You will save a lot of money on copper control cables by going with wireless
controls for any antenna applications that require switching (stack matches,
coax switches, rx antenna switches, phasing switches, etc). Plus, you
eliminate all the extra control cabling in the shack and the need to provide
lightning protection on those control cable conductors. WiFi is easy and
relatively cheap to use. If you plan to operate remotely, with wireless
controls the antenna switching capability is available in your station PC.
The ham vendor that provides this capability also provides the free software
for your personal on-screen switching configurations. There are some very
big contest stations that have gone this route.
Another plus: You can buy better coax with any money you save.
This is an option to burying or running control cables and not an
endorsement or ad.
Vic N2PP
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
towertalk-request@contesting.com
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 10:23 PM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 126, Issue 39
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. Re: Coax and control lines in same PVC (Steve Jones)
2. Unsubscribe (Robert M0RCX)
3. Re: Tower Jack? (Mark Robinson)
4. Re: Tower Jack? (Jim Lux)
5. D3W - Pros and Cons? (GALE STEWARD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 09:26:53 -0700
From: "Steve Jones" <n6sj@earthlink.net>
To: "'Doug Scribner'" <dscribner@myfairpoint.net>, "'Towertalk'"
<towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Coax and control lines in same PVC
Message-ID: <000001ce6aae$50c6c260$f2544720$@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Doug-
When I recently buried 165' conduits for my new tower, I put in three runs
of 3" electrical PVC. One run for all the control cables, one for coax only
and one for future unforeseen uses. I pulled more runs of coax and control
cables than I thought I need now, "just in case". Probably overkill, but I
wanted to avoid having to pull out all the cables and re-pull them with a
new run if I were to need something more in the future. Even though I
pulled a new pull rope along with each conduit's cables, and put it on a
swivel so it wouldn't wrap around those cables during the pull, I have heard
it is very difficult to pull additional cables into a conduit that already
has cables in it.
73,
Steve
N6SJ
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Doug
Scribner
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 12:23 PM
To: Towertalk
Subject: [TowerTalk] Coax and control lines in same PVC
Good afternoon,
I need to bring the following lines from the tower to the house...a distance
of about 35 feet. I plan to do this using Schedule 40 electrical PVC.
2 coax lines from SixPak switch (RF)
Rotor control
SixPak switch control
Stack Match control
2 to 1 remote coax relay control
What are the pros and cons of running all this through the same PVC?
Thanks and 73
Doug - K1ZO
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:22:25 +0100
From: Robert M0RCX <m6bfd@yahoo.com>
To: "towertalk@contesting.com" <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Unsubscribe
Message-ID: <9804367F-B2F5-4117-AE6F-64F2BD870BC4@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Unsubscribe
Robert Rawson
M0RCX
North Wakefield Radio Club
On 16 Jun 2013, at 17:00, towertalk-request@contesting.com wrote:
> 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. Yaesu G2800 SDX limited rotation (Grant Saviers)
> 2. Re: Yaesu G2800 SDX limited rotation (davidrobbins)
> 3. Re: How to apply lube to HDX589 (Patrick Greenlee)
> 4. Re: How to apply lube to HDX589 (Doug Turnbull)
> 5. How to apply lube to HDX589 (Jim Thomson)
> 6. FW: When To Replace Tower Cable??? (Fred Hurd)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:25:34 -0700
> From: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Yaesu G2800 SDX limited rotation
> Message-ID: <51BD140E.5060101@pacbell.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> My G2800 SDX rotator only rotates 350 degrees, the manual says 450 with
> the overlap feature.
>
> When the overlap light comes on the mast rotates another 90 degrees CW
> (right), so that seems about right. In the other direction (CCW, left)
> it stops short for 350 deg total rotation.
>
> I've been to the tower top, loosened the mast and it is free to rotate
> and the coax isn't the problem.
>
> Any thoughts as to what else I should check or look for if I remove it?
> Could it be a controller problem?
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:21:38 +0000
> From: "davidrobbins" <davidrobbins@ieee.org>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Yaesu G2800 SDX limited rotation
> Message-ID: <002601ce6a83$ac21cf40$04656dc0$@ieee.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> If you are using the manual rocker switch then the controller shouldn't be
> the problem, the only thing that should stop it when using that switch are
> the limit switches. You can double check that by using a 12v power supply
> to turn the rotor, that would eliminate the controller.
>
> I would monitor the current to the motor, when it stops if there is still
> current then something is jammed, if there is no current then something is
> opening the limit switch too soon. In either case of course something is
> broke and if you are using the rocker switch or 12v supply then it must be
> in the rotor.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Saviers [mailto:grants2@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 01:26
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Yaesu G2800 SDX limited rotation
>
> My G2800 SDX rotator only rotates 350 degrees, the manual says 450 with
the
> overlap feature.
>
> When the overlap light comes on the mast rotates another 90 degrees CW
> (right), so that seems about right. In the other direction (CCW, left) it
> stops short for 350 deg total rotation.
>
> I've been to the tower top, loosened the mast and it is free to rotate and
> the coax isn't the problem.
>
> Any thoughts as to what else I should check or look for if I remove it?
> Could it be a controller problem?
>
> Grant KZ1W
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:51:14 -0500
> From: "Patrick Greenlee" <patrick_g@windstream.net>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] How to apply lube to HDX589
> Message-ID: <8FD4CB2AD9874B948B2CE2458CC91472@PatrickPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
>
>
>
> *******************
> If upper sections also have locks, how is the disengagement cable that
> operates the locks managed? Since the tower gets taller, there would be a
> lot of cable that needs to play out as it goes up. How is that kept from
> tangling up?
>
>
>
> Chris
>
> *****************
>
> Chris, I have a rag sailor background and we lived aboard our sailboat for
9
> years. As you can imagine, minding all the running rigging, ground
tackle,
> etc. is not a trivial task and is important to get right and can be life
> threatening when fouled up.
>
> A UV resistant very open weave cloth bag to hold the tail of a line (one
per
> line) can be real handy. Rain water will not collect in it and permits
> moisture to dry out. You just stuff the long line tail into the bag in
FILO
> fashion (First In Last Out) and when withdrawn from the bag it virtually
> always comes out freely with no tangles.
>
> I can think of hands free systems to take up the slack and pay it out
> automatically but they look like they were designed by Rube Goldberg.
>
> Patrick AF5CK
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:21:14 -0000
> From: "Doug Turnbull" <turnbull@net1.ie>
> To: "'Patrick Greenlee'" <patrick_g@windstream.net>,
> <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] How to apply lube to HDX589
> Message-ID: <269B72D7B4E54C69BA8F664C71DE2B28@DOUG1>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Chris,
>
> In my experience there was a single brake at the lowest and therefore
> stationary level. This counterweighted flap merely takes the strain from
> the lowest wire rope and most importantly from the winch. Some of us may
> add additional stops by carefully climbing the tower and inserting steel
> bars on heavy duty rectangular cross arm bracing - obviously such a tower
is
> not lowered in a storm.
>
> At this QTH one such tower is stayed as per the manufacturer's
> specification - my additional rest / brake between the second and third
> section are additional. Imagine the problem which might occur with a
five
> section tower using strings to release multiple brakes.
>
> Removing the entire weight of the upper sections from the winch and
> lowest rope though makes good sense.
>
> I am not recommending my approach to anyone else. Great care is taken
> when inserting the additional steel bar between the second and third
> sections. The larger tower has three sections which are forty foot long
> and the manufacturer insisted on stays. I did not intend to ever depend
on
> the wire rope when stays increase downward loading.
>
> Why a crank up then. It make is much easier to work on the antenna
and
> greatly reduces climbing. I have a bad back and it is not wise for me to
> be up top. Fact is these days I use a rigger.
