Topband: tree losses

[Tom W8JI]

> 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