Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Crankup\s+Danger\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Crankup\s+Danger\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: "Wilson" <infomet@embarqmail.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 14:22:21 -0400; Well, if the tower should telescope while you are on it, the shearing off of fingers and the front of your feet might be considered an undesirable possibility. If you are on an upper section when the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00013.html (7,803 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: "Patrick Greenlee" <patrick_g@windstream.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:45:07 -0500; Wouldn't you ordinarily lower a crank-up tower before climbing? If it were a tilt over as well wouldn't you tilt it over instead of climbing it? Patrick AF5CK Well, if the tower should telescope whil; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00014.html (8,104 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: "Dick Dievendorff" <dieven@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:10:50 -0700; When I had a crankup, "lowered" was still supported by the same single steel cable as when all the way up, at least for my US Towers 89 footer. Bringing it down was to a point where a limit switch st; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00017.html (11,035 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: Les Kalmus <w2lk@bk-lk.com>; Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 17:47:00 -0400; I block my UST 89 ft. tower when it's down where I want and then lower it a tad more to make sure it's on the blocks. I make sure the uphaul cable is a tiny bit slack. Then there's little chance of s; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00022.html (11,778 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: "Patrick Greenlee" <patrick_g@windstream.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:30:43 -0500; Thanks guys for sharing the personal experiences. With the tilt over feature, I don't intend to climb this tower at all. I will use a 4 leg (painter's) ladder (12 footer) to access the electric crank; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00025.html (14,043 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: Steve Dyer <w1srd@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:26:11 -0700 (PDT); I think crank-ups with positive pull-down are never fully "lowered" and are still supported by their lift cable. I know this is the case with my LM-470. 73, Steve Wouldn't you ordinarily lower a cran; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00027.html (10,069 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: "WA3GIN in Alex. City, VA" <wa3gin@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 19:35:25 -0400; The TriEX CT-100 I use is positive crank-down and it bottoms on a pedestal. You can crank until the motor belts catch fire! 73, dave wa3gin@COMCAST.NET I think crank-ups with positive pull-down are n; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00028.html (8,711 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: Steve Dyer <w1srd@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:47:23 -0700 (PDT); OK, towers with enough smarts to have a limit switch :-). ________________________________ From: "WA3GIN in Alex. City, VA" <wa3gin@comcast.net> To: 'Steve Dyer' <w1srd@yahoo.com>; 'Patrick Greenlee'; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00029.html (9,509 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: EZ Rhino <EZRhino@fastmovers.biz>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 18:01:37 -0600; This is one big aggravation I have with USTowers and some other Mfg's...the lack of any stop blocks to support the moving sections. My LM470 has stop blocks at the top of some of the sections (where; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00030.html (11,438 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: Bryan Swadener <bswadener@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:12:01 -0700 (PDT); Patrick, Yes and yes. I installed a 3-section 72 foot tower (US Tower TX472) last July with the optional tiltover fixture. The tower manufacturer clearly states that thou shalt not climb ye olde to; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00031.html (10,329 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: Steve Dyer <w1srd@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:56:52 -0700 (PDT); And one of the many reasons why Chris' product http://www.kf7p.com/KF7P/SafetyStand.html is such a great idea for safely working on a crank-up. 73, Steve W1SRD ________________________________ From:; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00037.html (12,799 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: GEO Badger <w3ab@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 20:52:20 -0700 (PDT); Wow, in my world, small as it is is, common sense would dictate that you either bring a nesting tower down until it can no longer collapse or you will block it so that it can not meet the demands of; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00043.html (8,642 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: "Mike" <noddy1211@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 22:08:13 -0700; Karl at Tashjian told me that he re-designed the old Tri-ex version so that it would not come all the way down so you could gain access to the rotor plate to fit a rotator, if it came all the way dow; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00046.html (11,514 bytes)
14. [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 01:20:36 -0700; I think crank-ups with positive pull-down are never fully "lowered" and are still supported by their lift cable. I know this is the case with my LM-470. 73, Steve long. When fully nested, it is 26 ft; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00047.html (9,074 bytes)
15. [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 03:31:32 -0700; And one of the many reasons why Chris' product http://www.kf7p.com/KF7P/SafetyStand.html is such a great idea for safely working on a crank-up. 73, Steve W1SRD climbing up the side of a nested tower.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00048.html (7,680 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: "Patrick Greenlee" <patrick_g@windstream.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 08:53:49 -0500; Thanks for your response. In my situation I have no zoning concerns, no inspections, no home owners association, or such. I am subject to FAA concerns if the tower is tall enough (red and white alter; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00053.html (10,882 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 07:22:20 -0700; Following this thread made me realize I will now block my motorized tower before climbing. I have a US Tower HDX-589MDPL and I have been lowering it down till it stops then climbing. But as pointed o; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00054.html (13,019 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 07:30:04 -0700; Me again, How do you guys with the motorized towers block your towers ? I am thinking of using 1 inch water pipe. And where do you block it ? Since it telescopes, do you you put blocking through ever; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00055.html (14,150 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: "Wes Attaway $N5WA$" <wesattaway@bellsouth.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:39:26 -0500; You should stick a bar, pipe, or 2x4 thru the tower and under the bottom of each section that you will be climbing on. -- Wes Attaway (N5WA) -- 1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106 318-797-4; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00057.html (15,042 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] Crankup Danger (score: 1): Author: Chris <EZRhino@fastmovers.biz>; Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 08:44:02 -0600; I saw a device one ham made that was several blocks of wood of various lengths that were screwed together, looked like a stair steps. He put it inside the tower, so when lowered, each section leg res; /archives//html/Towertalk/2013-08/msg00058.html (16,693 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]