[NLRS] Is there published data on tree foliage ...

[Paul Husby]

Chris, I'm glad to hear that you have trouble too.  I'm only 4.5 miles 
from the towers and also have a view of them in winter.  I just don't 
understand why I can't get enough signal sometimes.  It hasn't always 
seemed to correlate with wet/dry conditions, but now that I know it 
isn't just me, I will pay closer attention.

Ch4 always seems solid, Ch5 much more of a problem, as is Ch9 also. I 
have wondered if it is significant that Ch4 has no subchannels, while 
Ch5 has many?

73
Paul W0UC


On 7/10/2014 10:53 AM, Chris Elmquist wrote:
>
> On Thursday (07/10/2014 at 10:19AM -0500), Donn, WA2VOI wrote:
>> No, the report doen't state "condition" of the foliage.  From
>> contest, however, I assume it refers to "dry" foliage.  The report
>> treats each source of loss seperately: i.e., atmospheric, water
>> vapor, rain, scattering, etc.  (The report is aimed at mm wavelength
>> propagation.  The foliage loss equation just happens to cover down
>> to 200MHz.)
> Got it.  Thanks.
>
>> FWIW, I agree with you completely re: rain-covered foliage and TV
>> signals.  My "look" at the Shoreview towers is blocked by a hill and
>> I suffer badly from multi-path.  Dry conditions are... OK, but
>> during and after rain, no so much.
> Pretty much the same experience here.  I used to be able to get a shock
> off the coax when we had the analog TV transmitters running (well, OK,
> not quite but it was a HUGE signal).   Now, I loose lock and go all
> pixelated on KSTP and WCCO when it rains.  I am 7.5 mi from Shoreview
> with no hills blocking, just trees.  I can see the aircraft beacon lights
> on the towers from my roof when the leaves are not out.
>
>> PS The FCC report is readily available on the Internet.  (Where I
>> got it originally.)  Don't rememebr exactly, but 'FCC OET Bulletin
>> 70' in a search engine should find it.
> OK. Thanks Donn.
>
> Chris N0JCF