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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+tower\s+setbacks\/falling\s+trees\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] tower setbacks/falling trees (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 06:53:58 -0800; VE7RF wrote: The rules on setbacks upsets me. To have a tower fall full length and still remain on your own property is pretty tough if a ham lived on a typ city lot..like 50' x 120' or similar. Free; /archives//html/Towertalk/2012-02/msg00082.html (8,096 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] tower setbacks/falling trees (score: 1): Author: K8RI <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:46:19 -0500; I've never heard that before and it'd be pretty difficult to get a tower made of identical sections to break at a predetermined point. The keys are tall AND skinny AND free standing. That does not in; /archives//html/Towertalk/2012-02/msg00094.html (10,132 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] tower setbacks/falling trees (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:19:59 -0800; yes.. I forgot to add free standing.. Guyed towers are different. (although, if you have a guy anchor failure...) Then no Same thing for chimneys, pencil points, etc. Yes.. the 100 foot Rohn 45 stick; /archives//html/Towertalk/2012-02/msg00102.html (12,910 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] tower setbacks/falling trees (score: 1): Author: "Gene Smar" <ersmar@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:37:04 -0500; SNIP Freestanding towers, like SNIP SNIP TT: The taller Trylon Titan towers (sorry for the alliteration) are constructed of two gauges of steel. The upper, smaller sections are thinner gauge while th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2012-02/msg00108.html (8,764 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] tower setbacks/falling trees (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 06:08:16 -0800; VE7RF wrote: The rules on setbacks upsets me. To have a tower fall full length and still remain on your own property is pretty tough if a ham lived on a typ city lot..like 50' x 120' or similar. Free; /archives//html/Towertalk/2012-02/msg00111.html (11,011 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] tower setbacks/falling trees (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:21:25 -0800; Very slick web aoo.. However, just because the failure point in a windloading situation is halfway up the tower doesn't mean that it will fall neatly folded up, which was the original issue: setback; /archives//html/Towertalk/2012-02/msg00112.html (10,024 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] tower setbacks/falling trees (score: 1): Author: Randy <randy@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:36:29 -0500; Jim: thanks much for your input... Things vary according to locality. I have never, ever considered earthquake or ice loads on my towers...not going to happen. If I *WAS" an engineer, nobody is gonna; /archives//html/Towertalk/2012-02/msg00119.html (12,980 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]