- 1. [TowerTalk] 90 ft erection (score: 1)
- Author: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-OnLine.Net>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:35:52 -0500
- Wait a second. I'm trying to understand exactly what it is that is so bad. I see the bending of the erection fixture, not good at all; is that it? I see that 90 ft is waaayy toooo much for this erect
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00209.html (8,673 bytes)
- 2. Re: [TowerTalk] 90 ft erection (score: 1)
- Author: "Mark Beckwith" <n5ot@n5ot.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 06:35:38 -0500
- I have to agree. As soon as I noticed the taught guy wires on either side of the tower in the video, the critical comments here became suspect. Raising a tower with a hinged base and two guy points
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00211.html (8,053 bytes)
- 3. Re: [TowerTalk] 90 ft erection (score: 1)
- Author: K7LXC@aol.com
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 09:02:06 EDT
- bad. see that 90 ft is waaayy toooo much for this erection at least with this fixture. A heavier version of the same thing would have been much safer. This looks to me like a variation of the standar
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00215.html (8,640 bytes)
- 4. Re: [TowerTalk] 90 ft erection (score: 1)
- Author: "Mark Beckwith" <n5ot@n5ot.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 10:55:40 -0500
- Bzzt. Look closely at the video (clip #2 between about 0:30 and 0:38) and you can see three loose guy wires at the 70-80 foot height "just hanging there with NO ONE hanging on to them." BUT at the 5
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00223.html (7,788 bytes)
- 5. Re: [TowerTalk] 90 ft erection (score: 1)
- Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:03:57 -0700
- That is exactly right. Having a fair amount of experience with the falling derrick, let me point out that the advantage of the falling derrick over the raising fixture is that you can pull on the tow
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-09/msg00262.html (8,590 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu