Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+comparing\s+top\s+section\s+of\s+crankup\s+to\s+unsupported\s+25g\s+$and\s+effects\s+of\s+long\s+mast$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+comparing\s+top\s+section\s+of\s+crankup\s+to\s+unsupported\s+25g\s+$and\s+effects\s+of\s+long\s+mast$\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] comparing top section of crankup to unsupported 25g (and effects of long mast) (score: 1): Author: Kevin Normoyle <knormoyle@surfnetusa.com>; Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:04:10 -0700; Thanks for the thoughts on analysis. sounds like some folks were interested in this, so here's what I was thinking when I said I wasn't confident analyzing the moment limit at the base was sufficient; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-03/msg00405.html (13,241 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] comparing top section of crankup to unsupported 25g (and effects of long mast) (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:38:44 -0700; You need to know the diameter of the tubes and the wall thickness, too, because the failure mode is typically some member failing by buckling under compression load, rather than bending. Length/diame; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-03/msg00429.html (13,558 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]