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 time...at 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
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|