Mail Archive Search: <+from:w2xx@cloud9.net>

Results:

References: [ +from:w2xx@cloud9.net: 96 ]

Total 96 documents matching your query.

61. [TowerTalk] Slump testing? (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (w2xx@cloud9.net); Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 14:06:52 -0400 (EDT); True, but I am pouring a base for 120 feet of AB-105 and three guy anchor points...more like 7.5 yards total. The plans filed with the building dept. call for 4000 PSI. The 5000 rating is just insura; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00178.html (9,180 bytes)
62. [TowerTalk] Slump testing? (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (w2xx@cloud9.net); Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 14:07:58 -0400 (EDT); Greg, that obviously explains your CW proficiency :-) J.P. == J.P. Kleinhaus, W2XX (fdba AA2DU) E-mail: w2xx@cloud9.net As we say in the software business: "You are hosed." == -- FAQ on WWW: http://w; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00179.html (8,763 bytes)
63. [TowerTalk] Slump testing? (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (w2xx@cloud9.net); Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 14:14:05 -0400 (EDT); Hi Pat: Excellent suggestions...thanks for the explanation and method for slump testing. As I recall, the pumping contractor specified a 5 inch slump...I think stiffer than that will muck up his pump; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00180.html (9,017 bytes)
64. [TowerTalk] Slump testing? (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (w2xx@cloud9.net); Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 15:18:26 -0400 (EDT); Hi Doug: Yeah, I kinda remember reading that slump has only a foggy relationship to ultimate 28 day strength. I wasn't intending to submit a cylinder for pressure testing, unless my building departme; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00183.html (9,059 bytes)
65. [TowerTalk] Slump testing? (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 12:03:35 -0400; Hi Bill: Thanks for an informative posting. Now that I understand the relationship between slump and PSI rating, I'll know what to look out for, and more important, what to specify to sound like a pr; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00216.html (8,910 bytes)
66. [TowerTalk] What to do??? (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 11:51:41 -0400; Hi Jim: It's an easy mistake, and maybe one you fell victim to: Did you check the PHASE of all three antennas to make sure they were the same? By that I mean that the coax center and shield were con; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00347.html (8,195 bytes)
67. [TowerTalk] Concrete poured... (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 12:29:27 -0400; Greetings: After receiving an education on concrete "slump" vs. PSI courtesy of this reflector, I successfully poured 11.5 yards of 5000 PSI concrete for the base and guy anchors of my AB-105 tower l; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00348.html (8,010 bytes)
68. [TowerTalk] Now What? (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 11:41:29 -0400; The idea of this sounds scary as hell to me.... W2XX -- == J.P. Kleinhaus, W2XX (fdba AA2DU) E-mail: w2xx@cloud9.net As we say in the software business: "You are hosed." == -- FAQ on WWW: http://www; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00375.html (8,113 bytes)
69. [TowerTalk] Antennas on a crank-up (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:14:51 -0400; First of all, Mitch, is that 100 foot aluminum crankup rated for that kind of a load? Not just in total square footage, but also the additional stress put on the top section by eight feet of mast and; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00444.html (7,920 bytes)
70. [TowerTalk] Stacking vert & horiz 2 meter beams (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:02:34 -0400; Hi Scott: Might I suggest swapping positions of the top 2 antennas? Simply put, the vertically polarized 2 meter beam with a (metal) mast going through the middle of it will be much more adversely af; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00598.html (7,966 bytes)
71. [TowerTalk] Beverage doubts. (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:21:16 -0400; Hi Pete: Your experience is not unusual. In my experience, I have found that the 4-square is a very good receiving antenna and will normally surpass the performance of a short (i.e.,300-500 foot) bev; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00622.html (8,835 bytes)
72. [TowerTalk] Breaking up guys (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:53:35 -0400; Greetings: I am looking at a chart from the ARRL antenna book that relates to breaking up guys to avoid resonances. I notice that there are two possible lengths of interest; 27.5' looks like it will; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00643.html (8,511 bytes)
73. [TowerTalk] Breaking up guys (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:58:38 -0400; Hi Tom: A very useful post. Let me comment and ask further questions. QSL...I was planning on putting the first insulator 2-3 feet out from the leg. Please explain....I got the 3-12-12 part, but afte; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00670.html (9,331 bytes)
74. [TowerTalk] Breaking up guys (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:14:06 -0400; Hi Tom: One of the suggestions I received was to model the whole sucker with EZNEC or a similar program. If there is no current on the guys, then I'm cool. I understand your comment about non-resonan; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-04/msg00791.html (8,300 bytes)
75. [TowerTalk] PE services (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 10:42:28 -0500; Hah...their trying to keep it a secret, Pete! I had a "Registered Architect" stamp my (hand drawn) plans. The town accepted these and issued me a building permit. Cost: $200 As I see it, if the town; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-02/msg00148.html (9,454 bytes)
76. [TowerTalk] Tower Lubrication (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 11:00:33 -0500; The same thing happened to me a few short weeks ago. Performing antenna replacement of some VHF/UHF sticks on a friend's 90 foot US Tower. A buddy and I were up at the top of the mast (~18 ft over t; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-01/msg00111.html (10,353 bytes)
77. [TowerTalk] Stacked tri-banders vs. Single mono-banders (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 10:53:53 -0500; Yah, but you'd still be LOUDER with an equivalent stack of small monobanders, such as the F-12 series and without the compromises of stacking at "wrong" distances on the non-optimized bands. A 2-sta; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-01/msg00370.html (9,713 bytes)
78. [TowerTalk] Stacked tri-banders vs. Single mono-banders (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (w2xx@cloud9.net); Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:44:04 -0500 (EST); You *may* be right, but in my book, a TH-7 is not a modern tribander. The antennas you mention have trapless driven elements which go a long way towards improving efficiency. I have used both, from; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-01/msg00382.html (9,714 bytes)
79. [TowerTalk] Scotch 88 tape (more) (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:51:29 -0400; Hmmm, time to consider those waterproof, wash and wear hardhats! -- == J.P. Kleinhaus, W2XX (fdba AA2DU) E-mail: w2xx@cloud9.net As we say in the software business: "You are hosed." == -- FAQ on WWW:; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-10/msg00395.html (7,333 bytes)
80. [TowerTalk] Smaller Towers on City Lots (score: 1): Author: w2xx@cloud9.net (J.P. Kleinhaus); Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:34:49 -0400; My situation with relation to guying is this: The setbacks for inground guy anchors are the same as for any other building structure--6 feet off the side or rear yards. The fact that the anchor is s; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-10/msg00648.html (9,405 bytes)

Current List: 61 - 80
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]