Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] trees and verticals

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] trees and verticals
From: N6FD <n6fd@hughes.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:55:29 -0800
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Trees are absorbtive, metal is reflective.  At least with the metal, 
your signal goes somewhere.

73, Erich
N6FD DM15bp
On 12/27/2011 8:04 AM, Eddy Swynar wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I guess I'm just plain stupid or something, I don't know...
>
> ...But whenever someone tells me that a tree is death to the radiation 
> emitted from a nearby vertical antenna, I immediately ask myself the 
> question, "Then what would be better than having a tree nearby...? A grounded 
> metal post, perhaps...?"
>
> Think about it: a tree supposedly detracts from the effective radiated power 
> of an antenna...correct? Then what does a metal post do, if not directly 
> bypass said radiated power directly to ground, with considerably reduced 
> resistance...? Which s "better" for the signal, a "semi-conducting" trunk of 
> wood, or a better-conducting metal bypass...?
>
> Or ask yourself this question: you have a vertical antenna---is it better 
> that the vertical be located in the middle of a grove of trees, or in the 
> midst of urban sprawl, with steel-framed structures the same height of your 
> vertical...?
>
> "...And in 25 words, or less, explain why." Hi Hi
>
> ~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

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