Well Tom, you surprise me since I thought in the past you were one of
those
who felt tree losses were minimal and part of mythology for HF/MF. I
guess you changed your mind now that others have shown different.
I think they are minimal, if the tree is not right next to the antenna. I
never thought they were zero, and never thought they were horrible like they
would be if a tree would be "useful" as an antenna..
What it clearly is not is something to make a big deal out of especially
when there is nothing many can do about it. Perhaps you dont understand
that and think that actual attenuation numbers for every species on the
planet is important.
People often like to know how much. We can't have it both ways, Carl. We
can't believe trees make antennas of some sort in one case, and then decide
they are meaningless in another case. They either are low enough resistivity
to conduct significant current compared to a normal metallic conductor, or
they are not. They certainly do not change conductivity based on
application.
OTOH most of us dont have the room to clear cut several acres just to play
ham radio and accept what they cant control. With some it is all about
control I guess.
Is nasty stuff like that really necessary in technical conversation? It
almost sounds like you are bitter. No one I know of clear cuts trees for
antennas. Even if they did, I wouldn't really care enough to be jealous
about it. It's their trees. :)
73 Tom
_________________
Topband Reflector
|