[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] trees and verticals

To: N6FD <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] trees and verticals
From: Eddy Swynar <>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:03:51 -0500
List-post: <">>
On 2011-12-27, at 4:17 PM, N6FD wrote:

> A lot of people (myself included) have been very effective with attic 
> antennas in wood structures.

> But steel does often have lower loss than a wet tree.

Hi Eric,

I'm going to play "devil's advocate" here, & try to put my "spin" onto what 
you've just stated above...!    : >)

QUESTION #1: you've stated earlier that trees are very lossy affairs, & because 
of that will dissipate RF fields radiated into them. If that's so, then why 
would your "...attic antennas in wood structures" be so effective...? Why 
wouldn't that environment have a lossy influence, too...?

QUESTION #2: Why not build antennas in steel structures, if said steel has 
"...lower loss than a wet tree"...?

Again, I hope you might see where I'm going with this. You can't have it work 
one way one time, & not the other, another least not the way that I 
grasp this. 

Another question: why is it that in some antenna articles (QST, CQ, etc.) the 
author muses aloud as to the possibility that some nearby metal structure may 
have had an adverse effect upon the final SWR / tuning of his antenna...? It's 
never, "The nearby gooseberry grove may have affected my antenna," but rather, 
"The nearby aluminum-sided house / water tower / steel chicken coop / etc...." 
that had a play in things...

And I'll ask my question anew, because nobody has even come close to answering 
it, specifically, your gut reaction: in what environment would you rather have 
your new 160-meter 1/4-wave vertical in, (A) the middle of a forest of 120' 
tall trees, or, (B) the centre of a parking lot surrounded by ground-mounted 
120' tall metal lamp posts placed about every 20', or so...?

Think about it! Hi Hi

~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ


TowerTalk mailing list

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