[TowerTalk] Re: Rules
WD4K
WD4K2 at charter.net
Tue Apr 27 18:26:09 EDT 2004
Don't need Steve to intrepret the rules. I thought we all knew them but
apparently not after seeing all of these Presidential slams and comments
allowed with no comment at all from the admin. So, I assumed that all
opinions were then welcome. If you allow the constant daily slams and digs
at our President without penalty, then you have to be open and allow all of
it. Some of us get tired of being forced to read that crap every time we
open towertalk. Just trying to be fair here..If some can slam and insult
every day then some of us should be able to rebutt and support this great
country. Seems fair to me...or stop it ALL, which is what should have been
done already. Tommy
-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of
towertalk-request at contesting.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 4:33 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 16, Issue 71
Send TowerTalk mailing list submissions to
towertalk at contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
towertalk-request at contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
towertalk-owner at contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of TowerTalk digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. foldover tower (SGTOKIE at aol.com)
2. Re: Top Ten Reasons (Cqtestk4xs at aol.com)
3. Re: Using Belden 9913 on a crankup? (Alan C. Zack)
4. Re: Using Belden 9913 on a crankup? (Bill VanAlstyne)
5. Re: Using Belden 9913 on a crankup? (Ed Kucharski)
6. RE: [BULK] - Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a crankup?
(Steve Katz)
7. RE: Hygain Hytower 18HT (Tod Olson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:02:41 EDT
From: SGTOKIE at aol.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] foldover tower
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Message-ID: <146.27ffe5ea.2dc00851 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
to change the subject a little from junior bush,
in the past, i have seen homebrew fold-over pipe masts.....looked like about
a 4-6ft base consisting of 2 verticle spaced pipes anchored in the ground
with
a pivot at the tops where about 30ft or so of stepped up pipe could be
cranked by a hand winch........too bad i never took a closer look at the
design.........any body have one of these? specs? i bet it will not
tollerate a bunch of
wind load but would be nice for a rotateable dipole for 10, 12 or 15m
david k5qwo
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:45:01 EDT
From: Cqtestk4xs at aol.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Top Ten Reasons
To: TOWERTALK at contesting.com
Message-ID: <1ea.1ef5e7f8.2dc0123d at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In a message dated 4/27/04 6:27:31 PM Greenwich Standard Time,
Ttow1 at charter.net writes:
Since some of you just won't follow the rules and I have to read your jabs
and digs aimed at our President....here are my top ten reasons NOT to
reelect Bush.
10. He did not give nuclear technology to North Korea
9. He did not give ICBM missle technology to China
8. He is not an adulterer
7. He does not consider Yasser Arafat a terrorist and one of his closest
friends.
6. He is not Americas first black President
5. He did not bomb an aspirin factory
4. He did not commit perjury
3. He does know what the meaning of is ..is
2. He does not live off of his wifes fortune
1!!!!! He does not own a blue semen stained dress.
If he had done all of these things, I would vote for him...America needs
another embarassment in the White House. Tommy WD4K
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
K7LXC....do we have rules against this kind of garbage?
Bill K4XS
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:20:53 -0700
From: "Alan C. Zack" <k7acz at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a crankup?
To: "Tower (K8RI)" <tower at rogerhalstead.com>
Cc: coulter at bellsouth.net, towertalk at contesting.com
Message-ID: <408EC0A5.BF00017F at cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
How do they compare uv wise in a hot Las Vegas sky?
"Tower (K8RI)" wrote:
> I used 9913 for years and then gave it all away after one lightening
strike
> blew off the water proofing. I figured it just wasn't worth the risk.
>
> OTOH 9913 is not a good cable to use where flexing is encountered. The
> center conductor can migrate off center and it needs to make wide radius
> bends if long life is expected.
>
> I much prefer LMR 400 to 9913. It's slightly cheaper, or has been. It's
one
> or two tenths of a db less loss and fits the same connectors. Both fit
> PL259s. LMR 400 is more rugged and can make relatively short radius bends.
> Much shorter bends with reliability than 9913. I believe (without taking
the
> time to look it up) that LMR-400 extraflex has about the same loss as
> regular 9913, but is more expensive.
>
> I used 9913 for years without a problem, or at least I never noticed any.
I
> liked it, but finding water running out of my rig after the lightening
blew
> off all the water proofing was enough to cause a rapid switch to something
> better. I'd probably still be using it had that not happened.
>
> You'll also most likely find hams who have used the stuff in flexing
> situations with no problems (there are usually exceptions to most any set
of
> circumstances)
>
> Good Luck,
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI, EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
> N833R, World's Oldest Debonair (S# CD-2)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> > Could somebody tell me if Belden 9913(not 9913 flex)is usable on a
crankup
> > tower. What I am interested in, is if it is bendable enough when the
tower
> is
> > cranked down or will it bow out too much? Should I go to a more flexable
> cable
> > for the run up the tower, or is it workable? This is for a 51 ft.
crankup.
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > Todd
> > N4JRZ
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with
any
> questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Alan Zack
Amateur Radio Station K7ACZ
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Quality Engineer, The Boeing Company, Retired
Aviation Chief Warrant Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Retired
U.S. Coast Guard, Always Ready, Always There
Every hour, Every day, Around the Clock and Around the World
SEMPER PARATUS
http://www.gocoastguard.com/
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:43:58 -0600
From: "Bill VanAlstyne" <w5wvo at cybermesa.net>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a crankup?
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Message-ID: <002501c42c98$5eb30c20$0200a8c0 at billscomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> However, some comparisons between RG-213
> and Buryflex revealed that the latter is actually
> more flexible. It also has much lower loss. You
> can get Buryflex from Radioware
> (http://www.radio-ware.com/).
I looked up this Bury-Flex stuff on the above-stated website -- they call it
"RF-9914F" -- and compared its specifications to those of Belden 9913F7 (the
"flexible" version of 9913). I'm currently using Belden 9913F7 on all my
antennas. As far as I can see, "Bury-Flex" and Belden 9913F7 are virtually
identical in concept and construction: .405" jacket, .108" stranded center
conductor, 100% coverage foil tape shield, 95% coverage tinned copper braid
shield. Some comparative notes:
a) Belden uses their own proprietary direct-burial jacket material
(Belflex(R)
PVC blend) on 9913F7, while Bury-Flex claims only "PE" (polyethylene) as the
jacket material.
b) The capacitance per foot and velocity factor specs vary slightly,
probably
due to a different formulation of the dielectric material.
c) Up to about 200 MHz, the claimed losses per 100 ft are essentially
identical -- but above that, the Belden 9913F7 starts looking better and
better
compared with the Bury-Flex, which isn't even spec'ed above 1 GHz. (Belden
9913F7 is spec'ed up to 4 GHz.) At 1 GHz, for example, the Belden 9913F7 is
spec'ed at 4.6 dB / 100 ft, while the Bury-Flex is spec'ed at 5.3 dB / 100
ft.
So my theory is that "Bury-Flex" is a knock-off of Belden 9913F7, but uses a
cheaper dielectric material, which accounts for its differences in velocity
factor and capacitance (both dependent on dielectric constant), and for its
increasingly poorer loss performance in the UHF range. While no specs are
given
for flexibility, the virtually identical construction of the two cables
suggests
that the flexibility should be about the same, also.
The cost differential -- in small quantities, anyway -- is quite
significant.
100 feet of Belden 9913F7 from AES costs $79.99, while the same quantity of
Bury-Flex from Radioware costs only $59.50. It certainly looks like the
Bury-Flex is the better "deal" if you're going to be using it at HF or low
VHF
frequencies (6M and 2M).
Question is -- I don't see any data on where they get this stuff from, who
makes
it, etc. Do I really want to go with a no-name cable when I could pay a few
dollars more and get Belden? I suppose it depends to some degree on how
tight
your finances are, but for me, I would feel more comfortable going with a
cable
whose manufacturer I know and trust.
I'd be interested in hearing any other data, opinions, testimonials, flames,
etc. Has anyone tested Bury-Flex, both when it's new and after it's been
installed for a while, to see how good it really is compared to Belden?
Bill / W5WVO
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tower (K8RI) [mailto:tower at rogerhalstead.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:11 PM
>> To: coulter at bellsouth.net; towertalk at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a crankup?
>>
>>
>> I used 9913 for years and then gave it all away after one
>> lightening strike blew off the water proofing. I figured it
>> just wasn't worth the risk.
>>
>> OTOH 9913 is not a good cable to use where flexing is
>> encountered. The center conductor can migrate off center and
>> it needs to make wide radius bends if long life is expected.
>>
>> I much prefer LMR 400 to 9913. It's slightly cheaper, or has
>> been. It's one or two tenths of a db less loss and fits the
>> same connectors. Both fit PL259s. LMR 400 is more rugged and
>> can make relatively short radius bends. Much shorter bends
>> with reliability than 9913. I believe (without taking the
>> time to look it up) that LMR-400 extraflex has about the same
>> loss as regular 9913, but is more expensive.
>>
>> I used 9913 for years without a problem, or at least I never
>> noticed any. I liked it, but finding water running out of my
>> rig after the lightening blew off all the water proofing was
>> enough to cause a rapid switch to something better. I'd
>> probably still be using it had that not happened.
>>
>> You'll also most likely find hams who have used the stuff in
>> flexing situations with no problems (there are usually
>> exceptions to most any set of
>> circumstances)
>>
>> Good Luck,
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI, EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
>> N833R, World's Oldest Debonair (S# CD-2)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>
>>> Could somebody tell me if Belden 9913(not 9913 flex)is usable on a
>>> crankup tower. What I am interested in, is if it is bendable enough
>>> when the tower
>> is
>>> cranked down or will it bow out too much? Should I go to a more
>>> flexable
>> cable
>>> for the run up the tower, or is it workable? This is for a 51 ft.
>>> crankup. Thanks for your help.
>>>
>>> Todd
>>> N4JRZ
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers",
>>> "Wireless
>> Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free,
>> 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers",
> "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free,
> 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:12:21 -0400
From: Ed Kucharski <k3dne at adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a crankup?
To: "Bill VanAlstyne" <w5wvo at cybermesa.net>,
<towertalk at contesting.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040427165135.00b38398 at pop.dc2.adelphia.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 02:43 PM 4/27/2004 -0600, Bill VanAlstyne wrote:
>c) Up to about 200 MHz, the claimed losses per 100 ft are essentially
>identical -- but above that, the Belden 9913F7 starts looking better and
>better
>compared with the Bury-Flex, which isn't even spec'ed above 1 GHz. (Belden
>9913F7 is spec'ed up to 4 GHz.) At 1 GHz, for example, the Belden 9913F7 is
>spec'ed at 4.6 dB / 100 ft, while the Bury-Flex is spec'ed at 5.3 dB / 100
ft.
Watch the power ratings of 9913F7 on VHF and UHF however! If you run legal
power on 144MHz, over 800 watts on 222MHz or over 500 watts on 432MHz those
power levels exceeds the nominal power ratings on the 9913F7 per it's web
page. For this reason alone I chose the Bury-Flex product for my rotor
loops on my VHF-UHF station. Bury-Flex is more stiff then 9913F7 but the
jacket is tougher and less prone to accidental slices or nicks than
9913F7. Before choosing Bury-Flex I email'd the company about power
ratings since I could not find reference to it on their webpage and this is
the response I recevied:
"Tnx for the inquiry. At 140 MHz Bury Flex Tm can be run up to 2500 watts
pep if VSWR is below 1.3/1. At 450 Mhz, 1600 watts pep, vswr < 1.3/1. These
ratings are at maximum CW of 5 seconds due to cable dissipation
characteristics."
73,
Ed K3DNE
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:00:07 -0700
From: Steve Katz <stevek at jmr.com>
Subject: RE: [BULK] - Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a crankup?
To: 'Bill VanAlstyne' <w5wvo at cybermesa.net>, towertalk at contesting.com
Message-ID: <DC6063575EF1D4118C300050040D2E93017823C4 at mail.jmr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Bill,
I've used Bury-Flex and also 9913F7, as well as other clones like IEWC
9096-IIA and Cable XPerts CXP1318FX. These are all quite similar.
I can't tell a lot of difference between them; however to rate a foam
dielectric cable having a stranded center conductor up to 4 GHz takes a lot
of intestinal fortitude, since stranded conductor cables start falling off
much above 1 GHz, especially when the dielectric containing them is as soft
and spongy as cellular PE. LMR400 and cables having foam dielectrics but
with a solid center conductor are much more likely to maintain
characteristics at such high frequencies; at 4 GHz rarely does anyone use
stranded conductor cables for much of anything, much less transmission lines
where attenuation is an important parameter.
While Belden manufactures its own cables and these other brands don't, most
of the American-made coax of this construction comes from a small handful of
mills who private label for anyone buying sufficient quantities; in my
experience, "sufficient quantities" isn't very much. I've been offered
private label service for quantities as small as 5000 feet (five x 1000'
spools). Unless and until materials change to ones less toxic when melted
or burned, most of this manufacturing seems to be occurring in older cities
east of the Mississippi having less stringent EPA requirements than my home
state (California), where making anything from PVC is difficult (toxic fumes
at high temperatures).
The cables having a 100% foil shield (as the primary outer conductor, with a
secondary conductor made of braid for clamping/soldering) shouldn't
contaminate no matter what the jacket does, since the foil stops migration.
If the Belden product costs only $.20/foot more and seems better, I'd
certainly use it. Small investment spread over the operating life of the
cable, which is probably ten years. I haven't swept any of the 9913F7 up to
4 GHz, but that would be interesting, especially if done after bending it...
-WB2WIK/6
"Success is the ability to go from failure to failure with no loss of
enthusiasm." -Winston Churchill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill VanAlstyne [SMTP:w5wvo at cybermesa.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 1:44 PM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [BULK] - Re: [TowerTalk] Using Belden 9913 on a crankup?
>
>
>
> I looked up this Bury-Flex stuff on the above-stated website -- they call
> it
> "RF-9914F" -- and compared its specifications to those of Belden 9913F7
> (the
> "flexible" version of 9913). I'm currently using Belden 9913F7 on all my
> antennas. As far as I can see, "Bury-Flex" and Belden 9913F7 are virtually
> identical in concept and construction: .405" jacket, .108" stranded center
> conductor, 100% coverage foil tape shield, 95% coverage tinned copper
> braid
> shield. Some comparative notes:
>
> a) Belden uses their own proprietary direct-burial jacket material
> (Belflex(R)
> PVC blend) on 9913F7, while Bury-Flex claims only "PE" (polyethylene) as
> the
> jacket material.
>
> b) The capacitance per foot and velocity factor specs vary slightly,
> probably
> due to a different formulation of the dielectric material.
>
> c) Up to about 200 MHz, the claimed losses per 100 ft are essentially
> identical -- but above that, the Belden 9913F7 starts looking better and
> better
> compared with the Bury-Flex, which isn't even spec'ed above 1 GHz. (Belden
> 9913F7 is spec'ed up to 4 GHz.) At 1 GHz, for example, the Belden 9913F7
> is
> spec'ed at 4.6 dB / 100 ft, while the Bury-Flex is spec'ed at 5.3 dB / 100
> ft.
>
> So my theory is that "Bury-Flex" is a knock-off of Belden 9913F7, but uses
> a
> cheaper dielectric material, which accounts for its differences in
> velocity
> factor and capacitance (both dependent on dielectric constant), and for
> its
> increasingly poorer loss performance in the UHF range. While no specs are
> given
> for flexibility, the virtually identical construction of the two cables
> suggests
> that the flexibility should be about the same, also.
>
> The cost differential -- in small quantities, anyway -- is quite
> significant.
> 100 feet of Belden 9913F7 from AES costs $79.99, while the same quantity
> of
> Bury-Flex from Radioware costs only $59.50. It certainly looks like the
> Bury-Flex is the better "deal" if you're going to be using it at HF or low
> VHF
> frequencies (6M and 2M).
>
> Question is -- I don't see any data on where they get this stuff from, who
> makes
> it, etc. Do I really want to go with a no-name cable when I could pay a
> few
> dollars more and get Belden? I suppose it depends to some degree on how
> tight
> your finances are, but for me, I would feel more comfortable going with a
> cable
> whose manufacturer I know and trust.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing any other data, opinions, testimonials,
> flames,
> etc. Has anyone tested Bury-Flex, both when it's new and after it's been
> installed for a while, to see how good it really is compared to Belden?
>
> Bill / W5WVO
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:04:34 -0600
From: "Tod Olson" <tod at k0to.us>
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Hygain Hytower 18HT
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Message-ID: <1083084770_16484 at mail.cableone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Ed:
There were some articles in Ham Radio and perhaps elsewhere some years ago
that discussed adding bands to the HyGain HyTower. If you don't find
anything you might send an email to K0LR (lyle at mlecmn.net) since I know
that he added at least one of the WARC bands to his HyTower some years back.
Tod, KXTO
>-----Original Message-----
>From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com
>[mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Aidehua at aol.com
>Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 9:25 AM
>To: antennas at mailman.qth.net
>Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
>Subject: [TowerTalk] Hygain Hytower 18HT
>
>I've enjoyed the thread on this antenna, to the point where I
>may consider getting one. I was previously considering the
>Steppir vertical, but the height/size of this one seems
>appealing. I just have two concerns:
>
>1) I live in a city lot and the vertical would be fairly close
>to the house (5' away) and 20' from powerlines, though the
>height helps.
>
>2) This antenna does not cover 6m or the WARC bands. Any
>mods for this?
>
>Your input is appreciated.
>
>73,
>Ed NI6S
>_______________________________________________
>
>See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers",
>"Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free,
>1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 16, Issue 71
*****************************************
More information about the TowerTalk
mailing list