----- Original Message -----
From: "RICHARD BOYD" <ke3q@msn.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] antennas in trees
> 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
|