>
> 73 Doug EI2CN
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Patrick Greenlee
> Sent: 16 June 2013 12:51
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] How to apply lube to HDX589
>
>
>
>
> *******************
> If upper sections also have locks, how is the disengagement cable that
> operates the locks managed? Since the tower gets taller, there would be a
> lot of cable that needs to play out as it goes up. How is that kept from
> tangling up?
>
>
>
> Chris
>
> *****************
>
> Chris, I have a rag sailor background and we lived aboard our sailboat for
9
>
> years. As you can imagine, minding all the running rigging, ground
tackle,
> etc. is not a trivial task and is important to get right and can be life
> threatening when fouled up.
>
> A UV resistant very open weave cloth bag to hold the tail of a line (one
per
>
> line) can be real handy. Rain water will not collect in it and permits
> moisture to dry out. You just stuff the long line tail into the bag in
FILO
>
> fashion (First In Last Out) and when withdrawn from the bag it virtually
> always comes out freely with no tangles.
>
> I can think of hands free systems to take up the slack and pay it out
> automatically but they look like they were designed by Rube Goldberg.
>
> Patrick AF5CK
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 06:36:22 -0700
> From: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] How to apply lube to HDX589
> Message-ID: <6A97736177BA41D58175BC99BCBD9855@JimPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:11:14 -0700
> From: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] How to apply lube to HDX589
>
>
> I was concerned that where the cables touch the W
> bracing the lube might detour off, but not so much. I could spray until
> the lube ran down 5 to 10'. Did this for every cable on that face, and
> then I repositioned the boom lift lower, doing each tower side top to
> bottom. A bit of lube foam marked the end of where the lube ran down
> the cables, but it is quite easy to lose track of what is saturated.
>
> ## None of the cables should be touching the W bracing at any time !
>
>
>
>
>
> I've read a bunch of wire rope manufacturers literature, plus the
> infinite loop reflector posts, and became convinced lubricating the
> cables with Prelube 6 is the way to go. Seeing how dry the cables were,
> and the bird crap already stuck on them, reinforced this as the right
> decision for me. I'll do it again in three years or so.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
> ## I would do it at least once per year..and probably twice per year.
> One of the posters put a link to a url a few days ago...and the
> recommendation in the wire rope industry was that even a bit of pre-lube
> 6-9-11 on a frequent basis is a lot better than a thorough job done
infrequently.
> IMO, 3 years is way too infrequent.
>
> Jim VE7RF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:26:37 -0400
> From: "Fred Hurd" <fred.hurd@cox.net>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Cc: 'Fred Hurd' <fred.hurd@cox.net>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] FW: When To Replace Tower Cable???
> Message-ID: <000301ce6a9d$8316c3c0$89444b40$@hurd@cox.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>> From all the Tower Talk responses, I have concluded the following:
>
>
>
> 1. Regular examination of the cable (at least twice a year) is
> mandatory to detect any significant number of loose cable strands or
> significant rusting.
>
> 2. If either is the case, it is time to replace the cable. Rusting
> more likely occurs where water can collect (as underneath the pulley
> wheels).
>
> 3. Lubricating the cable twice a year will greatly extend its useful
> life because the lubricant soaks into the cable and discourages internal
> binding. especially when the cable turns around the pulley wheels.
>
> 4. Pulley wheels do not need to be lubricated if they were sealed at
> the factory, but they need to be regularly inspected for any binding or
> wear.
>
> 5. Greasing the crank-up moving parts on a regular basis helps keep
> the tower raising run smoothly and puts less stress on the cables.
>
> 6. With regular maintenance/inspection and depending on location,
the
> cable can last many years.
>
>
>
> Any additions, corrections, or disagreements?
>
>
>
> Fred Hurd (W4PKU)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Fred Hurd [mailto:fred.hurd@cox.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:02 AM
> To: 'towertalk@contesting.com'; 'grants2@pacbell.net'
> Subject: When To Replace Tower Cable???
