".

Special note:

Most people understand that the results of an antenna analysis program
reflect the material used to construct the antenna and the type of
ground, if any, used for the analysis, are an approximation, and are
not accurate to 27 decimal places.

Further, most people also understand that absent them being a part of
the model used for the analysis, objects in the near field of the antenna,
such as, but not limited to, 20 foot prision walls, blimp hangers,
skyscrapers, a deluge of biblical proportions, giant sequoia trees,
hovering 2 mile wide alien spacecraft, hords of locusts, large gold
deposits under the antenna, battles between Autobots and Decepticons,
beached aircraft carriers, and stadium domes may well effect the
actual antenna perfomance.

Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited.

Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer
errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
No, I didn't miss it. But he's just a troll.

You throw the word "troll" around a lot when someone disagrees with one
of your pronouncements; do you even know what it means?

Yes, I know what it means. And you are a perfect example.

Right...
troll
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being
self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others
on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by
his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of
ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular
phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as
straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the
essence of the issue.

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
However, you have to understand. He once put up an 80 meter dipole.
And it didn't work well. So rather than admitting he screwed up the
antenna, he just claims that all 80 meter dipoles under 100' suck. Look
back through this newsgroup and you'll see it.

That would take magic as I have never in my life put up any sort of
80M dipole nor have I ever in my life lived anywhere that the lot was
big enough to put up an 80M dipole.
I once put up a 40-30-20-15-10 trap dipole, and even with all the
shortening from the traps, there still wasn't enough land to add 80M.
You are a lier.

Then you should take back your previous statement, troll.

As I never stated that I had ever at any time put up an 80M dipole of
any kind, I have nothing to take back, lier.

Ah, so now you claim you've never put up an 80 meter dipole - but you're
an expert on them! ROFLMAO!

I know enough to understand what the elevation angles in this data mean

You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no
idea *what the chart shows*.

<snip>

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
And you can't even spell "liar". Some "expert".

Most people understand that the results of an antenna analysis program
reflect the material used to construct the antenna and the type of
ground, if any, used for the analysis, are an approximation, and are
not accurate to 27 decimal places.

In your case they aren't accurate to -2 decimal places.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Further, most people also understand that absent them being a part of
the model used for the analysis, objects in the near field of the antenna,
such as, but not limited to, 20 foot prision walls, blimp hangers,
skyscrapers, a deluge of biblical proportions, giant sequoia trees,
hovering 2 mile wide alien spacecraft, hords of locusts, large gold
deposits under the antenna, battles between Autobots and Decepticons,
beached aircraft carriers, and stadium domes may well effect the
actual antenna perfomance.
Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited.
Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer
errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.

Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. But you have to
prove your stoopidity by opening your mouth anyway.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Jerry Stuckle <***@attglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no
idea *what the chart shows*.

That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly
refuse to address what it is that the chart does show.

Those are two traits of a real troll.

<snip>

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no
idea *what the chart shows*.

That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly
refuse to address what it is that the chart does show.
Those are two traits of a real troll.
<snip>

I've tried explaining it to you in the past. But you discard any
attempts at proof I provide. So don't try to tell me I haven't provided
any proof.

It's just what a troll does.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no
idea *what the chart shows*.

That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly
refuse to address what it is that the chart does show.
Those are two traits of a real troll.
<snip>

I've tried explaining it to you in the past. But you discard any
attempts at proof I provide. So don't try to tell me I haven't provided
any proof.

All you have provided as proof is "I got a WAS" which is NOT proof
of antenna performance.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no
idea *what the chart shows*.

That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly
refuse to address what it is that the chart does show.
Those are two traits of a real troll.
<snip>

I've tried explaining it to you in the past. But you discard any
attempts at proof I provide. So don't try to tell me I haven't provided
any proof.

All you have provided as proof is "I got a WAS" which is NOT proof
of antenna performance.

It is more proof that you have that your figures are wrong!

And actual propagation reports are more accurate than theoretical charts.

But you're always right. And you discount anything that disagrees with
your fantasies.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no
idea *what the chart shows*.

That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly
refuse to address what it is that the chart does show.
Those are two traits of a real troll.
<snip>

I've tried explaining it to you in the past. But you discard any
attempts at proof I provide. So don't try to tell me I haven't provided
any proof.

All you have provided as proof is "I got a WAS" which is NOT proof
of antenna performance.

It is more proof that you have that your figures are wrong!

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
And actual propagation reports are more accurate than theoretical charts.

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
But you're always right. And you discount anything that disagrees with
your fantasies.

But you're always right. And you discount anything that disagrees with
your fantasies.

If you want REAL propagation reports with REAL numbers, than use
http://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no
idea *what the chart shows*.

That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly
refuse to address what it is that the chart does show.
Those are two traits of a real troll.
<snip>

I've tried explaining it to you in the past. But you discard any
attempts at proof I provide. So don't try to tell me I haven't provided
any proof.

All you have provided as proof is "I got a WAS" which is NOT proof
of antenna performance.

It is more proof that you have that your figures are wrong!

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
And actual propagation reports are more accurate than theoretical charts.

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.

This right here shows you how wrong you are.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
But you're always right. And you discount anything that disagrees with
your fantasies.

But you're always right. And you discount anything that disagrees with
your fantasies.
If you want REAL propagation reports with REAL numbers, than use
http://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html

LOL, you refuse to accept REAL reports because they contradict your
fantasies.

So, tell me. If my antenna "sucked", how did I work Alaska and Hawaii
from Iowa? In fact, how did I work California and Massachusetts?
According to you, it should have been impossible because my antenna
"sucked".

Heck - I shouldn't have even been able to work another Iowa station 100
mi. away!

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no
idea *what the chart shows*.

That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly
refuse to address what it is that the chart does show.
Those are two traits of a real troll.
<snip>

I've tried explaining it to you in the past. But you discard any
attempts at proof I provide. So don't try to tell me I haven't provided
any proof.

All you have provided as proof is "I got a WAS" which is NOT proof
of antenna performance.

It is more proof that you have that your figures are wrong!

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
And actual propagation reports are more accurate than theoretical charts.

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.

This right here shows you how wrong you are.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
But you're always right. And you discount anything that disagrees with
your fantasies.

But you're always right. And you discount anything that disagrees with
your fantasies.
If you want REAL propagation reports with REAL numbers, than use
http://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html

LOL, you refuse to accept REAL reports because they contradict your
fantasies.

A REAL report would be what you get from pskreporter which has numbers
coming from a computer based measurement in dB, not just some guy saying
"59".

Post by Jerry Stuckle
So, tell me. If my antenna "sucked", how did I work Alaska and Hawaii
from Iowa? In fact, how did I work California and Massachusetts?
According to you, it should have been impossible because my antenna
"sucked".

I have never said anything is impossible; you are delusional.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by Jerry Stuckle
You know enough to copy and paste a chart. That's all. You have no
idea *what the chart shows*.

That sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me and you repeatedly
refuse to address what it is that the chart does show.
Those are two traits of a real troll.
<snip>

I've tried explaining it to you in the past. But you discard any
attempts at proof I provide. So don't try to tell me I haven't provided
any proof.

All you have provided as proof is "I got a WAS" which is NOT proof
of antenna performance.

It is more proof that you have that your figures are wrong!

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
And actual propagation reports are more accurate than theoretical charts.

A QSL card has no figures other than the usual 59 for both ends.

This right here shows you how wrong you are.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Jerry Stuckle
But you're always right. And you discount anything that disagrees with
your fantasies.

But you're always right. And you discount anything that disagrees with
your fantasies.
If you want REAL propagation reports with REAL numbers, than use
http://pskreporter.info/pskmap.html

LOL, you refuse to accept REAL reports because they contradict your
fantasies.

A REAL report would be what you get from pskreporter which has numbers
coming from a computer based measurement in dB, not just some guy saying
"59".

Post by Jerry Stuckle
So, tell me. If my antenna "sucked", how did I work Alaska and Hawaii
from Iowa? In fact, how did I work California and Massachusetts?
According to you, it should have been impossible because my antenna
"sucked".

I have never said anything is impossible; you are delusional.

So you say that reports of a strong signal all over the state prove your
theory - but reports from all over the world are worthless because they
are not "propagation reports". IOW, reports which support your
fantasies are fine, but those which do no support your theories don't
count. Talk about selective bias!

And no - you didn't say it was impossible. But I still challenge you to
show how I could do that if my antenna "sucked". After all - it was
just an inverted VEE, apex at 50', ends basically at ground level.
According to you, I shouldn't have been able to work farther than Omaha.
Yet I worked both coasts virtually every night in the winter time.

So tell me, how could such an antenna that "sucks" according to your own
words, work?

[Sal M. O'Nella]

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message news:m4ktgg$rii$***@dont-email.me...


However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have
experience in how wrong he is.
===============================================================
This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload it
all at once.

I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby. I
try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all. particularly to
people who know less than I do, since I was once there.

What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally correct.
There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you consistently
conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a bother to me.
Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the continuity of the
thread but I'll manage.

"Sal"

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by Jerry Stuckle
However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have
experience in how wrong he is.
===============================================================
This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload
it all at once.
I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby.
I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all.
particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there.

Yea, right. You claim to be KD6VKW, with the name "Sal M. O'Nella".
But that call is registered to John Markham. Either your name or your
call is a lie. So much for any vestige of respectability you might have
once had.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally
correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you
consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a
bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the
continuity of the thread but I'll manage.
"Sal"

I am friendly and courteous to most people. But obviously you haven't
been on usenet very much. I've been on it almost as long as I've been a
ham - since it was Arpanet.

Usenet used to be a friendly place where people enjoyed talking to each
other. Nowadays it has way too many trolls and idiots. It doesn't help
to ignore these folks. They only keep on with their crap.

But they do fool people new to the group for a while. However, if you
stick around, you'll see their true colors.

As for you never speaking to me again - do you *REALLY* think I care?
Especially someone who claims something he is not?

[John S]

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by Jerry Stuckle
However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have
experience in how wrong he is.
===============================================================
This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload
it all at once.
I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby.
I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all.
particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there.

Yea, right. You claim to be KD6VKW, with the name "Sal M. O'Nella".
But that call is registered to John Markham. Either your name or your
call is a lie. So much for any vestige of respectability you might have
once had.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally
correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you
consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a
bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the
continuity of the thread but I'll manage.
"Sal"

Sal, you have been here for quite a while and readers know it. He does
not deserve any further replies from you.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
I am friendly and courteous to most people. But obviously you haven't
been on usenet very much. I've been on it almost as long as I've been a
ham - since it was Arpanet.

I doubt that. Can you prove it?

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Usenet used to be a friendly place where people enjoyed talking to each
other. Nowadays it has way too many trolls and idiots. It doesn't help
to ignore these folks. They only keep on with their crap.

Like you.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
But they do fool people new to the group for a while. However, if you
stick around, you'll see their true colors.

Like you.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
As for you never speaking to me again - do you *REALLY* think I care?
Especially someone who claims something he is not?

It is patently clear that you do care. Otherwise, why are you posting?
You are a disgrace on the ham radio community.

And, since you don't care what others think of you, I would expect no reply.

[atec77]

Post by John S

Post by Jerry Stuckle
As for you never speaking to me again - do you *REALLY* think I care?
Especially someone who claims something he is not?

It is patently clear that you do care. Otherwise, why are you posting?
You are a disgrace on the ham radio community.
And, since you don't care what others think of you, I would expect no reply.

The allure of being the last poster is inescapable ( that's sticky
proving he is the troll)
google rod speed for a clue about his play book and the sticky motivation

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by atec77

Post by John S

Post by Jerry Stuckle
As for you never speaking to me again - do you *REALLY* think I care?
Especially someone who claims something he is not?

It is patently clear that you do care. Otherwise, why are you posting?
You are a disgrace on the ham radio community.
And, since you don't care what others think of you, I would expect no reply.

The allure of being the last poster is inescapable ( that's sticky
proving he is the troll)
google rod speed for a clue about his play book and the sticky motivation

Why don't you go back to alt.politics, aus.tv.pay, aus.legal or any of
the many other newsgroups where you are a well-known troll? Maybe you
can't fool people there any more?

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by John S

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by Jerry Stuckle
However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have
experience in how wrong he is.
===============================================================
This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload
it all at once.
I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby.
I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all.
particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there.

Yea, right. You claim to be KD6VKW, with the name "Sal M. O'Nella".
But that call is registered to John Markham. Either your name or your
call is a lie. So much for any vestige of respectability you might have
once had.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally
correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you
consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a
bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the
continuity of the thread but I'll manage.
"Sal"

Sal, you have been here for quite a while and readers know it. He does
not deserve any further replies from you.

Sal has not "been here for quite a while" - as a search of Google Groups
proves.

Post by John S

Post by Jerry Stuckle
I am friendly and courteous to most people. But obviously you haven't
been on usenet very much. I've been on it almost as long as I've been a
ham - since it was Arpanet.

I doubt that. Can you prove it?

Why should I?

Post by John S

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Usenet used to be a friendly place where people enjoyed talking to each
other. Nowadays it has way too many trolls and idiots. It doesn't help
to ignore these folks. They only keep on with their crap.

Like you.

Yes, you are.

Post by John S

Post by Jerry Stuckle
But they do fool people new to the group for a while. However, if you
stick around, you'll see their true colors.

Like you.

Yes, you are.

Post by John S

Post by Jerry Stuckle
As for you never speaking to me again - do you *REALLY* think I care?
Especially someone who claims something he is not?

It is patently clear that you do care. Otherwise, why are you posting?
You are a disgrace on the ham radio community.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether I care or not. I just
want others to know who the trolls are.

And there are a couple here who are widely known in multiple newsgroups.

Post by John S
And, since you don't care what others think of you, I would expect no reply.

Ah, so you can get the last word in? Just like a troll wants?

Of course, I KNOW you'll just HAVE to respond!

[n***@wt.net]

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by John S

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by Jerry Stuckle
However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have
experience in how wrong he is.
===============================================================
This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload
it all at once.
I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby.
I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all.
particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there.

Yea, right. You claim to be KD6VKW, with the name "Sal M. O'Nella".
But that call is registered to John Markham. Either your name or your
call is a lie. So much for any vestige of respectability you might have
once had.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally
correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you
consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a
bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the
continuity of the thread but I'll manage.
"Sal"

Sal, you have been here for quite a while and readers know it. He does
not deserve any further replies from you.

Sal has not "been here for quite a while" - as a search of Google Groups
proves.

He most certainly has. A *whole lot* longer than you have, which as far
as I can remember has been a couple of years or so. I've been here since
the later 1990's, and Google likely does not show me going back that far
either. It's not a reliable source being as they seem to have culled a
lot of older posts.

[n***@wt.net]

Post by n***@wt.net

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Sal has not "been here for quite a while" - as a search of Google Groups
proves.

He most certainly has. A *whole lot* longer than you have, which as far
as I can remember has been a couple of years or so. I've been here since
the later 1990's, and Google likely does not show me going back that far
either. It's not a reliable source being as they seem to have culled a
lot of older posts.

Also, if one changes their email address, that would be a reason
they would not show up. I show myself going back to 2000, but I've
actually been here longer than that. It seems my mid-late 1990's posts
runnoft for some reason.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by n***@wt.net

Post by n***@wt.net

Post by Jerry Stuckle
Sal has not "been here for quite a while" - as a search of Google Groups
proves.

He most certainly has. A *whole lot* longer than you have, which as far
as I can remember has been a couple of years or so. I've been here since
the later 1990's, and Google likely does not show me going back that far
either. It's not a reliable source being as they seem to have culled a
lot of older posts.

Also, if one changes their email address, that would be a reason
they would not show up. I show myself going back to 2000, but I've
actually been here longer than that. It seems my mid-late 1990's posts
runnoft for some reason.

Gee, excuses, excuses. Or maybe you aren't what you claim. Email
addresses don't affect user names. Now if you faked your user name,
that's another story.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by n***@wt.net

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by John S

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by Jerry Stuckle
However, it also doesn't look like you're a ham, so you would have
experience in how wrong he is.
===============================================================
This will absolutely be the last thing I ever say to you, so I'll unload
it all at once.
I'm KD6VKW, over 20 years licensed, an active participant in our hobby.
I try to be as courteous and considerate as possible to all.
particularly to people who know less than I do, since I was once there.

Yea, right. You claim to be KD6VKW, with the name "Sal M. O'Nella".
But that call is registered to John Markham. Either your name or your
call is a lie. So much for any vestige of respectability you might have
once had.

Post by Jerry Stuckle
What I said about you and your rudeness was absolutely and totally
correct. There is no call for it. It's a four-star mystery how you
consistently conjure up meanness as you do, but you'll never again be a
bother to me. Missing seeing your contributions in a thread may hurt the
continuity of the thread but I'll manage.
"Sal"

Sal, you have been here for quite a while and readers know it. He does
not deserve any further replies from you.

Sal has not "been here for quite a while" - as a search of Google Groups
proves.

He most certainly has. A *whole lot* longer than you have, which as far
as I can remember has been a couple of years or so. I've been here since
the later 1990's, and Google likely does not show me going back that far
either. It's not a reliable source being as they seem to have culled a
lot of older posts.

Only the late 1990's? ROFLAMO! And Google Groups shows the truth. It
goes back to at least the middle 90's - they did, after all, buy
deja-news. And no, they have not "culled a lot of older posts". If you
think so, please prove it.

As a matter of fact, I was in this group while it was still arpanet - it
existed back in the 70's. So much for your "theories".

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by Sal M. O'Nella

The following >
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90
0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66
0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50
0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41
0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35
0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31
0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28
0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25
0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23
0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21
0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20
0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18
0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17
0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16
0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15
0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15
0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14

< snip >
=================================
Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
===================================
Among the very few things I know for sure is this: There is no call for you
to be as rude as you are.
John Markham, KD6VKW, usually posting as "Sal."

You can see from his reply to you...

[John S]

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The following shows the effect on elevation pattern for a 1/2 wave
dipole antenna over ground at various heights for perfect, very good,
average, and extremely ground.
The important value to note is the elevation angle for the main lobe.
Generally for DX an elevation angle at or below 30 degrees is desirable
and for NVIS an angle above 60 degrees.
The elevation angles apply to any dipole type antenna, such as a G5RV,
OCF dipole, etc. but the absolute gain values will be quite different.
Also some types of dipoles have more lobes than the two of the 1/2
wave dipole; those lobes will still be elevated.
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90
0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66
0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50
0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41
0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35
0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31
0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28
0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25
0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23
0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21
0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20
0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18
0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17
0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16
0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15
0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15
0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14
Most people understand that the results of an antenna analysis program
reflect the material used to construct the antenna and the type of
ground, if any, used for the analysis, are an approximation, and are
not accurate to 27 decimal places.
Further, most people also understand that absent them being a part of
the model used for the analysis, objects in the near field of the antenna,
such as, but not limited to, 20 foot prision walls, blimp hangers,
skyscrapers, a deluge of biblical proportions, giant sequoia trees,
hovering 2 mile wide alien spacecraft, hords of locusts, large gold
deposits under the antenna, battles between Autobots and Decepticons,
beached aircraft carriers, and stadium domes may well effect the
actual antenna perfomance.
Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited.
Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer
errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.

Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

Jerry, all the crap on this thread is your fault because of your
statement above. Can you even imagine how it might have gone had you
been a gentleman or had remained silent?

Shame on you for this and shame on Jim for continuing to bait you. You
two are ruining this group.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by John S

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The following shows the effect on elevation pattern for a 1/2 wave
dipole antenna over ground at various heights for perfect, very good,
average, and extremely ground.
The important value to note is the elevation angle for the main lobe.
Generally for DX an elevation angle at or below 30 degrees is desirable
and for NVIS an angle above 60 degrees.
The elevation angles apply to any dipole type antenna, such as a G5RV,
OCF dipole, etc. but the absolute gain values will be quite different.
Also some types of dipoles have more lobes than the two of the 1/2
wave dipole; those lobes will still be elevated.
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90
0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66
0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50
0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41
0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35
0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31
0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28
0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25
0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23
0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21
0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20
0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18
0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17
0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16
0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15
0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15
0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14
Most people understand that the results of an antenna analysis program
reflect the material used to construct the antenna and the type of
ground, if any, used for the analysis, are an approximation, and are
not accurate to 27 decimal places.
Further, most people also understand that absent them being a part of
the model used for the analysis, objects in the near field of the antenna,
such as, but not limited to, 20 foot prision walls, blimp hangers,
skyscrapers, a deluge of biblical proportions, giant sequoia trees,
hovering 2 mile wide alien spacecraft, hords of locusts, large gold
deposits under the antenna, battles between Autobots and Decepticons,
beached aircraft carriers, and stadium domes may well effect the
actual antenna perfomance.
Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited.
Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer
errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.

Very good. You can cut and paste. Too bad you can't understand what
you're cutting and pasting, especially how to apply it.

Jerry, all the crap on this thread is your fault because of your
statement above. Can you even imagine how it might have gone had you
been a gentleman or had remained silent?
Shame on you for this and shame on Jim for continuing to bait you. You
two are ruining this group.

Why? Because I call a troll what he is?

You don't like it - quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I will continue
to call trolls exactly what they are.

I'm long past the age that I give a damn what trolls or anonymous
posters care about.

[atec77]

On 21/11/2014 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snipped

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by John S

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any

Jerry, all the crap on this thread is your fault because of your
statement above. Can you even imagine how it might have gone had you
been a gentleman or had remained silent?
Shame on you for this and shame on Jim for continuing to bait you. You
two are ruining this group.

Why? Because I call a troll what he is?

because you abuse anyone whos opinion differs from yours no matter how
wrong ( thats often?)

