Amen, Tommy.
-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of WD4K
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 5:26 PM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: Rules
Don't need Steve to intrepret the rules. I thought we all
knew them but
apparently not after seeing all of these Presidential slams
and comments
allowed with no comment at all from the admin. So, I assumed
that all
opinions were then welcome. If you allow the constant daily
slams and digs
at our President without penalty, then you have to be open
and allow all of
it. Some of us get tired of being forced to read that crap
every time we
open towertalk. Just trying to be fair here..If some can
slam and insult
every day then some of us should be able to rebutt and
support this great
country. Seems fair to me...or stop it ALL, which is what
should have been
done already. Tommy
-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of
towertalk-request@contesting.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 4:33 PM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 16, Issue 71
Send TowerTalk mailing list submissions to
towertalk@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
towertalk-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
towertalk-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
specific
than "Re: Contents of TowerTalk digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. foldover tower (SGTOKIE@aol.com)
2. Re: Top Ten Reasons (Cqtestk4xs@aol.com)
3. Re: Using Belden 9913 on a crankup? (Alan C. Zack)
4. Re: Using Belden 9913 on a crankup? (Bill VanAlstyne)
5. Re: Using Belden 9913 on a crankup? (Ed Kucharski)
6. RE: [BULK] - Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a
crankup?
(Steve Katz)
7. RE: Hygain Hytower 18HT (Tod Olson)
------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:02:41 EDT
From: SGTOKIE@aol.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] foldover tower
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Message-ID: <146.27ffe5ea.2dc00851@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
to change the subject a little from junior bush,
in the past, i have seen homebrew fold-over pipe
masts.....looked like about
a 4-6ft base consisting of 2 verticle spaced pipes anchored
in the ground
with
a pivot at the tops where about 30ft or so of stepped up
pipe could be
cranked by a hand winch........too bad i never took a closer
look at the
design.........any body have one of these? specs? i bet it
will not
tollerate a bunch of
wind load but would be nice for a rotateable dipole for 10,
12 or 15m
david k5qwo
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:45:01 EDT
From: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Top Ten Reasons
To: TOWERTALK@contesting.com
Message-ID: <1ea.1ef5e7f8.2dc0123d@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In a message dated 4/27/04 6:27:31 PM Greenwich Standard
Time,
Ttow1@charter.net writes:
Since some of you just won't follow the rules and I have to
read your jabs
and digs aimed at our President....here are my top ten
reasons NOT to
reelect Bush.
10. He did not give nuclear technology to North Korea
9. He did not give ICBM missle technology to China
8. He is not an adulterer
7. He does not consider Yasser Arafat a terrorist and one
of his closest
friends.
6. He is not Americas first black President
5. He did not bomb an aspirin factory
4. He did not commit perjury
3. He does know what the meaning of is ..is
2. He does not live off of his wifes fortune
1!!!!! He does not own a blue semen stained dress.
If he had done all of these things, I would vote for
him...America needs
another embarassment in the White House. Tommy WD4K
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
K7LXC....do we have rules against this kind of garbage?
Bill K4XS
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:20:53 -0700
From: "Alan C. Zack" <k7acz@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a crankup?
To: "Tower (K8RI)" <tower@rogerhalstead.com>
Cc: coulter@bellsouth.net, towertalk@contesting.com
Message-ID: <408EC0A5.BF00017F@cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
How do they compare uv wise in a hot Las Vegas sky?
"Tower (K8RI)" wrote:
> I used 9913 for years and then gave it all away after one
lightening
strike
> blew off the water proofing. I figured it just wasn't
worth the risk.
>
> OTOH 9913 is not a good cable to use where flexing is
encountered. The
> center conductor can migrate off center and it needs to
make wide radius
> bends if long life is expected.
>
> I much prefer LMR 400 to 9913. It's slightly cheaper, or
has been. It's
one
> or two tenths of a db less loss and fits the same
connectors. Both fit
> PL259s. LMR 400 is more rugged and can make relatively
short radius bends.
> Much shorter bends with reliability than 9913. I believe
(without taking
the
> time to look it up) that LMR-400 extraflex has about the
same loss as
> regular 9913, but is more expensive.
>
> I used 9913 for years without a problem, or at least I
never noticed any.
I
> liked it, but finding water running out of my rig after
the lightening
blew
> off all the water proofing was enough to cause a rapid
switch to something
> better. I'd probably still be using it had that not
happened.
