Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Rohn\s+55\s+vs\.\s+Rohn\s+45\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Rohn\s+55\s+vs\.\s+Rohn\s+45\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Rohn 55 vs. Rohn 45 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:20:02 -0500; OK, here's a toss up that should generate some real discussion: Rohn 45 and Rohn 55 have essentially the same face width and the same cross bracing. The Rohn 55 has slightly thicker wall side rails -; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-01/msg00423.html (8,367 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn 55 vs. Rohn 45 (score: 1): Author: k1ttt@arrl.net; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:24:57 -0500 (EST); nope, probably very little discussion. The answer is: You won't find anyone who is properly qualified to answer those questions who will dare do it in a forum like this. The corrollary is: If you wa; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-01/msg00428.html (7,519 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn 55 vs. Rohn 45 (score: 1): Author: kb9cry@comcast.net; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:21:15 +0000; Thicker steel usually means stronger so therefore the difference in specs. If you want to see if 45 will do a better job if guyed heavier then you need to get a structural engineer involved. Always f; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-01/msg00430.html (10,450 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn 55 vs. Rohn 45 (score: 1): Author: kr7x@comcast.net; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:02:28 +0000; Joe: Rohn 55g legs are 0.5203 sq in and 45g legs are 0.3043 sq in each. That is 71% larger, this is significant. Give the leg clear spacing (between the horizontals) and 50 ksi yield steel the allowa; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-01/msg00442.html (11,892 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn 55 vs. Rohn 45 (score: 1): Author: "K8RI on Tower Talk" <k8ri-tower@charter.net>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:27:06 -0500; Don't forget there are ROHN 45s and there are ROHN 45s, then there are 55s and there are 55s. IE, not all 45s or 55s are created equal. Both are, or at least were available in hollow and solid leg fo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-01/msg00446.html (11,371 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn 55 vs. Rohn 45 (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:43:36 -0500; those questions who will dare do it in a forum like this. Huh?!? Why is that? Tower capacity is directly related to leg strength; the more compression it'll take - the more load and wind it'll take.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-01/msg00449.html (8,551 bytes)
7. RE: [TowerTalk] Rohn 55 vs. Rohn 45 (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@subich.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:54:54 -0500; 3 guages of wall thickness (11 vs. 14), 1.5" diameter vs. 1.25" diameter and 95# per section vs 70# per section... The additional ultimate strength is fine if one is looking for maximum load at maxim; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-01/msg00456.html (8,723 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]