I live in the forest, and use a couple of resonant dipoles hiding in the
trees. I have no problems at all. Once, during our ice storm, one of them
came down when a tree broke off and fell. SWR is fine, and get good signal
reports.

Go for it.


--
Mike-K5VSE
Formerly WB6VSE, Senior Tech, Amateur Division, SBE/Linear Systems
Watsonville, CA
All out going Email, scanned with Norton Anti-Virus 2004
"Radios That Glow in the Dark"
"3922 khz".

K5VSE wrote:
I live in the forest, and use a couple of resonant dipoles hiding in the
trees. I have no problems at all. Once, during our ice storm, one of them
came down when a tree broke off and fell. SWR is fine, and get good signal
reports.

Go for it.


Only caviet-- You need at least a general for 30 MHz, or below, but
the absorbsion of rf at those freqs is minimal, tho the HEIGHT, at lower freqs
for a good pattern (for long distance) might be a problem. But , say on 80-40
even at around 20 foot elevation, can work reliably several hundred miles!
20 and up meters shouldn't present much of a problem, and at 6 and 2 meters yagi
be best bet, but relatively small size. Have fun- Jim NN7K

K5VSE wrote:
I live in the forest, and use a couple of resonant dipoles hiding in the
trees. I have no problems at all. Once, during our ice storm, one of them
came down when a tree broke off and fell.

Please allow me to apologize in advance, but I can't resist asking:

"If a dipole falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it,
does it make a sound?"

73,

John NU3E :-)

That depends upon whether it is a pole (tree) that is dying.

"John DeGood" wrote in message
...
K5VSE wrote:
I live in the forest, and use a couple of resonant dipoles hiding in the
trees. I have no problems at all. Once, during our ice storm, one of
them
came down when a tree broke off and fell.

Please allow me to apologize in advance, but I can't resist asking:

"If a dipole falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it,
does it make a sound?"

73,

John NU3E :-)

"If a dipole falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it,
does it make a sound?"

===============================

Yes. All falling trees make a sound. But if there's nobody to hear it who
cares?

But this business about 100 watt transmitters causing forest fires is
exaggerated. Even if there's a conjugal impedance match between a dead leaf
and the transmitter there's little to worry about even when its not raining.
And the density of foliage is hardly likely to allow flames, should they
occur, to leap from one leaf to another.

The climate and type of tree involved is, of course, of some consequence.
Deciduous trees and those found in South American and Indianesian jungles
can be disregarded from this discussion,

If you should live in Australia, the home of Eucaliptus trees, during the
dry season, and it's always dry, there is a one in 100 million chance of a
tree catching fire by radio. Always supposing by some remote chance it
hasn't first been struck by lightning.

Eucaliptus trees positively enjoy fire. They depend on it to propagate
efficiently. This may be an unfortunate trait insofar as kangaroos and
wallabies are concerned but alligators are quite happy with the way things
have been arranged. The Aussies themselves take care not to build their
houses too near to eucaliptus plantations. The Abbo's, with their 50,000
years of experience, radio or not, are quite happy and sensible enough to
leave things as they are.

The USA has wide variations in climate and tree population. Thoughtful
citizens ought to concentrate their minds on hurricanes, twisters,
atmospheric pollution and gun laws. 100-watt transmitters and G5RV's can
look after themselves. ;o)
---
Reg.

"Reg Edwards" wrote

The USA has wide variations in climate and tree population. Thoughtful
citizens ought to concentrate their minds on hurricanes, twisters,
atmospheric pollution and gun laws. 100-watt transmitters and G5RV's can
look after themselves. ;o)
---
Reg.

I assure you we are concentrating very carfefully, Reg! Last week we had
about 20,000 gun laws on the books, counting all federal and state laws.
This weekend we have one less federal gun law, and soon there may be less.
When free people use their minds instead of letting foolish emotions be
their guide, the concept of restricting firearms from law abiding citizens
is one of the first things to go.

Btw, so far my dipole hasn't set the pine trees on fire, or been torn down
by a hurricane, despite three attempts by them so far this year ;-)

73,

Jack

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:01:15 -0400, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

When free people use their minds instead of letting foolish emotions be
their guide, the concept of restricting firearms from law abiding citizens
is one of the first things to go.

Hi Jack,

The D.C. sniper (a known non-law abider) got his firearm from non-law
abiding citizens out the back door of a local gun-shop here. Foolish
emotions had nothing to do with their inability to account for several
hundred missing guns they just shrugged off as bookkeeping
discrepancies. Clearly they had more guns than necessary to stay
profitable. Imagine how long your supermarket would stay in business
at that kind of employee pilfering rate.

Now, if we bring the foolish emotion issue into it, then Mr. John
Allen Muhammad, clearly an emotional person, could now simply walk up
to the counter and get more bang for his buck. And if denied, I
suppose he would have had to pay more at the back door.

James D. Martin,
James Buchanan,
Kumar Walekar,
Sarah Ramos,
Lori Ann Lewis-Rivera,
Pascal Charlot,
Woman shot, wounded,
13-year-old boy wounded,
Dean Harold Myers,
Kenneth H. Bridges,
Linda Franklin,
37-year-old man shot,
Conrad Johnson,
killed or wounded between October 2 and October 22.

Another foolish, emotional personality that appeared before committees
to argue that we retain the prohibition against assault rifles was
Reagan's Press Officer James Brady. One may say he is emotional
simply because he survived being shot (the alternative is being
un-emotionally dead).

Well, let's just mark it up to the dispassionate tenor of the
Republican Guard who have over the years jettisoned Reagan's mandates
as easily as they shrugged off the prohibition against assault
weapons. The Republican Guard has even offered laws to reduce the
liability of the local gun shop and emotional others like them that
whine they are too hard pressed by rational laws to balance their
books or lock their back doors. The example of the Russian school
debacle where the collapse of rational law has seen plenty of assault
weapons were available makes the Columbine massacre seem like a
Saturday afternoon picnic.

"In countries like the Untied States, it's
perfectly legal for members of the public
to own certain types of firearms. If you live
in such a country obtain an assault rifle
legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations"
-- Al Qaeda training manual
the Ossama seal of approval to our nation's administration

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
The D.C. sniper (a known non-law abider) got his firearm from non-law
abiding citizens out the back door of a local gun-shop here.

Exactly! If one advocates disarming *law-abiding citizens*,
one is siding with the *non-law abiders*. Advocating disarming
non-law abiders by creating laws that are only obeyed by law-
abiding citizens is ridiculous. We might as well create a law
making it illegal for hurricanes to hit Florida.

Hitler, Mao, and Stalin all supported strict gun control laws.
If one likes gun control laws, some of the most severe will be
found in Castro's Cuba at the present time. So Richard, if you
don't like the second amendment and want to feel really safe,
simply move to Cuba. :-)
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:05:07 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Hitler, Mao, and Stalin all supported strict gun control laws.
Bush, Arrafat, the Columbian Drug Lords and Ossama do not.

"Richard Clark" wrote
"Jack Painter" wrote:

When free people use their minds instead of letting foolish emotions be
their guide, the concept of restricting firearms from law abiding
citizens
is one of the first things to go.

Hi Jack,

The D.C. sniper (a known non-law abider) got his firearm from non-law
abiding citizens out the back door of a local gun-shop here. Foolish
emotions had nothing to do with their inability to account for several
hundred missing guns they just shrugged off as bookkeeping
discrepancies. Clearly they had more guns than necessary to stay
profitable. Imagine how long your supermarket would stay in business
at that kind of employee pilfering rate.

Hi Richard, what's your point here, that more gun laws would deter crime
against gun stores? Not! Stolen guns don't react to laws making them illegal
in the first place, and neither do criminals who can smuggle tens of
millions of pounds of contraband and aliens int the country every year have
any problem, now or ever, obtaining firearms. Same of course goes for the
Ur-a-Peon's who have successfully disarmed their sniveling subjects as the
rate of violent crimes against them skyrockets. More police-state control,
such as you called "rational law" must be required for them, since disarming
the law abiders did not stop the crime waves.

