Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:w7ce@curtiss.net: 96 ]

Total 96 documents matching your query.

41. [TowerTalk] Wind area for Rohn tower sections (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:40:14 -0700
I've looked through the Rohn catalog but can't find the effective wind area data for Rohn tower sections. I'd like data for 25G, 45G, 55G and 65G, although my immediate need is for 65G and 25G, in th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00525.html (7,902 bytes)

42. Re: [TowerTalk] Wind area for Rohn tower sections (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:14:05 -0700
I'm not looking for the antenna wind area that the tower can support. I'm looking for the maximum wind area of the 25G thorugh 65G tower sections themselves. _________________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00529.html (7,889 bytes)

43. Re: [TowerTalk] Wind area for Rohn tower sections (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:48:16 -0700
Thanks to all who took the time to answer my question. I had done rough calculations and was using 0.25 sq.ft./lin.ft for 25G and 0.45 for 65G. I figured there must be Rohn numbers to double check m
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00553.html (8,493 bytes)

44. Re: [TowerTalk] new tower (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:22:33 -0700
Wouldn't this violate the LXC Prime Directive for Rohn 25G through 65G towers? As far as I can tell, the latest Rohn catalog specifies pier pin bases only for guyed towers. I suppose you might find
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00603.html (8,188 bytes)

45. Re: [TowerTalk] New tower (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:52:37 -0700
As far as I can tell, all of the bases that show the legs placed on gravel are for free-standing and bracketed towers. The guyed towers all specify bases CB1 to CB3 which are all pier-pin bases. Ove
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00611.html (9,219 bytes)

46. [TowerTalk] Tower calculator software? (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:04:46 -0700
Does anyone know of a software program for doing tower design? It would particularly nice if it already had models of Rohn 25 through 65 tower sections. I found an online calculator for Trylon towers
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00782.html (8,854 bytes)

47. [TowerTalk] Setback requirements (was "permit in hand") (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 20:24:31 -0700
I've been wondering about the property line setback requirements for towers recently. Why do most areas have set back requirements for towers based on height but nothing similar for buildings? Is th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00031.html (9,289 bytes)

48. Re: [TowerTalk] 45G Fdn (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:50:17 -0700
I think if you look at the drawing and notes more carefully you'll see that not only is the vertical rebar necessary, but so is the horizontal. The drawing I have (C610621) calls for 4 No. 6 vertica
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00240.html (8,587 bytes)

49. [TowerTalk] Ufer ground using copper wire (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:43:01 -0700
I'm planning on an Ufer ground in my new tower base. I've seen several sites recommending 20' or more of #2 or larger copper wire wrapped around the outside of the rebar cage. Are there any chemical
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00441.html (7,700 bytes)

50. Re: [TowerTalk] Ufer ground using copper wire (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:02:21 -0700
Sinking the ground rod several inches below the bottom of the foundation hole and only running copper wire out the bottom of the concrete is no problem. If house foundations use copper wire for Ufer
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00471.html (13,460 bytes)

51. Re: [TowerTalk] exploding foundations and semantic quibblesregarding Ufer & "Single Point" grounds (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:58:14 -0700
So are you saying that you don't believe in Ufer grounds? If I understand them correctly, the whole point is to develop a low impedance path to ground through the concrete. _________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00478.html (8,531 bytes)

52. Re: [TowerTalk] Ufer gnds/foundations (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:13:35 -0700
I'm certainly no expert either. That's why I'm asking the questions. My research pointed to Ufer grounds for towers as a good solution. Ufer proponets claim that exploding concrete is a myth. I got
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00484.html (8,922 bytes)

53. Re: [TowerTalk] Exploding Foundations (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:59:12 -0700
We're talking the bottom of the foundation which is typically 4 to 8' below the surface. In most parts of the country the ground temperature that deep doesn't vary much over the period of a year. So
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00506.html (9,358 bytes)

54. [TowerTalk] Orion 2300 vs 2800 (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:24:29 -0700
I just acquired an Orion 2300 rotator. I compared it to a friend's Orion 2800 and I can't see any visible differences. Can anyone tell me what is the difference between the two rotators? 73, Clay W7C
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00644.html (6,582 bytes)

55. Re: [TowerTalk] Using Rohn 65G (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:28:28 -0700
Rohn doesn't recommend using the bottom tapered section for a top. Take a look at Drawing C630665, in the 2004 Revised Rohn Catalog. There are two notes on the drawing as follows: "All sections can
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-10/msg00316.html (8,226 bytes)

56. Re: [TowerTalk] Anyone still make a full size 40 meter yagi? (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 08:45:46 -0700
The MonstIR is 3 full-sized elements on 40M on a 34' boom. 34' is WAY too long for a two element 40M beam. M2 uses a 19'7" boom for their 2 element beam and 29'7" for their three element beam. Force
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-11/msg00060.html (8,434 bytes)

57. Re: [TowerTalk] Anyone still make a full size 40 meter yagi? (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 14:10:36 -0700
The MonstIR has 3 active elements on 40/30M, and 4 elements on 20 through 6M (optionally 6 elements on 6 with two extra fixed length elements). The fourth element (director 1) is only 36' long, so it
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-11/msg00087.html (8,609 bytes)

58. Re: [TowerTalk] UST 72' Crankup Tower Question (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:53:15 -0800
Measure the face width of the bottom section of the tower. The TX-472 is 21-5/8" and the HDX-572 is 25-5/8". 73, Clay W7CE _______________________________________________ ___________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00157.html (8,259 bytes)

59. Re: [TowerTalk] HAARP Lunar Echoes (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:15:27 -0800
Amazing what you can do with 3.6 MILLION watts.....wow. According to the HAARP website, the 180 crossed dipoles are spread out over 22.6 acres. Their online gain calculator indicates that the gain is
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00420.html (8,193 bytes)

60. [TowerTalk] Windload at 90 mph (was: Plumbing a tower) (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:49:45 -0800
Is 20 lb/sq ft correct for 90 mi/hr winds? I've run several of the published formulas in the past and seen other references that would indicated that 36 lb/sq ft is a good number to use at 90 mph. I
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00487.html (7,394 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu