[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] trees and verticals

To: N6FD <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] trees and verticals
From: Eddy Swynar <>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:35:08 -0500
List-post: <">>
On 2011-12-27, at 11:55 AM, N6FD wrote:

> Trees are absorbtive, metal is reflective.  At least with the metal, 
> your signal goes somewhere.

Hi Eric,

Now THAT'S what I find to be so contradictory & confusing in all this...

How can metal possibly be reflective, vis-a-vis a tree, in a similar 
situation...? The metal is grounded, and conducts FAR better than wood---if 
your signal is "absorbed" by the tree and consequently dissipated by its ohmic 
losses, would not, in turn, your signal be routed directly to ground by a metal 
post, rather than being "reflected" as you suggest, by virtue of the fact that 
the resistance of metal is miniscule, compared to wood...?

And taking this a step further, why is it NEVER desirable to have an indoor 
receiving antenna, housed in a building with a steel structure...? Using the 
logic of "...wood BAD, steel GOOD," we should be able to receive nothing on our 
portable sets when we're in the woods, right...? The signal would be absorbed 
by all those lossy trees around us---but by comparison, reception should be 
great when we're inside a building made of steel beams...the signal(s) we're 
copying would just "reflect" from beam to beam until it reached our antenna.

I'm not trying to poke fun what you're saying, Eric, but rather, attempting to 
understand how---to ME, at any rate!---the laws of radio (if you will) apply in 
one instance, but not in another...

Does any of this make sense to anyone else, besides just me...?!

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ


TowerTalk mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>