[TowerTalk] How much do trees really affect verticals

[Jim Brown]

On Mon,8/25/2014 10:49 AM, RLVZ--- via TowerTalk wrote:
> The GP
> Vertical performed very  poorly and operating was a miserable experience as I
> found it very  difficult to makes Qso's,

I'm in a dense redwood forest, and work all bands from 160M - 2M. I've 
tried verticals on 160, 80, and 40, all over excellent ground-mounted 
radial systems. I also have high (120 ft) dipoles for 80 and 40. On 80 
and 40, the high dipoles always beat the verticals by a lot, so I took 
the verticals down. I also had a loaded (about 170 ft long) dipole for 
160M up 120 ft. The vertical nearly always beat it, often by a lot, so I 
took it down too.

I have a 3-el SteppIR (4-el on 6M) at about 120 ft, in a clearing just 
big enough for me to be able to turn it. It works fine, even though the 
trees surrounding it rise at least 50 ft above it. In 8 years, 313 
countries, and 328 6M grids. 2M is tough for vertical polarization, 
better (but still not great) for horizontal.

That said, trees are not the only thing that affect the efficiency of 
vertical antennas, especially on the lower bands. In addition to the 
trees, my soil is pretty poor too -- rocky, mountainous. So is it the 
trees or the soil, or both?  I'd say probably both.

73, Jim K9YC