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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]ROHN\s+SPECIFICATIONS\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk]ROHN SPECIFICATIONS (score: 1): Author: K7NV@contesting.com (Kurt Andress); Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 12:36:28 -0800; Happy Holidays Everyone, I think Tom's (N4KG) comments regarding the newer Rohn configurations being inferior to the previous ones are right on target. The only reasons for using a configuration with; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-12/msg00470.html (18,580 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk]ROHN SPECIFICATIONS (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 18:28:21 EST; The reason is that the typical Rohn tower configurations are for 'commercial' installations - not typical ham ones. In the general notes it mentions the symmetrical mount of 8 sq.ft. This is for comm; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-12/msg00474.html (7,843 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk]ROHN SPECIFICATIONS (score: 1): Author: K7NV@contesting.com (Kurt Andress); Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 17:04:15 -0800; I couldn't agree more with your observations. I think the commercial nature of the cataloge designs was one of the points Tom, N4KG was making. My comments, on this, were directed toward amateur use; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-12/msg00477.html (9,460 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]