Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:jimlux@earthlink.net: 5229 ]

Total 5229 documents matching your query.

361. Re: [TowerTalk] Re-galvanizing tower sections (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:48:27 -0800
If Julio can find someone in his area with the capability to recoat the tower sections I would suspect it will cost a great deal of money. Probably not all that expensive.. It's some small number of
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-02/msg00507.html (9,093 bytes)

362. Re: [TowerTalk] I-beams used as guy-wire anchors! (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 20:30:50 -0800
Interesting idea... It's not so much the failure or bending of the beam you've got to worry about, it's the ripping the footing out of the ground. Embedding the beam in concrete 3 or 4 feet is probab
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00050.html (11,677 bytes)

363. Re: [TowerTalk] Bending, Not Breaking Aluminum Tubing (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:36:03 -0800
am to the Or fill it with molten lead/solder and let it cool. The lead is soft enough to bend, but supports the tubing. I've had mixed success with the sand approach. If the sand isn't tightly packe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00236.html (8,463 bytes)

364. Re: [TowerTalk] Gin Pole Head / Pulley (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 06:12:46 -0800
I would think the marine supply place will also have ways to attach the pulley to the top of a sailboat mast, which looks remarkably like a gin pole with a pulley at the top? Looking through the arch
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00277.html (8,819 bytes)

365. re: [TowerTalk] weatherproof boxes (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:51:55 -0800
At 11:15 AM 3/19/2004 -0500, Joe Reisert wrote: Pete, Yes, these Rubbermaid boxes are cheap but in a year or so, the UV rays from the sun will start to make the box brittle and eventually fall apart.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00332.html (7,927 bytes)

366. Re: [TowerTalk] New Tower Grounding Advice (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 08:08:15 -0800
Check out the Erico, Polyphaser, and ICE sites.. they've got lots of info... Go to the library and check the NEC for how the power distribution grounding MUST be done. There's specific requirements f
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00359.html (11,557 bytes)

367. Re: [TowerTalk] static cat (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 06:37:27 -0800
Such schemes have been around for centuries (ever since Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod). I seem to recall some papers from the folks at Erico in Australia describing the effectiveness (or no
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00378.html (9,222 bytes)

368. Re: [TowerTalk] static cat (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 06:50:48 -0800
One addition to the stuff below.. No question that something like this will dissipate static. The question is whether dissipating static will reduce the chance of lightning strikes. at summary. it an
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00379.html (10,794 bytes)

369. rocket (triggered) lightning Re: [TowerTalk] Static groundingprotection-experience (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:24:42 -0800
The model rockets actually trailed a fine wire that remained grounded as the rocket rose, allowing the conductor to go right toward the source. -- The rocket and wire research has been done both at U
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00404.html (9,578 bytes)

370. Re: [TowerTalk] Static, Lightening, and protection (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:50:56 -0800
spark removing Not exactly.. shuffling your feet across the carpet is a somewhat different charging mechanism than, say, rain drops and ice crystals being carried by up and down drafts. The exact mec
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00407.html (11,769 bytes)

371. Re: [TowerTalk] Static, Lightening, and protection (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:36:59 -0800
Lots of ways to put charge on something. Tribocharging is only one. Induction or direct charge transfer (both of which are used in electrostatic generators like Van deGraaff or Pelletrons, as well a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00414.html (15,831 bytes)

372. Re: [TowerTalk] Re: Static, Lightning, and protection (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:04:34 -0800
At 09:22 AM 3/22/2004 -0600, you wrote: Good point. At higher altitude, the dielectric strength of air is less, so the voltage cannot build up as much before the strike starts, so the clouds cannot b
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00445.html (9,352 bytes)

373. Re: [TowerTalk] Re: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 15, Issue 62 (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:21:59 -0800
At 11:16 AM 3/23/2004 -0500, Bill Ogden wrote: People seem pleased with their SteppIR antennas. These comments have been intermixed with the discussion about lightning protection. This leads me to as
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00478.html (9,495 bytes)

374. Re: [TowerTalk] Re: Protecting Steppir control cable (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:35:31 -0800
At 02:15 PM 3/23/2004 -0600, Didier Juges wrote: Polyphaser sells a rotor cable protector for 8 wire rotor cable. That may work well for the Steppir (you may need more than one). It is rated 24VAC. T
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00486.html (10,708 bytes)

375. Re: [TowerTalk] CC&Rs (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:44:23 -0800
At 12:09 PM 3/25/2004 -0500, Alan Beagley wrote: Just out of curiosity (since the legal advice I received assured me that the CC&Rs relating to my home do not outlaw antennas and towers): I know that
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00550.html (9,136 bytes)

376. Re: RE: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] CC&Rs (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:14:29 -0800
At 02:08 PM 3/25/2004 -0500, Barry wrote: Hasn't OTARD voided the blanket prohbition of outdoor antennas, permitting small dishes and TV antennas? Yes and no.. http://home.earthlink.net/~w6rmk/otard.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00562.html (10,044 bytes)

377. RE: [BULK] - Re: RE: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] CC&Rs (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:22:54 -0800
At 11:10 AM 3/25/2004 -0800, Steve Katz wrote: Maybe someone has tried that and succeeded, but I haven't heard or read about it. However, locally several individuals pressed the OTARD rule as hard as
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00563.html (10,798 bytes)

378. Re: [TowerTalk] CC&Rs (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:15:42 -0800
Not only that, but in some states like Colorado, the law could bring you down even if your land has no CC&Rs attached to its deed and there is no homeowners association. How? The Colorado law is call
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00577.html (10,929 bytes)

379. Re: [TowerTalk] CC&Rs (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:16:08 -0800
Sure you can.. just the same as you can be subject to a new law. At one time you could buy a car without seatbelts, now you can't. One of the usual things in a CC&R that allows for a separate rules a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00589.html (9,687 bytes)

380. Re: [TowerTalk] CC&Rs (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 06:28:36 -0800
You're right, the seatbelt analogy was poorly chosen. Make it "wearing seatbelts".. There is an interesting aspect, and I suspect that an attorney would have a better read on it, but consider this.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-03/msg00591.html (11,312 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu