Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Rohn\s+55\/25\s+Question\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Rohn\s+55\/25\s+Question\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Rohn 55/25 Question (score: 1): Author: TNeill1648@aol.com; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:23:39 EST; I need the benefit of the Towertalk groups collective wisdom.&nbsp; I have approximately 100 feet of Rohn 55 new tower on hand and 30 feet of Rohn 25. My desire is to place the Rohn 25 on top of; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-02/msg00132.html (7,141 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Rohn 55/25 Question (score: 1): Author: "Larry Schimelpfenig" <k7sv@adelphia.net>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:48:34 -0500; Tom, You didn't mention use of the tower for anything beyond a top band vertical. If that's all you're doing, seems like using 55 is really overkill. On the other hand if it's going to support other; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-02/msg00135.html (6,914 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn 55/25 Question (score: 1): Author: KI7WX@aol.com; Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:58:45 -0500; I think it's a goofy idea. Mating 25 to 55 could be done, but why "waste" new 55G tower sections using it as a 160M vertical? For roughly the cost of 3 good used sections of 55G (say $375-400) you sh; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-02/msg00136.html (7,639 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn 55/25 Question (score: 1): Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:22:40 EST; There are of course, 20 foot mating sections for 45 to 55. However, I don't believe Rohn ever made any 25 to 55 mating sections. I agree with KI7WX, it is just not an economical way to go anyway. By; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-02/msg00137.html (7,067 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]