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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+substandard\s+aluminum\?\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] substandard aluminum? (score: 1): Author: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:36:33 -0500; ZF2NT's tale of woe regarding the Titanex vertical raises some interesting questions. Evidently the problem hasn't been solved, and the solution needs to come from the manufacturer. As for the chaps; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00011.html (7,952 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] substandard aluminum? (score: 1): Author: David Jordan <wa3gin@erols.com>; Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:55:41 -0500; Yes Jim you are correct about Telrex...and the 30yr old TB6EM that I have up at 35 meters is still working and none of the aluminum has broken off. That's about 10,950 days for those of you that aren; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00014.html (7,724 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] substandard aluminum? (score: 1): Author: k1ttt@arrl.net; Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:01:34 -0500 (EST); also note that the problem may be engineering rather than materials. or possibly the engineering of the materials. the really old telrex antennas used an old aluminum alloy that was not as stiff as m; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00017.html (9,315 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] substandard aluminum? (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:04:31 -0800; Dave, Junk antennas are not a recent invention. Telrex made some pretty shaky antennas too. Back in the 80's KS8S had two of their 3 element 40 meter yagis stacked on a 180' tower. The stainless stee; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00024.html (8,238 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] substandard aluminum? (score: 1): Author: BobK8IA@aol.com; Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:18:05 EST; Re Telrex 40m yagis: You know which model KS8S had, Mike? Performance-wise the 3 el on 29' boom model was marginal while the 3 el on 46' boom played very, very well. I used them both, at various stat; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00026.html (8,753 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] substandard aluminum? (score: 1): Author: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:26:01 -0500; Telrex: I think there was a period when lighter, stronger aluminum was available, and was used in production. This resulted in different physical resonance conditions, which in turn resulted in prema; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00027.html (9,829 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] substandard aluminum? (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:57:42 -0500; TB6EM that I 10,950 days for small print! it the old pretty 3 element steel element tips tip were up although that The 40 meter antenna I bought was rubbish. Both electrically and mechanically. ____; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00029.html (9,050 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] substandard aluminum? (score: 1): Author: David Jordan <wa3gin@erols.com>; Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:05:06 -0500; IC, Tom, sometimes I wonder why you bother to buy anything. You seem to end up rebuilding it better then you can purchase new ;-) I've got two of those Telrex baluns (NIB). Don't intent to use them b; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00031.html (9,245 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] substandard aluminum? (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:45:17 -0800; The whole issue of fatigue failure and work hardening (they're different aspects of similar phenomena..changes in the crystalline structure of the metal) is better understood these days, AND, as Jim; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00032.html (12,461 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] substandard aluminum? (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:49:31 -0500; You seem to I'm a stupid impulsive buyer who unfortunately is just smart enough to know when I've bought bad engineering. to use them but served many a US I'm not sure how good an endorsement it is; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00033.html (10,231 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] substandard aluminum? (score: 1): Author: Dave Jordan <wa3gin@erols.com>; Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:02:05 -0500; HAHA, I can't argue with your logic Tom. It's right on the money. But for those of us that don't really care if the signals are 50db over S9 or 10db over S9 that garbage that was built 40 yrs ago wor; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00036.html (12,111 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] substandard aluminum? (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 19:14:10 -0800; Dean had a pair of the 29 foot boom model - one at 90', and the other at 180'. When I went up there, my expectation was that I would be the loudest guy on the band (there weren't many 40 meter stacks; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00038.html (10,059 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] substandard aluminum? (score: 1): Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:28:34 -0500; and the other would be the stacks in disappointment. I felt weekend. Mine is the 47ft boom model Mike. Something must have been seriously wrong with that setup. While my antenna was better than a di; /archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00039.html (9,621 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]