>
>
>
> This seems to be a constant question for those of us who have crank-up
> towers. How can you tell when it is time to replace the cable? Some say
that
> it's too late when rust appears as the cables weaken from the inside out.
> Is that true? Others say if you lubricate the cable twice a year it will
> last forever? Is that true? Does anyone know the truth?
>
>
>
> Fred Hurd (W4PKU)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 126, Issue 38
> ******************************************
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 18:11:01 -0400
From: "Mark Robinson" <markrob@mindspring.com>
To: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Jack?
Message-ID: <73439E2B6A4A48FC9B76983D3B847D28@hplaptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
I want to see patent numbers and read exactly what the patents otherwise it
is all hot air and hearsay.
Mark N1UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, 15 June, 2013 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Jack?
> On 6/14/13 8:08 PM, K8RI wrote:
>> On 6/14/2013 3:55 PM, Larry wrote:
>>> Patents are renewable if I recall. I don't know if they changed when
>>> they changed trademarks. Trademarks are good as long as the owner is
>>> still alive and other rules (used to be 28 years and renewable once). I
>>> have lost touch with the IP law stuff.
>>
>> Too bad they changed the patent laws as I've been using the tower clamo
>> for nearly 30 years and figured any one who wanted to builfd one could.
>> Actually a patent doesn't prevent you from building one for your self
>> to use.
>
> sure enough, the law does prohibit building one for your own use (35 USC
> 271). there is an exception if you're doing research on the patented item
> (e.g. to improve it), but not for just plain old use.
>
> The classic example is a hammer. If the claims are sufficiently broad
> (e.g. a device held in one or two hands, moved in a swinging motion to
> apply a force), you could make a hammer in order to compare it to your
> pneumatic hammer, but not to build a house (or, more interestingly, to
> form the metal for your new pneumatic hammer) You can build it to
> "compare" for research, but not to use.
>
> The key is "use" (as opposed to "sell" which is also prohibited) { the
> actual wording is something like "made, used, sold, offered to sell or
> imported"
>
> Keeping this all nice and ham radio related, a classic example is the
> Vibroplex bug. Lots of knockoffs, and Vibroplex went after the users
> (e.g. commercial telegraphers), as well as manufacturers.
>
> ANd, sadly, there was a recent Supreme Court decision that casts the
> "research exemption" into doubt, after some 150+ years.
>
> Madey vs Duke, 2002
> " In short, regardless of whether a particular institution or entity is
> engaged in an endeavor for commercial gain, so long as the act is in
> furtherance of the alleged infringer's legitimate business and is not
> solely for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly
> philosophical inquiry, the act does not qualify for the very narrow and
> strictly limited experimental use defense. Moreover, the profit or
> non-profit status of the user is not determinative. "
>
>
> So you could probably built a towerjack (assuming the patent exists and is
> still valid) for the purposes of testing it (in the context of a bonafide
> experimental process) but not just for assembling/disassembling your
> tower. If you were to set up a "tower jacking" contest of some sort,
> perhaps that would fly?
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 16:49:33 -0700
From: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Jack?
Message-ID: <51BE4F0D.1030003@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 6/16/13 3:11 PM, Mark Robinson wrote:
> I want to see patent numbers and read exactly what the patents otherwise
> it is all hot air and hearsay.
>
That certainly would be interesting.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: GALE STEWARD <k3nd@yahoo.com>
To: towertalk reflector <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] D3W - Pros and Cons?
Message-ID:
<1371435783.66504.YahooMailNeo@web120004.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Wondering if anyone has installed the D3W WARC rotary dipole. I've read the
reviews on Eham but am wondering what the collective wisdom is about this
antenna from the TOWERTALK gang.
Any info appreciated...
73, Stew K3ND
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
------------------------------
End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 126, Issue 39
******************************************
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|