Now, if we bring the foolish emotion issue into it, then Mr. John
Allen Muhammad, clearly an emotional person, could now simply walk up
to the counter and get more bang for his buck. And if denied, I
suppose he would have had to pay more at the back door.

You don't know anyone or any store that makes such illegal sales in your
city, and neither does the BATF, who harass gun store owners about their
bookeeping more than the NRC watches hopsitals to keep track of their
dangerous radioactive materials.

/snip
Another foolish, emotional personality that appeared before committees
to argue that we retain the prohibition against assault rifles was
Reagan's Press Officer James Brady. One may say he is emotional
simply because he survived being shot (the alternative is being
un-emotionally dead).

There is more emotion than you will hopefully ever know, than if the life of
a loved one was taken because they were too timid, (too emotionally
irrational) or too restricted in the ability to protect themselves from a
common or uncommon criminal, who uses firearms as a tool of their trade,
irrespective of any gun law ever enacted now or in the future. Don't confuse
free speech of Jim Brady with our right to prevent getting shot in the head
ourselves. All the cops and secret service carrying automatic weapons and
trained to spot and actually prevent such attack from succeeding failed. How
in God's name do you think anyone could be protected? Maybe your Ted Kennedy
who's armed bodyguards surround the scotch-reeking murderer 24-7 as he
lobbys for the disarmament of all law abiding citizens?

Well, let's just mark it up to the dispassionate tenor of the
Republican Guard who have over the years jettisoned Reagan's mandates
as easily as they shrugged off the prohibition against assault
weapons. The Republican Guard has even offered laws to reduce the
liability of the local gun shop and emotional others like them that
whine they are too hard pressed by rational laws to balance their
books or lock their back doors. The example of the Russian school
debacle where the collapse of rational law has seen plenty of assault
weapons were available makes the Columbine massacre seem like a
Saturday afternoon picnic.

The collapse of rational law? My friend, you mistake the iron fist of
martial law and governmental murder by edict that ruled the Soviet Union for
rational law?

The world is at war (or will come to that relaization as they die in
sufficient mass numbers) against the nation of islam, who is sworn to a new
level of their timeless hatred for all things rational and peaceful. What
happened in Russia is an act of that war, and does not reduce to technical
descriptions of the tools used to carry out the attack.

In two recent school shootings in America, it was a teacher in one case and
a student in another that ran to their cars, and retrieved legally owned
firearms that enabed them to stop the killings and subdue the attacker! No
police force, not even the iron fist of the former iron curtain could *ever*
respond to a crazy person trying to commit mass murder faster than an armed
citizenry can. Count your blessings that you have always lived in such an
armed and peaceful citizenry, with citizens who will step up to the plate to
defend your miserable and pathetic existance that relies on the bravery and
good citizenry that you lack, and would save you from the attack you spend
your life trying to prevent them from being able to do for you or their
loved ones. Just don't call yourself a citizen, not in my Country.


"In countries like the Untied States, it's
perfectly legal for members of the public
to own certain types of firearms. If you live
in such a country obtain an assault rifle
legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations"
-- Al Qaeda training manual
the Ossama seal of approval to our nation's administration

That's really sad, and I liked you a lot more when I thought you could keep
such drivel from a good argument. Surely you don't believe that Al Queda
pretended to be planning anything now or later, that would rely on
compliance with laws to accomplish. I am offended by your comment that our
government approves of Bin Laden in any way, or does anything to make it
easier for him to murder Americans. It offends the sensibilities of all
humans in fact.


73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Try to pay attention to who the enemy is Richard. It is not lawful American
firearm owners who would gladly add you to the list of terrorist
organizations if you persist in subverting the rights both enumerated and
not enumerated by the Constitution. That you may continue to live as a free
man while actively subverting our Constitution is a priviledge that I wish
you did not have, but hopefully you are educable before your old age renders
that possibility moot.

Jack Painter