>
> You'll also most likely find hams who have used the stuff
in flexing
> situations with no problems (there are usually exceptions
to most any set
of
> circumstances)
>
> Good Luck,
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI, EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
> N833R, World's Oldest Debonair (S# CD-2)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> > Could somebody tell me if Belden 9913(not 9913 flex)is
usable on a
crankup
> > tower. What I am interested in, is if it is bendable
enough when the
tower
> is
> > cranked down or will it bow out too much? Should I go to
a more flexable
> cable
> > for the run up the tower, or is it workable? This is for
a 51 ft.
crankup.
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > Todd
> > N4JRZ
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting
Towers", "Wireless
> Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free,
1-800-333-9041 with
any
> questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting
Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free,
1-800-333-9041 with any
questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
--
____________________________________________________________
______________
Alan Zack
Amateur Radio Station K7ACZ
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Quality Engineer, The Boeing Company, Retired
Aviation Chief Warrant Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Retired
U.S. Coast Guard, Always Ready, Always There
Every hour, Every day, Around the Clock and Around the
World
SEMPER PARATUS
http://www.gocoastguard.com/
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:43:58 -0600
From: "Bill VanAlstyne" <w5wvo@cybermesa.net>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a crankup?
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <002501c42c98$5eb30c20$0200a8c0@billscomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> However, some comparisons between RG-213
> and Buryflex revealed that the latter is actually
> more flexible. It also has much lower loss. You
> can get Buryflex from Radioware
> (http://www.radio-ware.com/).
I looked up this Bury-Flex stuff on the above-stated
website -- they call it
"RF-9914F" -- and compared its specifications to those of
Belden 9913F7 (the
"flexible" version of 9913). I'm currently using Belden
9913F7 on all my
antennas. As far as I can see, "Bury-Flex" and Belden 9913F7
are virtually
identical in concept and construction: .405" jacket, .108"
stranded center
conductor, 100% coverage foil tape shield, 95% coverage
tinned copper braid
shield. Some comparative notes:
a) Belden uses their own proprietary direct-burial jacket
material
(Belflex(R)
PVC blend) on 9913F7, while Bury-Flex claims only "PE"
(polyethylene) as the
jacket material.
b) The capacitance per foot and velocity factor specs vary
slightly,
probably
due to a different formulation of the dielectric material.
c) Up to about 200 MHz, the claimed losses per 100 ft are
essentially
identical -- but above that, the Belden 9913F7 starts
looking better and
better
compared with the Bury-Flex, which isn't even spec'ed above
1 GHz. (Belden
9913F7 is spec'ed up to 4 GHz.) At 1 GHz, for example, the
Belden 9913F7 is
spec'ed at 4.6 dB / 100 ft, while the Bury-Flex is spec'ed
at 5.3 dB / 100
ft.
So my theory is that "Bury-Flex" is a knock-off of Belden
9913F7, but uses a
cheaper dielectric material, which accounts for its
differences in velocity
factor and capacitance (both dependent on dielectric
constant), and for its
increasingly poorer loss performance in the UHF range. While
no specs are
given
for flexibility, the virtually identical construction of the
two cables
suggests
that the flexibility should be about the same, also.
The cost differential -- in small quantities, anyway -- is
quite
significant.
100 feet of Belden 9913F7 from AES costs $79.99, while the
same quantity of
Bury-Flex from Radioware costs only $59.50. It certainly
looks like the
Bury-Flex is the better "deal" if you're going to be using
it at HF or low
VHF
frequencies (6M and 2M).
Question is -- I don't see any data on where they get this
stuff from, who
makes
it, etc. Do I really want to go with a no-name cable when I
could pay a few
dollars more and get Belden? I suppose it depends to some
degree on how
tight
your finances are, but for me, I would feel more comfortable
going with a
cable
whose manufacturer I know and trust.
I'd be interested in hearing any other data, opinions,
testimonials, flames,
etc. Has anyone tested Bury-Flex, both when it's new and
after it's been
installed for a while, to see how good it really is compared
to Belden?
Bill / W5WVO
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tower (K8RI) [mailto:tower@rogerhalstead.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:11 PM
>> To: coulter@bellsouth.net; towertalk@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a crankup?
>>
>>
>> I used 9913 for years and then gave it all away after one
>> lightening strike blew off the water proofing. I figured
it
>> just wasn't worth the risk.
>>
>> OTOH 9913 is not a good cable to use where flexing is
>> encountered. The center conductor can migrate off center
and
>> it needs to make wide radius bends if long life is
expected.
>>
>> I much prefer LMR 400 to 9913. It's slightly cheaper, or
has
>> been. It's one or two tenths of a db less loss and fits
the
>> same connectors. Both fit PL259s. LMR 400 is more rugged
and
>> can make relatively short radius bends. Much shorter
bends
>> with reliability than 9913. I believe (without taking the
>> time to look it up) that LMR-400 extraflex has about the
same
>> loss as regular 9913, but is more expensive.
>>
>> I used 9913 for years without a problem, or at least I
never
>> noticed any. I liked it, but finding water running out
of my
>> rig after the lightening blew off all the water proofing
was
>> enough to cause a rapid switch to something better. I'd
>> probably still be using it had that not happened.
>>
>> You'll also most likely find hams who have used the stuff
in
>> flexing situations with no problems (there are usually
>> exceptions to most any set of
>> circumstances)
>>
>> Good Luck,
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI, EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
>> N833R, World's Oldest Debonair (S# CD-2)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>
>>> Could somebody tell me if Belden 9913(not 9913 flex)is
usable on a
>>> crankup tower. What I am interested in, is if it is
bendable enough
>>> when the tower
>> is
>>> cranked down or will it bow out too much? Should I go to
a more
>>> flexable
>> cable
>>> for the run up the tower, or is it workable? This is for
a 51 ft.
>>> crankup. Thanks for your help.
>>>
>>> Todd
>>> N4JRZ
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting
Towers",
>>> "Wireless
>> Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free,
>> 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman,
W2FLA.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting
Towers",
> "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll
Free,
> 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman,
W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:12:21 -0400
From: Ed Kucharski <k3dne@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a crankup?
To: "Bill VanAlstyne" <w5wvo@cybermesa.net>,
<towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID:
<5.1.1.6.0.20040427165135.00b38398@pop.dc2.adelphia.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 02:43 PM 4/27/2004 -0600, Bill VanAlstyne wrote:
>c) Up to about 200 MHz, the claimed losses per 100 ft are
essentially
>identical -- but above that, the Belden 9913F7 starts
looking better and
>better
>compared with the Bury-Flex, which isn't even spec'ed above
1 GHz. (Belden
>9913F7 is spec'ed up to 4 GHz.) At 1 GHz, for example, the
Belden 9913F7 is
>spec'ed at 4.6 dB / 100 ft, while the Bury-Flex is spec'ed
at 5.3 dB / 100
ft.
Watch the power ratings of 9913F7 on VHF and UHF however!
If you run legal
power on 144MHz, over 800 watts on 222MHz or over 500 watts
on 432MHz those
power levels exceeds the nominal power ratings on the 9913F7
per it's web
page. For this reason alone I chose the Bury-Flex product
for my rotor
loops on my VHF-UHF station. Bury-Flex is more stiff then
9913F7 but the
jacket is tougher and less prone to accidental slices or
nicks than
9913F7. Before choosing Bury-Flex I email'd the company
about power
ratings since I could not find reference to it on their
webpage and this is
the response I recevied:
"Tnx for the inquiry. At 140 MHz Bury Flex Tm can be run up
to 2500 watts
pep if VSWR is below 1.3/1. At 450 Mhz, 1600 watts pep, vswr
< 1.3/1. These
ratings are at maximum CW of 5 seconds due to cable
dissipation
characteristics."
73,
Ed K3DNE
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:00:07 -0700
From: Steve Katz <stevek@jmr.com>
Subject: RE: [BULK] - Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a
crankup?
To: 'Bill VanAlstyne' <w5wvo@cybermesa.net>,
towertalk@contesting.com
Message-ID:
<DC6063575EF1D4118C300050040D2E93017823C4@mail.jmr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Bill,
I've used Bury-Flex and also 9913F7, as well as other clones
like IEWC
9096-IIA and Cable XPerts CXP1318FX. These are all quite
similar.
I can't tell a lot of difference between them; however to
rate a foam
dielectric cable having a stranded center conductor up to 4
GHz takes a lot
of intestinal fortitude, since stranded conductor cables
start falling off
much above 1 GHz, especially when the dielectric containing
them is as soft
and spongy as cellular PE. LMR400 and cables having foam
dielectrics but
with a solid center conductor are much more likely to
maintain
characteristics at such high frequencies; at 4 GHz rarely
does anyone use
stranded conductor cables for much of anything, much less
transmission lines
where attenuation is an important parameter.
While Belden manufactures its own cables and these other
brands don't, most
of the American-made coax of this construction comes from a
small handful of
mills who private label for anyone buying sufficient
quantities; in my
experience, "sufficient quantities" isn't very much. I've
been offered
private label service for quantities as small as 5000 feet
(five x 1000'
spools). Unless and until materials change to ones less
toxic when melted
or burned, most of this manufacturing seems to be occurring
in older cities
east of the Mississippi having less stringent EPA
requirements than my home
state (California), where making anything from PVC is
difficult (toxic fumes
at high temperatures).
The cables having a 100% foil shield (as the primary outer
conductor, with a
secondary conductor made of braid for clamping/soldering)
shouldn't
contaminate no matter what the jacket does, since the foil
stops migration.
