[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] trees and verticals

Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] trees and verticals
From: Jim Lux <>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:59:43 -0800
List-post: <">>
On 12/28/11 10:21 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
> An element that is totally non-conductive introduces no losses because,
> as you say, no currents are introduced.

But could change the pattern, because it changes the field distribution. 
(e.g. polyrod antennas and dielectric lenses in microwaves)

  An element that is perfectly
> conductive introduces no losses, but it does re-radiate and cause
> pattern distortion (desirable in the case of a yagi, usually undesriable
> in the case of a tower or steel light pole).  But trees are wet wood,
> which is partially conductive ... i.e., receives induced current from
> incident RF --->AND<--- dissipates it as heat.

The saving grace, for trees, I think, is that a forest is a "low 
density" heterogeneous dielectric.  if the trees themselves are lossy, 
they occupy a very small fraction of the total space (<1%?.. think 1-2 
foot diameter trees spaced 20 ft apart).

So it's like operating your antenna and propagating in a medium that is 
0.05 mS/m conductivity and epsilon of 1.0X

Barring some frequency selective effects (which I think is worth looking 
into) you should be able to compute what the propagation loss is.

> Once more with feeling ... RF impinging on a lossy material that is
> conductive enough to receive induced currents will be dissipated.
> Why is that so difficult to understand?  In terms of loss, the
> approximate circuit analogy would be a short versus an open versus a
> resistor.  The highly conducting structure is the "short", air or dry
> wood would be the "open", and a wet tree would be the "resistor".
> Dave   AB7E


TowerTalk mailing list

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