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.
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