Post by Jerry Stuckle
You don't like it - quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I will continue
to call trolls exactly what they are.

so you have no regards for the opinion of others especially when you
are wrong

Post by Jerry Stuckle
I'm long past the age that I give a damn what trolls or anonymous
posters care about.

bury your face in a pillow sticky , do a favour eh .

we have two ears and one mouth for a reason sticky , time for you to
use them in proportion .

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by atec77
snipped

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by John S

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any

Jerry, all the crap on this thread is your fault because of your
statement above. Can you even imagine how it might have gone had you
been a gentleman or had remained silent?
Shame on you for this and shame on Jim for continuing to bait you. You
two are ruining this group.

Why? Because I call a troll what he is?

because you abuse anyone whos opinion differs from yours no matter how
wrong ( thats often?)

Only trolls - which, BTW, includes you. Most people on usenet I have a
lot of respect for.

Post by atec77

Post by Jerry Stuckle
You don't like it - quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I will continue
to call trolls exactly what they are.

so you have no regards for the opinion of others especially when you
are wrong

Post by Jerry Stuckle
I'm long past the age that I give a damn what trolls or anonymous
posters care about.

bury your face in a pillow sticky , do a favour eh .
we have two ears and one mouth for a reason sticky , time for you to
use them in proportion .

You should speak for yourself - and you're third grade name calling,
something that only trolls do. More proof.

No wonder you want to remain anonymous. If I were as stoopid as you, I
wouldn't want anyone else to know, either.

[atec77]

On 21/11/2014 12:56 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:onymous

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by atec77
bury your face in a pillow sticky , do a favour eh .
we have two ears and one mouth for a reason sticky , time for you to
use them in proportion .

You should speak for yourself -

I have did and will continue to do so old man
and you're third grade name calling,

Post by Jerry Stuckle
something that only trolls do.

now thats untrue no matter how many times you falsely make the claim

Post by Jerry Stuckle
No wonder you want to remain anonymous.

common sense dictates that move , something you have sfa off old man

If I were as stoopid as you,

you mean as smart , having demonstrated yet again how silly you really
are

Post by Jerry Stuckle
I wouldn't want anyone else to know, either.

then stop typing and remain quite , we might forget how silly you are
but most certainly you cant resist my charms

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by atec77
On 21/11/2014 12:56 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:onymous

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by atec77
bury your face in a pillow sticky , do a favour eh .
we have two ears and one mouth for a reason sticky , time for you to
use them in proportion .

You should speak for yourself -

I have did and will continue to do so old man
and you're third grade name calling,

Post by Jerry Stuckle
something that only trolls do.

now thats untrue no matter how many times you falsely make the claim

You're right. Third graders do it, also. Which are you?

Post by atec77

Post by Jerry Stuckle
No wonder you want to remain anonymous.

common sense dictates that move , something you have sfa off old man

ROFLMAO!

Post by atec77
If I were as stoopid as you,
you mean as smart , having demonstrated yet again how silly you really are

Nope, I mean as stoopid as you are. But trolls don't understand just
how stoopid they are - as you have once again proven.

Post by atec77

Post by Jerry Stuckle
I wouldn't want anyone else to know, either.

then stop typing and remain quite , we might forget how silly you are
but most certainly you cant resist my charms

Yes, I suggest you do so. No one here cares what trolls like you say -
other than maybe other trolls.

No wonder you try to remain anonymous. If I were in your shoes, I
wouldn't want anyone else to know how stoopid I was, either.

Unlike you, I'm not ashamed of what I say - and not afraid and have to
hide behind an 'nym and a fake email address.

[John S]

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by atec77
On 21/11/2014 12:56 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:onymous

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by atec77
bury your face in a pillow sticky , do a favour eh .
we have two ears and one mouth for a reason sticky , time for you to
use them in proportion .

You should speak for yourself -

I have did and will continue to do so old man
and you're third grade name calling,

Post by Jerry Stuckle
something that only trolls do.

now thats untrue no matter how many times you falsely make the claim

You're right. Third graders do it, also. Which are you?

Post by atec77

Post by Jerry Stuckle
No wonder you want to remain anonymous.

common sense dictates that move , something you have sfa off old man

ROFLMAO!

Post by atec77
If I were as stoopid as you,
you mean as smart , having demonstrated yet again how silly you really are

Nope, I mean as stoopid as you are. But trolls don't understand just
how stoopid they are - as you have once again proven.

Post by atec77

Post by Jerry Stuckle
I wouldn't want anyone else to know, either.

then stop typing and remain quite , we might forget how silly you are
but most certainly you cant resist my charms

Yes, I suggest you do so. No one here cares what trolls like you say -
other than maybe other trolls.
No wonder you try to remain anonymous. If I were in your shoes, I
wouldn't want anyone else to know how stoopid I was, either.
Unlike you, I'm not ashamed of what I say - and not afraid and have to
hide behind an 'nym and a fake email address.

Well, you have demonstrated that you are so stupid that you cannot even
spell stupid.
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stoopid&defid=3449463>

[atec77]

Post by John S
Well, you have demonstrated that you are so stupid that you cannot even
spell stupid.
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stoopid&defid=3449463>

He has been reading the rod speed book of internet stupidity

lie enough and still no one believes you

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by John S

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by atec77
On 21/11/2014 12:56 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:onymous

Post by Jerry Stuckle

Post by atec77
bury your face in a pillow sticky , do a favour eh .
we have two ears and one mouth for a reason sticky , time for you to
use them in proportion .

You should speak for yourself -

I have did and will continue to do so old man
and you're third grade name calling,

Post by Jerry Stuckle
something that only trolls do.

now thats untrue no matter how many times you falsely make the claim

You're right. Third graders do it, also. Which are you?

Post by atec77

Post by Jerry Stuckle
No wonder you want to remain anonymous.

common sense dictates that move , something you have sfa off old man

ROFLMAO!

Post by atec77
If I were as stoopid as you,
you mean as smart , having demonstrated yet again how silly you really are

Nope, I mean as stoopid as you are. But trolls don't understand just
how stoopid they are - as you have once again proven.

Post by atec77

Post by Jerry Stuckle
I wouldn't want anyone else to know, either.

then stop typing and remain quite , we might forget how silly you are
but most certainly you cant resist my charms

Yes, I suggest you do so. No one here cares what trolls like you say -
other than maybe other trolls.
No wonder you try to remain anonymous. If I were in your shoes, I
wouldn't want anyone else to know how stoopid I was, either.
Unlike you, I'm not ashamed of what I say - and not afraid and have to
hide behind an 'nym and a fake email address.

Well, you have demonstrated that you are so stupid that you cannot even
spell stupid.
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stoopid&defid=3449463>

Nope, in your case it is STOOPID.

[Izur Kockenhan]

manual calculation of a horizontal Lambda/2-dipol over perfect ground in
height of Lambda/2

www.leobaumann.de/horDipolOPG.pdf

Izur Kockenhan

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Izur Kockenhan
manual calculation of a horizontal Lambda/2-dipol over perfect ground in
height of Lambda/2
www.leobaumann.de/horDipolOPG.pdf
Izur Kockenhan

The broadside nulls are missing.

[Izur Kockenhan]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The broadside nulls are missing.

A dipol over perfect ground has no broadside nulls. A dipol in free space
has alongside nulls. Pls. check out with 4NEC2.

Have a nice weekend

Izur Kockenhan

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Izur Kockenhan

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The broadside nulls are missing.

A dipol over perfect ground has no broadside nulls. A dipol in free space
has alongside nulls. Pls. check out with 4NEC2.
Have a nice weekend
Izur Kockenhan

Correct; the broadside pattern is flattened, not nulled, over perfect
ground which doesn't show too well in the 3-D plot.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Post by Izur Kockenhan
manual calculation of a horizontal Lambda/2-dipol over perfect ground in
height of Lambda/2
www.leobaumann.de/horDipolOPG.pdf
Izur Kockenhan

You're arguing with an idiot. He thinks the charts he copies/pastes are
the last word and apply to all dipoles.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The following shows the effect on elevation pattern for a 1/2 wave
dipole antenna over ground at various heights for perfect, very good,
average, and extremely ground.
The important value to note is the elevation angle for the main lobe.
Generally for DX an elevation angle at or below 30 degrees is desirable
and for NVIS an angle above 60 degrees.

This might help:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/horizontal-dipole/>

Animated GIF of the horizontal 1/2 wave dipole over a "moderate"
ground at various heights:
<Loading Image...>
There's a big problem with the GIF. I couldn't convince 4NEC2 to fix
the scale on the gain plot. So, it changes in the middle of the
annimation. The outer ring is +5dBi for 0.1 to 0.3 wavelengths
height, and +10dBi for the others. I'll try to fix that later.

NEC deck for 4NEC2:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/horizontal-dipole/Dipole.nec>

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The following shows the effect on elevation pattern for a 1/2 wave
dipole antenna over ground at various heights for perfect, very good,
average, and extremely ground.
The important value to note is the elevation angle for the main lobe.
Generally for DX an elevation angle at or below 30 degrees is desirable
and for NVIS an angle above 60 degrees.

<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/horizontal-dipole/>
Animated GIF of the horizontal 1/2 wave dipole over a "moderate"
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/horizontal-dipole/horiz-dipole.gif>
There's a big problem with the GIF. I couldn't convince 4NEC2 to fix
the scale on the gain plot. So, it changes in the middle of the
annimation. The outer ring is +5dBi for 0.1 to 0.3 wavelengths
height, and +10dBi for the others. I'll try to fix that later.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/horizontal-dipole/Dipole.nec>

Yeah, graphs are better than tables of data any day.

[Wayne]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The following shows the effect on elevation pattern for a 1/2 wave
dipole antenna over ground at various heights for perfect, very good,
average, and extremely ground.
The important value to note is the elevation angle for the main lobe.

<snip>

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90

I'm having trouble wading through the data, probably because of column
headings. Let's take the first line.

0.10 Would be the height
I get lost after that.
Is 8.6 the gain over perfect ground, 6.3 over good, etc.
What are the 90's?

Wayne
W5GIE/6

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The following shows the effect on elevation pattern for a 1/2 wave
dipole antenna over ground at various heights for perfect, very good,
average, and extremely ground.
The important value to note is the elevation angle for the main lobe.

<snip>

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90

I'm having trouble wading through the data, probably because of column
headings. Let's take the first line.
0.10 Would be the height
I get lost after that.
Is 8.6 the gain over perfect ground, 6.3 over good, etc.
What are the 90's?
Wayne
W5GIE/6

Height is the height in wavelengths.

gain is the gain of the main lobe.

@ elev is the elevation angle of the main lobe; 90 means straight up.

And there are three sets for perfect, very good, average, and extremely
poor ground.

It all lines up in ASCII; if the spacing is screwed up, you are likely
viewing it as HTML.

[Wayne]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The following shows the effect on elevation pattern for a 1/2 wave
dipole antenna over ground at various heights for perfect, very good,
average, and extremely ground.
The important value to note is the elevation angle for the main lobe.

<snip>

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90

I'm having trouble wading through the data, probably because of column
headings. Let's take the first line.
0.10 Would be the height
I get lost after that.
Is 8.6 the gain over perfect ground, 6.3 over good, etc.
What are the 90's?
Wayne
W5GIE/6

# Height is the height in wavelengths.

# gain is the gain of the main lobe.

# @ elev is the elevation angle of the main lobe; 90 means straight up.

# And there are three sets for perfect, very good, average, and extremely
# poor ground.

# It all lines up in ASCII; if the spacing is screwed up, you are likely
# viewing it as HTML.

Not using HTML, but your explanation clears it up.
Thanks.

[Percy Picacity]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
It all lines up in ASCII; if the spacing is screwed up, you are likely
viewing it as HTML.

Or a proportional font in plain text. They should try a fixed width font.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
It all lines up in ASCII; if the spacing is screwed up, you are likely
viewing it as HTML.

Your table has tabs between the columns, which shows up nicely in
readers that convert tabs to 8 character columns, but blows up on
readers that convert tabs to 1 or 4 character columns.

The message header on Wayne's message shows:
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
which is probably the problem.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
It all lines up in ASCII; if the spacing is screwed up, you are likely
viewing it as HTML.

Your table has tabs between the columns, which shows up nicely in
readers that convert tabs to 8 character columns, but blows up on
readers that convert tabs to 1 or 4 character columns.
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
which is probably the problem.

Life was simpler when everyone was using a VT100 to read USENET.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
Life was simpler when everyone was using a VT100 to read USENET.

Simpler? Surely, you jest. I've never used a real vt100/vt102 or
ANSI terminal for anything more than a door stop, but have had to deal
with plenty of emulators. It wasn't easy emulating DEC's moving
target escape sequences, that would change with every model and
revision. Remember vttest?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vttest>
Literally everything I tried failed at least one part of the test,
including the original DEC terminals. Then, Unix with TERMCAP and
TERMINFO arrived, at which point I gave up trying to emulate
vt100/vt102 terminals, and moved on to broken ANSI X3.64 attempts with
proprietary "enhancements":
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code>
<http://www.markcrocker.com/rexxtipsntricks/rxtt28.2.0777.html>
I thought I was finally free of the emulation nightmares, when I was
introduced to X-terminals and xterm, which reset the learning curve
over by adding a display manager, desktop manager, and xterm to the
emulation mess. Can't win. As soon as something finally works, it's
replaced immediately by something that doesn't.

At no time during all these "improvements" did any of the terminal
servers, emulators, or kludges ever properly deal with 2,4,8 character
tab indents. Extra credit to the C programmers who would format their
code in "pretty type", but didn't feel it necessary to put opposing
curly braces in the same column, which would have made tab expansion
easy. Oh yeah... setting tab stops beyond the right wrap margin
usually produced "unexpected results".

At this time, I'm using Forte Agent to read usenet news. Among the
options and settings can be found a myriad of kludges, tricks,
work-around's, and outright butchery that fixes many of the
aforementioned abomination and more, all of which were probably based
on the mistakes found in the original vt100/vt102.

<Loading Image...>
That's the Vermont 100 mile ride/run for diabetes.

[Helmut Wabnig]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The following shows the effect on elevation pattern for a 1/2 wave
dipole antenna over ground at various heights for perfect, very good,
average, and extremely ground.
The important value to note is the elevation angle for the main lobe.
Generally for DX an elevation angle at or below 30 degrees is desirable
and for NVIS an angle above 60 degrees.
The elevation angles apply to any dipole type antenna, such as a G5RV,
OCF dipole, etc. but the absolute gain values will be quite different.
Also some types of dipoles have more lobes than the two of the 1/2
wave dipole; those lobes will still be elevated.
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90
0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66
0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50
0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41
0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35
0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31
0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28
0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25
0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23
0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21
0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20
0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18
0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17
0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16
0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15
0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15
0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14
Most people understand that the results of an antenna analysis program
reflect the material used to construct the antenna and the type of
ground, if any, used for the analysis, are an approximation, and are
not accurate to 27 decimal places.
Further, most people also understand that absent them being a part of
the model used for the analysis, objects in the near field of the antenna,
such as, but not limited to, 20 foot prision walls, blimp hangers,
skyscrapers, a deluge of biblical proportions, giant sequoia trees,
hovering 2 mile wide alien spacecraft, hords of locusts, large gold
deposits under the antenna, battles between Autobots and Decepticons,
beached aircraft carriers, and stadium domes may well effect the
actual antenna perfomance.
Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited.
Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer
errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.

I have seen people talking about NVIS antennas for DX.

w.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Helmut Wabnig <***@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Helmut Wabnig
I have seen people talking about NVIS antennas for DX.
w.

Which makes no sense as NVIS stands for Near Vertical Incidence Skywave,
which means most of the power goes near vertical so the maximum
communication range of that mode is around 400 miles.

This is a short article that talks about NVIS antennas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_vertical_incidence_skywave

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Helmut Wabnig
I have seen people talking about NVIS antennas for DX.
w.

They may actually have a point. The problem is the assumption that
when bouncing RF off the ionosphere, the angle of incidence is equal
to the angle of refraction. In other words, to do DX, you need a low
angle of incidence.

I got the clue long ago, when I noticed that spinning a beam (yagi)
antenna, often resulted in little or no change in signal strength. It
wasn't all the time, but it did happen often enough for me to notice.
The explanation offered by Eric Nichols, KL7AJ is that sometimes, the
signal appears to be coming from directly overhead. I've uploaded a
copy of his Dec 2010 QST article (and added a text layer to make it
searchable):
"HP Ionospheric propagation may not happen the way you think it does"
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/HF-Circular-Polarization/>
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/HF-Circular-Polarization/QST_Dec_2010_p33-37.pdf>
"The answer is rather simple, once one recognizes that those
signals are circularly polarized. Actually it’s coming from
straight overhead."

I built a copy of his setup using junk parts and tested it with WWV
15MHz. I would agree that the signal is certainly circular polarized,
but I'm not 100.0% sure that it's always arriving from directly
overhead.

Please note that NVIS is limited by the maximum usable frequency of
the F layer and is usually used only on 80 and 40 meters during the
day, and 160 and 80 meters at night:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_vertical_incidence_skywave>

[John S]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
The following shows the effect on elevation pattern for a 1/2 wave
dipole antenna over ground at various heights for perfect, very good,
average, and extremely ground.
The important value to note is the elevation angle for the main lobe.
Generally for DX an elevation angle at or below 30 degrees is desirable
and for NVIS an angle above 60 degrees.
The elevation angles apply to any dipole type antenna, such as a G5RV,
OCF dipole, etc. but the absolute gain values will be quite different.
Also some types of dipoles have more lobes than the two of the 1/2
wave dipole; those lobes will still be elevated.
Perfect V good Avg Ext poor
0.10 8.6 90 6.3 90 4.4 90 3.1 90
0.15 8.4 90 7.1 90 5.8 90 4.3 90
0.20 8.0 90 7.1 90 6.1 90 4.6 66
0.25 7.4 90 6.7 68 5.9 61 4.8 50
0.30 6.9 56 6.4 51 5.9 48 5.1 41
0.35 6.8 45 6.5 42 6.1 40 5.4 35
0.40 7.1 39 6.9 36 6.5 35 5.8 31
0.45 7.7 33 7.5 32 7.0 31 6.3 28
0.50 8.3 30 8.1 29 7.6 28 6.7 25
0.55 8.9 27 8.5 26 7.9 25 6.9 23
0.60 9.1 25 8.6 24 8.0 23 6.9 21
0.65 8.9 23 8.4 22 7.8 21 6.9 20
0.70 8.5 21 8.0 20 7.6 20 6.8 18
0.75 8.0 19 7.7 19 7.3 18 6.7 17
0.80 7.6 18 7.4 18 7.2 17 6.7 16
0.85 7.5 17 7.4 17 7.2 16 6.7 15
0.90 7.6 16 7.5 16 7.3 15 6.9 15
0.95 7.8 15 7.7 15 7.5 15 7.1 14
Most people understand that the results of an antenna analysis program
reflect the material used to construct the antenna and the type of
ground, if any, used for the analysis, are an approximation, and are
not accurate to 27 decimal places.
Further, most people also understand that absent them being a part of
the model used for the analysis, objects in the near field of the antenna,
such as, but not limited to, 20 foot prision walls, blimp hangers,
skyscrapers, a deluge of biblical proportions, giant sequoia trees,
hovering 2 mile wide alien spacecraft, hords of locusts, large gold
deposits under the antenna, battles between Autobots and Decepticons,
beached aircraft carriers, and stadium domes may well effect the
actual antenna perfomance.
Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited.
Any spelling mistakes in this article are all entirly my fault. Any grammer
errors spotted in this article were put there because I could.

Jim, the special note is not really necessary.

I think we all understand your efforts in simulation. Please try to not
be baited by the Stuckle. It is up to the interested readers to take in
your data and then formulate questions which I know you are willing to
answer. It may require extreme self-control by you to refuse to respond
to him, but that is the only way this will work.

I implore all readers to ignore and not reply to the Stuckle.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

John S <***@invalid.org> wrote:

<snip>

Post by John S
Jim, the special note is not really necessary.
I think we all understand your efforts in simulation. Please try to not
be baited by the Stuckle. It is up to the interested readers to take in
your data and then formulate questions which I know you are willing to
answer. It may require extreme self-control by you to refuse to respond
to him, but that is the only way this will work.
I implore all readers to ignore and not reply to the Stuckle.

I am still waiting to hear what HE thinks the chart means.

I think most amateurs understand the implications of elevation angle,
but since there are likely some neewbies that don't, I may write up
an explanation.

There was no Internet back in 1964, and about 4 years before I took my
first college level electromagnetics course, when I was a novice and
wondering why I never seemed to hear any DX on my 40M dipole at 15 feet.

[John S]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>

Post by John S
Jim, the special note is not really necessary.
I think we all understand your efforts in simulation. Please try to not
be baited by the Stuckle. It is up to the interested readers to take in
your data and then formulate questions which I know you are willing to
answer. It may require extreme self-control by you to refuse to respond
to him, but that is the only way this will work.
I implore all readers to ignore and not reply to the Stuckle.

I am still waiting to hear what HE thinks the chart means.
I think most amateurs understand the implications of elevation angle,
but since there are likely some neewbies that don't, I may write up
an explanation.

I think that would be a worthwhile effort, Jim. Who knows how many it
may help? Please just ignore any response from the Stuckle. It will only
discourage the rest of us.

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
There was no Internet back in 1964, and about 4 years before I took my
first college level electromagnetics course, when I was a novice and
wondering why I never seemed to hear any DX on my 40M dipole at 15 feet.

I didn't hear any DX either, but what a thrill it was that my first
contact was Oklahoma City from Dallas beneath high tension lines using a
military surplus receiver on an antenna such as you describe. It was an
exciting time.