If the Belden product costs only $.20/foot more and seems
better, I'd
certainly use it. Small investment spread over the
operating life of the
cable, which is probably ten years. I haven't swept any of
the 9913F7 up to
4 GHz, but that would be interesting, especially if done
after bending it...
-WB2WIK/6
"Success is the ability to go from failure to failure with
no loss of
enthusiasm." -Winston Churchill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill VanAlstyne [SMTP:w5wvo@cybermesa.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 1:44 PM
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: [BULK] - Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a
crankup?
>
>
>
> I looked up this Bury-Flex stuff on the above-stated
website -- they call
> it
> "RF-9914F" -- and compared its specifications to those of
Belden 9913F7
> (the
> "flexible" version of 9913). I'm currently using Belden
9913F7 on all my
> antennas. As far as I can see, "Bury-Flex" and Belden
9913F7 are virtually
> identical in concept and construction: .405" jacket, .108"
stranded center
> conductor, 100% coverage foil tape shield, 95% coverage
tinned copper
> braid
> shield. Some comparative notes:
>
> a) Belden uses their own proprietary direct-burial jacket
material
> (Belflex(R)
> PVC blend) on 9913F7, while Bury-Flex claims only "PE"
(polyethylene) as
> the
> jacket material.
>
> b) The capacitance per foot and velocity factor specs vary
slightly,
> probably
> due to a different formulation of the dielectric material.
>
> c) Up to about 200 MHz, the claimed losses per 100 ft are
essentially
> identical -- but above that, the Belden 9913F7 starts
looking better and
> better
> compared with the Bury-Flex, which isn't even spec'ed
above 1 GHz. (Belden
> 9913F7 is spec'ed up to 4 GHz.) At 1 GHz, for example, the
Belden 9913F7
> is
> spec'ed at 4.6 dB / 100 ft, while the Bury-Flex is spec'ed
at 5.3 dB / 100
> ft.
>
> So my theory is that "Bury-Flex" is a knock-off of Belden
9913F7, but uses
> a
> cheaper dielectric material, which accounts for its
differences in
> velocity
> factor and capacitance (both dependent on dielectric
constant), and for
> its
> increasingly poorer loss performance in the UHF range.
While no specs are
> given
> for flexibility, the virtually identical construction of
the two cables
> suggests
> that the flexibility should be about the same, also.
>
> The cost differential -- in small quantities, anyway -- is
quite
> significant.
> 100 feet of Belden 9913F7 from AES costs $79.99, while the
same quantity
> of
> Bury-Flex from Radioware costs only $59.50. It certainly
looks like the
> Bury-Flex is the better "deal" if you're going to be using
it at HF or low
> VHF
> frequencies (6M and 2M).
>
> Question is -- I don't see any data on where they get this
stuff from, who
> makes
> it, etc. Do I really want to go with a no-name cable when
I could pay a
> few
> dollars more and get Belden? I suppose it depends to some
degree on how
> tight
> your finances are, but for me, I would feel more
comfortable going with a
> cable
> whose manufacturer I know and trust.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing any other data, opinions,
testimonials,
> flames,
> etc. Has anyone tested Bury-Flex, both when it's new and
after it's been
> installed for a while, to see how good it really is
compared to Belden?
>
> Bill / W5WVO
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:04:34 -0600
From: "Tod Olson" <tod@k0to.us>
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Hygain Hytower 18HT
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <1083084770_16484@mail.cableone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Ed:
There were some articles in Ham Radio and perhaps elsewhere
some years ago
that discussed adding bands to the HyGain HyTower. If you
don't find
anything you might send an email to K0LR (lyle@mlecmn.net)
since I know
that he added at least one of the WARC bands to his HyTower
some years back.
Tod, KXTO
>-----Original Message-----
>From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
>[mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Aidehua@aol.com
>Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 9:25 AM
>To: antennas@mailman.qth.net
>Cc: towertalk@contesting.com
>Subject: [TowerTalk] Hygain Hytower 18HT
>
>I've enjoyed the thread on this antenna, to the point where
I
>may consider getting one. I was previously considering the
>Steppir vertical, but the height/size of this one seems
>appealing. I just have two concerns:
>
>1) I live in a city lot and the vertical would be fairly
close
>to the house (5' away) and 20' from powerlines, though the
>height helps.
>
>2) This antenna does not cover 6m or the WARC bands. Any
>mods for this?
>
>Your input is appreciated.
>
>73,
>Ed NI6S
>_______________________________________________
>
>See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting
Towers",
>"Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll
Free,
>1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman,
W2FLA.
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 16, Issue 71
*****************************************
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting
Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call
Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for
Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|