I for one have been satisfied with the excellent response to the question
and generally do find I am satisfied with the non-scientific approach, to
this question and to many other things in life I suppose. hi. The
anecdotal experiences expressed has been fine with me. I almost said
"anecdotal evidence," but avoided the "interesting" word, that I find is
often misused or abused, "evidence." In fact, I believe there is abundant
"evidence" on this subject, and the "evidence" cuts both ways. Everything
is evidence of something. Almost every subject has evidence that bears upon
it, and generally cuts both ways.
Often in the news media I hear statements that, "There is absolutely no
evidence that... [fill in the blank]." In my opinion, this is virtually
never a true statement. I suppose what people mean to say, what they should
have said is, "there is a lack of conclusive evidence, or uncontroverted
evidence, or compelling evidence."
Continuing on the semantic and philosophical track that I often comment on,
what "meaning" people's anecdotal or "seat of the pants" experience with
their verticals has -- I disagree that it has no meaning; I believe that it
does have meaning. The question is what meaning it has, which is why, as
I've noted before, lawyers sometimes say, "It means what it means," and
judges say, "I will assign it the weight I think it deserves."
Still, "everyone's different" and that's kind of "what makes the world go
'round," so I expect some people will still think these experiences have no
meaning and that there is "no evidence" of this or that. hi. I can live
with that. 73 - Rich, KE3Q
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Shohet" <kq2m@earthlink.net>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>; "Craig Clark" <jcclark@worldpath.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] antennas in trees
> > Clear cutting is always a choice Bob but not always practical or
> > desired.
>
> Correct! But evaluating whether or not it is practical or desired
> DEPENDS on what you believe you might gain by doing that. And
> some of that information necessary to do an intelligent analysis
> and evaluation MAY be gained by modeling. Certainly modeling
> is a LOT simpler and more efficient compared to cutting down trees
> or digging up brush in the forest for radials. Modeling can also
> let you know if what you are about to do is a great waste of time
> or energy and money, or not.
>
> > You missed my point and that is you work with what you have and you
> > must be willing to make compromises to accomplish your goal.
>
> I got your point. But you missed my point that the level of compromise
> you are willing to live with depends a lot on any additional improvement
> you hope to gain over what you have now, and the effort required to get
> there.
>
> You can't begin to intelligently
> evaluate that by simply guessing as to what may or may not be affecting
> what
> you have now,
> especially when you don't have any evidence or knowledge as to what the
> main
> factors
> are and which ones are material to performance.
>
> > I was giving
> > Rich the benefit of my anecdotal experience over 25 years of operation
> with
> > a "vertical in the woods."
>
> > Lacking the ability to measure performance Bob, I have to go with the
> > non
> > scientific evaluation "ability to work stations." So far, I am over 225
> > worked on 160 and that's a pretty good benchmark.
>
> If you are satsified with the non-scientific approach for your purposes,
> that's fine.
> That is not helpful or satisfactory for me. Especially when I am trying
> to
> improve
> what I have over what I am using now.
> What you can work on a weeknight vs. what you can work in a contest can be
> DRAMATICALLY different, especially when all the loud guys get on.
>
> The definition of what's workable with a given antenna changes with
> propagation,
> weather and how many other loud guys get on. I need to be able to work
> everything
> when everyone else in on the air in a contest.
>
> I have worked 200+ countries on 160 mostly with a crappy wire, but that
> doesn't
> make me loud and it doesn't mean that I couldn't have worked a lot more
> with
> a
> better designed antenna in the same terrain. You first have to know what
> factors
> cause deterioration of performance in order to know where NOT to place
> your
> antenna, or whether a new and better design will still work poorly in a
> potentially
> poor location.
>
> I know that I can take a crappy 160 meter antenna and
> I can work EU A LOT easier from an Eastern NH salt marsh than with phased
> Inv L's
> in a dense forest in Western CT. But that still doesn't mean that a
> BETTER
> antenna
> in the same salt marsh in Eastern NH wouldn't work a lot more DX with much
> better
> signals. Likewise, it might be possible to improve the performance of my
> existing
> 160 meter antenna in the same woods by moving it somewhere else or cutting
> down trees.
> I just don't know. But I don't want to guess and hope.
>
> > I'm not sure terrain analysis or modeling would help design a "killer
> > vertical" built in the woods.
>
> I don't know. But first we have to have some idea of how trees affect
> horizontally
> and vertically polaried wires, and at what minimum distances, if any,
> trees
> affect
> performance, and at what frequencies. I don't have this information, but
> that doesn't
> mean that I can't learn useful things from an imperfect model.
>
> > But you could disagree with me, and that's OK.
>
> Yes, we will disagree on this and that's ok.
>
> Bob KQ2M
>
>
> > Craig K1QX
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with
> any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|