- 1. [TowerTalk] Tall towers & ERP (score: 1)
- Author: Jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:59:16 -0500
- This thread seems to be setting in early, this year. Usually it's much closer to Dayton time. heh. quoth KK8ZZ: The mechanisms involved in migration by various species remain poorly understood, wheth
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00322.html (7,834 bytes)
- 2. Re: [TowerTalk] Tall towers & ERP (score: 1)
- Author: Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:31:28 -0500
- Well, at least the current round is event driven, not the annual reappearance of a yet another TowerTalk urban legend. The FCC does have an NPRM that is open for public comment at present. Gee, there
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00329.html (8,810 bytes)
- 3. Re: [TowerTalk] Tall towers & ERP (score: 1)
- Author: <rdhinkle@sbcglobal.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:49:41 -0500
- Ah ! It's not the RF that get's 'em, it's the physical collision with the tower. Sorry I wasn't clear on that. RF, R-schmeff, the more RF the better (when it's needed, at least) Bob Hinkle, KK8ZZ Sol
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00352.html (7,321 bytes)
- 4. Re: [TowerTalk] Tall towers & ERP (score: 1)
- Author: Robert Chudek - KØRC <k0rc@citlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:45:26 -0600
- Well, it's obvious to me, if this is the case, the most prudent thing to do would be to turn off all those danged lights! So we snag an airliner or two now and then, what's the big deal? Much safer f
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00354.html (7,584 bytes)
- 5. [TowerTalk] Tall towers & ERP (score: 1)
- Author: Chuck <wcmoore@verizon.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:55:07 -0600 (CST)
- So why not just turn the lights off during migration and keep air traffic out of the area? (The above is a tongue in cheek statement.) _______________________________________________ ________________
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00364.html (7,589 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu