In a message dated 97-11-18 01:34:33 EST, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> Need to make a correction on your longevity statement and I hope everyone
> who read it also reads this one! The 3 year statement is quite incorrect.
> Antennas using the current Force 12 mechanical techniques (e.g. riveted
> element junctions) have been around a long time. Under the name "Force
> the line is more than 6 years old. The C-3 alone has been around for 4
Hi, Tom --
My mistake. My comment should have been for 6 years for the longevity
(so far) of Force 12 antennas.
There are TH6's (as well as others) that have been up since the 60's and
are still working with their hardware intact.
> Riveted antennas have been in use at my location since 1978. Antennas that
> eventually became the prototypes for the Force 12 product line line were
> built 8 years ago. I had built antennas privately for several years and
> utilized a variety of element junction techniques, including fully welded
> joints. I don't recommend this approach, as making changes is quite
Your own experience is helpful but the point is that Force 12 products
don't have the track record yet that many other antennas do. OTOH, a couple
of manufacturers have un-reliable hardware reputations. The guys in Texas
call one manufacturer "konstantly losing metal".
> When making the decisions for element junctions, we selected the method
> had proven to be the best over time. For the proper size element segments,
> closed end rivets are the best technique. Larger diameters where the
> is thick enough to not compress are better served with machine screws or
I have gone on record MANY times on the innovative mechanical and
electrical designs unique to Force 12 products. They have broken new ground
and have caused other manufacturers to change their ways of thinking and
73, Steve K7LXC
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com