> Clear cutting is always a choice Bob but not always practical or desired.
Correct! But evaluating whether or not it is practical or desired
DEPENDS on what you believe you might gain by doing that. And
some of that information necessary to do an intelligent analysis
and evaluation MAY be gained by modeling. Certainly modeling
is a LOT simpler and more efficient compared to cutting down trees
or digging up brush in the forest for radials. Modeling can also
let you know if what you are about to do is a great waste of time
or energy and money, or not.
> You missed my point and that is you work with what you have and you
> must be willing to make compromises to accomplish your goal.
I got your point. But you missed my point that the level of compromise
you are willing to live with depends a lot on any additional improvement
you hope to gain over what you have now, and the effort required to get
there.
You can't begin to intelligently
evaluate that by simply guessing as to what may or may not be affecting what
you have now,
especially when you don't have any evidence or knowledge as to what the main
factors
are and which ones are material to performance.
> I was giving
> Rich the benefit of my anecdotal experience over 25 years of operation
with
> a "vertical in the woods."
> Lacking the ability to measure performance Bob, I have to go with the non
> scientific evaluation "ability to work stations." So far, I am over 225
> worked on 160 and that's a pretty good benchmark.
If you are satsified with the non-scientific approach for your purposes,
that's fine.
That is not helpful or satisfactory for me. Especially when I am trying to
improve
what I have over what I am using now.
What you can work on a weeknight vs. what you can work in a contest can be
DRAMATICALLY different, especially when all the loud guys get on.
The definition of what's workable with a given antenna changes with
propagation,
weather and how many other loud guys get on. I need to be able to work
everything
when everyone else in on the air in a contest.
I have worked 200+ countries on 160 mostly with a crappy wire, but that
doesn't
make me loud and it doesn't mean that I couldn't have worked a lot more with
a
better designed antenna in the same terrain. You first have to know what
factors
cause deterioration of performance in order to know where NOT to place your
antenna, or whether a new and better design will still work poorly in a
potentially
poor location.
I know that I can take a crappy 160 meter antenna and
I can work EU A LOT easier from an Eastern NH salt marsh than with phased
Inv L's
in a dense forest in Western CT. But that still doesn't mean that a BETTER
antenna
in the same salt marsh in Eastern NH wouldn't work a lot more DX with much
better
signals. Likewise, it might be possible to improve the performance of my
existing
160 meter antenna in the same woods by moving it somewhere else or cutting
down trees.
I just don't know. But I don't want to guess and hope.
> I'm not sure terrain analysis or modeling would help design a "killer
> vertical" built in the woods.
I don't know. But first we have to have some idea of how trees affect
horizontally
and vertically polaried wires, and at what minimum distances, if any, trees
affect
performance, and at what frequencies. I don't have this information, but
that doesn't
mean that I can't learn useful things from an imperfect model.
> But you could disagree with me, and that's OK.
Yes, we will disagree on this and that's ok.
Bob KQ2M
> Craig K1QX
_______________________________________________
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
|