On 3rd November, Herb wrote:
"...To heck with the tests! If I had a 120 foot tall tree in my backyard I
would hang a 3 or 4 wire cage around it from top to bottom. The tree would
not bother you much but the cage sure would do its job in providing a good
broadband and efficient radiator. At RF the tree wet or dry would have a
minimal impact on the radiation pattern but do its job by supporting the
radiation cage for you..."
********************************
This discussion raises its head every year at around this time, and every
year I scratch my head in wonder about it all.
Just what IS a good alternative to supporting a wire antenna anyway, if
trees are all so nasty & evil...? Is it a steel grounded tower, maybe...? Or
perhaps a helium-filled balloon...?!
What is it about a tree that makes it so undesirable anyway...? The fact
that it's lossy at RF...? A metal tower firmly imbedded in the ground would
surely have far less loss in that regard than a tree---but I'm reminded here
about all of the old admonishments regarding the placing of extraneous metal
objects in the field of any antenna...
Y'know what...? Mother Nature put the arbor glen on my property for more
reasons than simply to admire, as I see it...so I'm with Herb: to heck with
the tests! I have "green" / natural sky-hooks on my property, and I fully
intend to keep on using them.
Amen! Hi Hi
~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ
_______________________________________________
160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M
|