Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+304\s+vs\s+316\s+Stainless\s+Steel\s+for\s+Mast\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+304\s+vs\s+316\s+Stainless\s+Steel\s+for\s+Mast\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] 304 vs 316 Stainless Steel for Mast (score: 1): Author: "Andrew Roos" <Andrew.Roos@poynting.co.za>; Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:45:26 +0200; I'm setting up a new tower with an F-12 C-31XR (effective area 1 sq. m) mounted 200mm above the thrust bearing, and a Delta-240 (effective area 0.4 sq. m) mounted 2m above that. I've calculated the t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-10/msg00456.html (7,360 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] 304 vs 316 Stainless Steel for Mast (score: 1): Author: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>; Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:50:00 -0400; It's not worth getting the 316. 304 holds up fine; I've seen pieces left outside for years with no corrosion. Even in a marine environment, honestly, I'd expect the salt spray would eat four antennas; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-10/msg00458.html (7,139 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] 304 vs 316 Stainless Steel for Mast (score: 1): Author: Larry Kirkland <lkirkland@sc.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:47:38 -0400; I retired from the nuclear fuel business. The top and bottom nozzles which support the fuel rods in the reactor are 304 stainless. We used the low carbon version (304L). If it will stand up in reacto; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-10/msg00459.html (8,111 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]