Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Lift\s+cable\,\s+Galv\s+Steel\,\s+vs\s+Stainless\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Lift cable, Galv Steel, vs Stainless (score: 1)
Author: "Pat Barthelow" <aa6eg@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 14:03:56 -0700
I am reviewing the engineering calculations for a Triex LM 354 tower, a paper copy of which is signed and sealed by a Civll Engineer. The 19 page doc, gives the uninitiated a small, insight into the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00021.html (8,653 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Lift cable, Galv Steel, vs Stainless (score: 1)
Author: "David Hachadorian" <k6ll@adelphia.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:46:01 -0000
-- That would be a good question for Karl Tasjian. On his web site price list, he lists 1/4" stainless lift cables for the LM237 and LM470, but not the LM354. Dave Hachadorian, K6LL Yuma, AZ . ______
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00023.html (7,950 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Lift cable, Galv Steel, vs Stainless (score: 1)
Author: "k0dan" <k0dan@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:54:37 -0500
Pat: I can't address the M.E. issues you bring up, but is the engineer in question aware that the Tri-Ex LM series uses redundant cables? That is, there is a pull-up and a pull-down cable, but if one
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00047.html (10,761 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Lift cable, Galv Steel, vs Stainless (score: 1)
Author: <paul@w8aef.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 05:40:28 -0000
Not true my LM470. There are two pull UP cables on each side of the upper sections. Only one pull up cable for the 2nd section from the bottom. The upper cables are not redundant but are arranged suc
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00052.html (9,362 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Lift cable, Galv Steel, vs Stainless (score: 1)
Author: "Julio Peralta" <jperalta@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 06:46:40 -0400
Pat I don't think this is entirely correct. If the main pull up cable were to break the 2nd section would fall bring the 3rd and 4th inner sections with it. The pull down cable runs from the base of
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00054.html (12,397 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Lift cable, Galv Steel, vs Stainless (score: 1)
Author: "Al Williams" <alwilliams@olywa.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 07:13:20 -0700
I agree with w4hy. One of the reasons that I selected the LM470 was that Joel of First Call claimed that there were two cables so that the tower would not collapse if one broke. This tower was built
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00066.html (15,289 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Lift cable, Galv Steel, vs Stainless (score: 1)
Author: N&Oslash;ATH <N0ATH@Charter.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 10:23:55 -0500
Please humor me. This reminds me of pushing a car uphill with a rope. _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather St
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00069.html (9,001 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Lift cable, Galv Steel, vs Stainless (score: 1)
Author: "k0dan" <k0dan@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 22:36:24 -0500
Hi Paul... Help me understand here (I knew my statement would somehow get me in touble)... There's one wire which comes off the winch wound clockwise, another would counterclockwise. Obviously they w
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00101.html (12,342 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Lift cable, Galv Steel, vs Stainless (score: 1)
Author: "k0dan" <k0dan@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 23:01:47 -0500
Al...I replied to another email earlier tonight with an explanation of what happened at my QTH when one of the winch cables broke. I hope I was clear, if not let me know what blanks to fill in. I am
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-10/msg00102.html (17,963 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu