[TowerTalk] antennas in trees - reprise

[Robert Shohet]

I would add the following:

> If anyone still cares, there are three truths which emerged in
> the discussion...and possibly got lost in the verbiage:
> 
> 1)  Forests are too complex to model, in terms of their impact
> on antennas.  The modelling tools we have available can't hope 
> to deal with the large number of variables presented.

This may or may not be true.  Some of the variable may be inconsequential.
No one with an excellent knowledge
of modeling programs and a lot of time on their hands has seriously
tried this type of modeling yet.  Any volunteers?
 
> 2)  A well modelled antenna doesn't perform any better than one
> which isn't modelled at all.  It's just better understood.

Yes, and an antenna that has been modeled accurately can serve
as a benchmark for possible future changes, one variable at a time.
The original model can serve as the "control group" and much can
THEN be learned by changing the parameters while controlling
for the other variables.  As new and old "real world" experiences are 
accumulated, then the model can be refined and improved.
 
> 3)  An antenna in the air works better than a model in a computer.
> Just put the bloody thing up, and see how it plays!  

Unless you have unlimited room, this often can not be done
until or unless the FIRST antenna has been taken down!
 
> If it sucks, and you think modelling will improve the situation, 
> have at it.  If it plays well, and you think modelling will improve the 
> situation, or tell you why, knock yourself out.  

#4 - and possibly the most valuable......   In the discussion of the
particular situation or "problem", the collective knowledge 
of the group is accessed and interpreted sometimes resulting in
helpful thoughts and meaningful hypotheses that can advance
the science EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A SCIENTIFICALLY
PROVED CONCLUSION!

73
Bob KQ2M