> It would indeed. For all the interest in this, I'm really
> surprised no one has made any meaningful measurements. It is
> a very common question, and all we have for answers are wild
> guesses. Whoever does this and does this correctly would
> really be contributing a great deal towards answering a
> common question.
>
> 73 Tom
>
> --But, what is the question? Is the question whether trees are conductive
> enough to be antennas? Or whether they're conductive enough to be
> reflective? Or whether they're absorptive? And at what frequency?
> Wouldn't one expect these properties would change vs. frequency? The old
> (1950-ish) RCA "Foliage Attenuation for Mid-Latitude Forests" work which
> is referenced pretty often (and I have a copy of it, somewhere) indicated
> foliage attenuation varied a lot with frequency and got really bad at UHF
> -- while being almost irrelevant at HF, in the same forest. I don't
> recall ever reading a quantitative work by anybody after that old RCA
> study... -WB2WIK/6
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|