That's the real gorilla in the room, notable by its absence. Also note that
the author of the web page was using it for RX below 1 Mhz. Didn't say a
thing about breaking a pileup on 160 with it.
My seat-of-the-pants-don't-bother-me-with-those-d*mn-technical-details
curmudgeon alter ego evil twin Klung says that if trees were really good
antennas, we'd have all been loading trees back in the 50's when I got
started in ham radio. Relative to income, things like aluminum, wire and
rope were a lot more expensive then.
Antenna trees (as opposed to trees used for support), were there such a
thing, would have been a godsend. They also wouldn't violate restrictive
covenants and be currently in wide use.
Anybody smell any gorilla breath? I don't. Been sniffin for a while, too.
73, Guy.
> Anyone know of a knowledgeable source that proves the tree actually
> radiates in this configuration?
>
>
> 73 de
> Gene Smar AD3F
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>
> To: <topband@contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: Trees And RF
>
>
> > "A quick google on tree antennas gave me this:
> > http://w5jgv.com/tree_antenna/index.htm which has links to some stuff"
> >
> > I don't buy that that guy is actually loading a tree.... that is, I doubt
> > he's coupling significant power in and out vs. using the leakage of his
> > air
> > toroid as a magloop.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M
>
_______________________________________________
160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M
|