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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+New\s+Tower\s+Old\s+Base\s*$/: 27 ]

Total 27 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] New Tower Old Base (score: 1): Author: Richard Zalewski <dick.w7zr@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:35:07 -0700; First, thanks to all for their comments and suggestions. Some details omitted from my post: I will be replacing a Wilson MT61 (US TOWER MA550)that has the tilt base fixture with a US Tower HDX589MDPL; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-02/msg00421.html (11,316 bytes)
22. Re: [TowerTalk] New Tower Old Base (score: 1): Author: Mike Fatchett W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:06:35 -0700; Are you sure about the base? According to US tower the MA-550 requires a concrete base of: 3'6" x 3'6" x 5' The HDX-589 requires a base of: 5' x 5' x 8' That is difference of over 5 cubic yards of co; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-02/msg00422.html (12,062 bytes)
23. Re: [TowerTalk] New Tower Old Base (score: 1): Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>; Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:15:37 -0800; Actually, the current UST wet stamp calculations for my about to be installed HDX589 has a base 5'6" sq by 9' deep. (10yds of concrete) MA-550 at 3.5 x 3.5 x 5' is 2.3 yds so that is a VERY big diffe; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-02/msg00423.html (12,887 bytes)
24. Re: [TowerTalk] New Tower Old Base (score: 1): Author: Kevin Normoyle <knormoyle@surfnetusa.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:07:45 -0800; the ability for a solid block foundation to resist overturning is mostly dependent on the area of one side. So comparing volume is misleading, if you are willing to believe you have sufficient soil f; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-02/msg00427.html (15,782 bytes)
25. Re: [TowerTalk] New Tower Old Base (score: 1): Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>; Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:50:30 -0800; All the numbers are in the 589 "Structural Analysis Report" 12/15/2010. Leave out whatever you like AYOR. That's what makes lawyers rich. Do not presume there are big safety margins in this design fo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-02/msg00430.html (17,125 bytes)
26. Re: [TowerTalk] New Tower Old Base (score: 1): Author: Richard Zalewski <dick.w7zr@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:46:57 -0700; My existing tower base is 7'x5'x4.5'. I also WILL NOT raise tower about 75'. -- Tnx es 73 Richard W7ZR www.w7zr.com *WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN?* _______________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-02/msg00439.html (18,752 bytes)
27. Re: [TowerTalk] New Tower Old Base (score: 1): Author: Randy <randy@gte.net>; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:15:02 -0500; "As of" the date that I installed my UST TX489MDPL (yes, that's still 5 sections), it was 5X5X8. That's a lot more than it used to be. As far as I can tell, UST specs vary wildly. I also had a UST TX; /archives//html/Towertalk/2011-02/msg00457.html (11,693 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 27
Page: [1] [2]