From jpruitt67 at gmail.com  Fri Jul  1 13:15:23 2016
From: jpruitt67 at gmail.com (Jim Pruitt)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 10:15:23 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] HyGain 400 Rotobrake value
Message-ID: <CAFKK8JhaUghpZoTt588MvCr5u8dXnCY_M0+dfe=+4fUW-LAtxw@mail.gmail.com>

Can someone tell me the value of a HyGain 400 Rotobrake rotor?  I recently
purchased one that was supposed to be complete but when I got it I found
that the mast bottom plate (the flat plate that sits over the rotor shaft)
was there but the 2 clamshell clamps that clamp around the antenna mast and
bolt to that bottom plate were missing.  Since HyGain (MFJ?) no longer sell
that rotor or parts for it I suspect that I would have a hard time finding
that clamp.  Does anyone have that clamp they would be willing to part with?

At any rate,  I need to figure out the actual value of a complete 400 and
also the value of what I have.  Does anyone have any input on that?

Thank you.

Jim Pruitt
WA7DUY

From n4ua.va at gmail.com  Fri Jul  1 13:31:29 2016
From: n4ua.va at gmail.com (George Dubovsky)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 13:31:29 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HyGain 400 Rotobrake value
In-Reply-To: <CAFKK8JhaUghpZoTt588MvCr5u8dXnCY_M0+dfe=+4fUW-LAtxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFKK8JhaUghpZoTt588MvCr5u8dXnCY_M0+dfe=+4fUW-LAtxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAALHBraLzRmrDsEXZ68j1ONBogrkbwbGkJ6mEm0q=Oc7RBiP9Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jim,

The clamps for the HDR-300 are the same part numbers as the ones you are
missing. They should still be available from MFJ.

Last year, I sold a completely refurbished 400 with newly-machined
stainless main shaft for $200. It might have been worth $300 tops. They are
nice, rugged rotators, but the 115 vac motor makes them scary to some folks.

73,

geo - n4ua

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Jim Pruitt <jpruitt67 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Can someone tell me the value of a HyGain 400 Rotobrake rotor?  I recently
> purchased one that was supposed to be complete but when I got it I found
> that the mast bottom plate (the flat plate that sits over the rotor shaft)
> was there but the 2 clamshell clamps that clamp around the antenna mast and
> bolt to that bottom plate were missing.  Since HyGain (MFJ?) no longer sell
> that rotor or parts for it I suspect that I would have a hard time finding
> that clamp.  Does anyone have that clamp they would be willing to part
> with?
>
> At any rate,  I need to figure out the actual value of a complete 400 and
> also the value of what I have.  Does anyone have any input on that?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Jim Pruitt
> WA7DUY
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From h.duck at ameritech.net  Fri Jul  1 16:40:08 2016
From: h.duck at ameritech.net (h.duck)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:40:08 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] HyGain 400 Rotobrake value
References: <CAFKK8JhaUghpZoTt588MvCr5u8dXnCY_M0+dfe=+4fUW-LAtxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <64567C5DDEAF4EA9B3131182A5DBE5C3@lenovo>

You might want to contact Norm's Rotor Service for parts if you can't find 
parts otherwise.

http://www.normsrotorservice.com/

H. T. WA9YBW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Pruitt" <jpruitt67 at gmail.com>
To: <TowerTalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:15 PM
Subject: [TowerTalk] HyGain 400 Rotobrake value


> Can someone tell me the value of a HyGain 400 Rotobrake rotor?  I recently
> purchased one that was supposed to be complete but when I got it I found
> that the mast bottom plate (the flat plate that sits over the rotor shaft)
> was there but the 2 clamshell clamps that clamp around the antenna mast 
> and
> bolt to that bottom plate were missing.  Since HyGain (MFJ?) no longer 
> sell
> that rotor or parts for it I suspect that I would have a hard time finding
> that clamp.  Does anyone have that clamp they would be willing to part 
> with?
>
> At any rate,  I need to figure out the actual value of a complete 400 and
> also the value of what I have.  Does anyone have any input on that?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Jim Pruitt
> WA7DUY
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From jbwolf at comcast.net  Fri Jul  1 17:47:28 2016
From: jbwolf at comcast.net (James Wolf)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 17:47:28 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tennadyne  Element installation
Message-ID: <000301d1d3e2$29d43de0$7d7cb9a0$@comcast.net>

I obtained a used Tennadyne Model T8 for my short tower and am getting ready
to put it back together.

The instructions state that I should not use ANTI-OXIDE grease; in bold
letters.  Instead they recommend using WD-40 or graphite.
I've always used it for assembling antenna elements.  Is there any good
reason to not use ANTI-OXIDE inside the element extensions?

Jim - KR9U



From john at kk9a.com  Fri Jul  1 21:22:17 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 21:22:17 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tennadyne Element installation
Message-ID: <004c01d1d400$2ca0f6d0$85e2e470$@com>

I have used Penetrox on all of my element sections for the last 15 years.
Prior to that I used nothing and occasionally had issues removing the
pieces. If you're in a corrosive environment I would definitely recommend
using it unless something is different about Tennadyne construction compared
to normal yagi elements. I seem to recall Telrex having similar warnings
which is maybe why my early yagis were assembled dry.

John KK9A

To:	<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject:	[TowerTalk] Tennadyne Element installation
From:	"James Wolf" <jbwolf at comcast.net>
Reply-to:	jbwolf at comcast.net
Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 17:47:28 -0400


I obtained a used Tennadyne Model T8 for my short tower and am getting ready
to put it back together.

The instructions state that I should not use ANTI-OXIDE grease; in bold
letters.  Instead they recommend using WD-40 or graphite.
I've always used it for assembling antenna elements.  Is there any good
reason to not use ANTI-OXIDE inside the element extensions?

Jim - KR9U


From ezrhino at fastmovers.biz  Fri Jul  1 22:26:12 2016
From: ezrhino at fastmovers.biz (Chris)
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 20:26:12 -0600
Subject: [TowerTalk] FW: Re:  Tennadyne Element installation
In-Reply-To: <fgg0ckmvv4vpxvlptr2flpqk.1467426013263@email.android.com>
References: <fgg0ckmvv4vpxvlptr2flpqk.1467426013263@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <b87mauqvwmhhidvd62rj7f7i.1467426211970@email.android.com>

Chris

---- Original Message ----
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tennadyne Element installation
Sent: Jul 1, 2016 8:20 PM
From: Chris <ezrhino at fastmovers.biz>
To: john at kk9a.com
Cc: 

I think the whole Wd40 and graphite nonsense was somebody's cheap homebrew alternative to buying Penetrox, and it got carried over to the present ownership of Tennadyne from the founder.  The current T8 manual, as of at least 4 years ago, mentions using Penetrox.  Naturally there is nothing unique about our T8's, logs, or the tubing Tennadyne uses, compared to other yagi antennas.  Use Penetrox or Noalox.

Chris
KF7P

From lstoskopf at cox.net  Fri Jul  1 23:13:26 2016
From: lstoskopf at cox.net (lstoskopf at cox.net)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 23:13:26 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Questions on Antennas over sloping ground
Message-ID: <20160701231326.PZYBO.20533.imail@eastrmwml208>

Moxon in his excellent book, HF Antennas for all locations, talks extensively about antennas over sloping ground.  Sadly, years ago I attempted to visit with him through the RSGB but he was too late in life for them to want to forward the message.  I do agree with his ideas, but have some unanswered questions.

1.  He prefers to put the antenna down the slope (if there is enough slope left to make up the Fresnel zone) rather than at the lip.  It appears to me that reading his discussion that for low radiated angles the negative Fresnel zone near  limit he discusses does not exist.  At least for angles below maybe 30 degrees and who wants to go above there?

2.  He uses two heights:  the normally thought of height  and the height at a right angle from the slope.  So if you placed the antenna out over the slope you now have the height at a right angle from the slope plus the now much longer traditional height.  If you put  the latter in HFTA you get the antenna almost on the ground.  What height do I use in HFTA.

3.  I'm assuming that HFTA only uses radiation in free space out front as on a slope. With the close spacing to ground a lot of the energy heading toward the slope is going deep into the earth while the grazing energy down the slope looses less.

4.  A weird thought:  An antenna over flat ground basically sees (for losses) 180 degrees plus the angle to ground for each reflection point while one at the lip of a (say) 20 degree slope sees that much more sky (less ground loss).  Does that make a difference?

5.  Even more weird:  Is it possible to put a few tuned wires in the Fresnel zone near the ground to help with ground loss?

Thanks,  I know the sloping ground works.  Just want to optimize.

N0UU

38.808739, -97.513172

From jim.thom at telus.net  Sat Jul  2 01:38:18 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 22:38:18 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tower Safety and Deaths
Message-ID: <11C5DCED7F9A4C5AB340951E8196B021@JimPC>

Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 08:52:30 -0600
From: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra at sasktel.net>
To: "Tower Talk" <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tower Safety and Deaths

Couple of interesting reads:

The building of the CN tower in Toronto without proper worker fall
protection resulted in zero fall deaths. 

http://wirelessestimator.com/articles/2016/tower-workers-compensated-for-hei
ghts-and-dangers-while-building-the-cn-tower/

No conclusions.

http://wirelessestimator.com/articles/2016/state-by-state-industry-deaths-an
alysis-provides-a-linch-pin-for-continuing-dialogue/

Doug

## Those  116  ?fatality incidents? are not the total number of deaths. 
Multiple fatalities at one site is treated as one incident.  Total deaths is actually
a heck of a lot more than that.  And all were preventable. 

##  iron workers are on a different planet.   I saw a load  of em working on a new
building downtown years ago, that was constructed of steel girders and I beams  etc,
instead of the usual concrete and rebar format.   Here they were, walking along I beams,
with no safety gear on..except a hard hat.   My dad who was born in 1913,  told me stories
when I was a kid, of iron workers who froze up  while out on a I /H beam.    The  boss
would smack their fingers  with a  rubber hammer  to snap em out of it.   He also told me that
a  lot of  algonquin native indians  were iron workers.   They seemed to have a knack  for the
job.   I see all these old pix  of guys sitting on a beam.....eating their lunch. 

##  the part I never figured out was  how high did the winds  get up to ??   One would think the
winds would be howling when up 200-1000 feet.   Esp in places like Chicago and NYC... or
anywhere near the water.   Winds and gusts  would freak me out on a job like that....never mind
if it started  pouring rain. 

Jim   VE7RF     






From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sat Jul  2 02:29:29 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 02:29:29 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 116 Tower-Related Deaths Analyzed State by State
In-Reply-To: <F35DE0816C6B45B28D5BD7C01B673A9A@MarkPC>
References: <F35DE0816C6B45B28D5BD7C01B673A9A@MarkPC>
Message-ID: <7f4c5e5b-69f6-072a-f9ef-6ba0d6fa226d@tm.net>

OK, I answered this once, but had computer problems and it was totally 
lost.  It may, or may not show up. As I'm going from memory, I hope they 
are close:

A couple points on those shares that apply to Ham Radio:
Net Neutrality (NN) and the Digital Divide (DD). Neither are what they seem.

My Background: My Degree is a BS in Computer Science, not programming 
(CIS), with minors in Math and Art, plus work toward a Masters before a 
good job got in the way<:-).
I retired as a Computer Systems Project Manager after being a System 
Administrator and a Developmental Analyst (fancy name for programmer) at 
the corporate level for a large multinational corporation..  I needed to 
keep track of the potential for Net Neutrality (a wolf in sheep's 
clothing) as well as the so called digital divide for potential costs.

We like to think of Amateur Radio as being Apolitical, but we could 
easily find ourselves at odds with regulations at the local, state, or 
federal level.  The ARRL could be prevented from notifying us of 
potential hostile bills at the state or local level.

NN is supposedly going to prevent preferential service to those who pay 
more, or tiered service. Tiered service has existed since I've had my 
own domain in 1996.  It's worked well with only a couple of abuses.   I 
currently have a 100 Mbs Internet connection with unlimited band width.  
I often see between 130 and 140 Mbs. Yes, I pay a premium and no, it's 
not advertised.  They do not have the capacity to openly offer that 
speed.  NN also gives ISPs permission ( a mandate to do it) to make sure 
political speech presents both sides evenly.  IOW, criticizing the FCC, 
FAA (tower height, near and far from airports)  IOW it adds regulation 
to preventing certain "free speech" on regulations, bills up for 
consideration, candidates, politicians, groups, etc, etc, etc... IOW, 
what ever administration is in power NN rules what you can say on the 
Internet.

The Digital Divide (DD) usually refers to the % of a country on high 
speed Internet.  Of course the countries we are compared to are small, 
with high population densities, while outside the major metropolitan 
areas the US is nothing but miles and miles, of nothing but miles and 
miles making the comparisons ridiculous. To reach the same % penetration 
in the US would cost many times the cost per user in these other 
countries, which BTW do not have free speech on or off the Internet.  So 
who pays for this?  NN and everyone pays the same as I do, or everyone 
gets the same speed as I do, for what they pay now?

Both NN and DD would raise the cost per uses  twice if not three times 
or more.  Of course they could add it to the taxes as many countries do.

Beware of any one pushing for either or both as they do not understand 
the ramifications of these, or is lying with something to gain.
Any politician probably has a lot to gain besides votes. The average, 
no... most, people not in the profession and a few in it, do not 
understand what these two could do and the potential for abuse.   Of 
course, if caught lying, they can blame it on being supplied with false 
information.

73

Roger (K8RI)

On 6/30/2016 Thursday 2:48 PM, aa6dx at arrl.net wrote:
>        Interesting read .. Mark  AA6DX
>              State by state industry deaths analysis provides a linch pin for continuing dialogue
>               For 13 years, Wireless Estimator has been compiling data on industry-related fatalities, and presented that information last month to a dozen public and private safety professionals for analysis to see if there are any common threads that could be explored to reduce tower climber deaths. The only commonality, however, was that although there were 116 fatality incidents since 2003, assigning any significance based upon ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>              Tower workers compensated for heights and dangers while building the CN Tower
>               Canada celebrated Toronto?s iconic 1,815-foot CN Tower?s 40th birthday as many of the iron workers who built it, lots of them now in their seventies and eighties, possibly celebrated that they weren?t killed during construction due to what appeared to be limited use of personal fall protection. But many of them photographed without any harness on didn?t appear to ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>              Hillary Clinton?s goal is to close the digital divide by 2020
>               In a major tech policy speech, Hillary Clinton on Tuesday promised to work toward providing broadband access to all US homes by 2020, backed investments in next-generation wireless systems and supported the new Title II rules for net neutrality. ?I intend to make sure we do what we did with electricity in my grandparents? generation ? we connect every home ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>             
>              Tower crews tackle restoring communications in West Virginia
>               Tower crews have been working under challenging conditions to restore cell and wireline services to three carriers in West Virginia after massive floods left tens of thousands of customers without communications services. Frontier Communications, alone, said more than 10,000 of its customers have lost services. The company said in a news release that the number of outages may fluctuate and ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>              Thousands of dropped calls couldn?t compete with 1976?s GOP fiasco
>               All of the major carriers are boosting their networks ahead of the Republican national convention to be held in Cleveland, Ohio, July 18-21, and the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, Pa. July 25-28 with increased DAS systems, better backhaul, additional Cells on Wheels and other measures to ensure coverage for the events. But no matter how spotty the coverage is in ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>              After foundations rush in, Georgia tower tech is finally laid to rest
>               Services were held  Friday, June 24, 2016, for Kenton Seales at 12:20 p.m. at the Life Church Christian Center at 1300 Old Covington Rd., Conyers, Ga. Seales, 36, passed away on June 11 when the company vehicle he was a passenger in crashed into another vehicle that was towing a semi-trailer on I-10 in Hudspeth County, Tex. After ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>                
>              By cutting crew climbs, Anritsu lowers the cost of testing remote radio heads on towers
>               Anritsu Company has introduced CPRI RF measurement capability in its market-leading E series of Site Master?, Spectrum Master?, and Cell Master? handheld field analyzers that dramatically simplifies and lowers the cost of testing Remote Radio Heads (RRHs) installed atop 4G towers. Solidifying Anritsu?s position as the industry leader in field test solutions, the new option reduces network OpEx by allowing wireless ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>             
>              Some question whether wireless infrastructure will benefit from joint GSMA and CTIA show
>               Trade groups GSMA and CTIA are teaming up to bring a global event to San Francisco next year that will not rival the highest attended wireless ecosystem trade show in the world, Mobile World Congress, but will surely be a key event for North America. The new conference announcement is triggering conversation as to whether wireless infrastructure exhibitors and attendees ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>              NATE video emphasizes the gravity of not respecting gravity
>               The National Association of Tower Erectors (NATE) today released a Gravity Video as part of the Association?s 2016 Climber Connection campaign. The video features testimonial footage of a tower technician articulating the importance of respecting gravity at all times when working in the communication tower industry. The video also includes practical safety tips for industry workers to follow in order ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>              TIRAP releases new job safety video exploring standards for tower work
>               Telecommunications Industry Registered Apprenticeship Program (TIRAP) Board Chairman Scott Kisting today encouraged members of the wireless infrastructure industry to watch a new online video that focusses on the ANSI/TIA 1019-A standard for telecommunications towers. The ANSI/TIA 1019-A standard provides construction considerations and loading requirements for telecommunications structures under construction related to antenna supporting structures and antennas. The standard addresses the ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>             
>              New drone regulations need clarification as the industry scratches its head
>               The Federal Aviation Administration made it a lot easier today for a lot of wireless infrastructure companies to operate drones for mapping, safety and other purposes by easing restrictions on commercial drone use with its long-awaited Part 107 ruling. However, because the tower infrastructure industry is unique with its structures going as high as 2,000 feet, the regulations need clarification ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>              New fall protection book addresses a $5.4 billion per year problem
>               As the battle against falls from height rages on in the workplace, falls remain a leading cause of work-related deaths across the globe. ?Surely no one sets off to work saying ?this is the day I want to die?,? says Loui McCurley, one of the industry?s most knowledgeable climbing and rope access rigging experts as well as an author whose ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>              Flash Technology enhances service and security for monitoring operations, adds staff
>               Flash Technology, a global leader in obstruction lighting, has announced the enhancement of the organization?s remote monitoring solutions for Vanguard? SMART series and FTM 190 monitoring devices. The leading monitoring products are now equipped with the encrypted Simple Network Management Protocol version 3, or SNMPv3. The encrypted SNMPv3 provides Flash Technology customers with increased security for the monitoring capabilities of ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>              US Cellular gets a wrist slap for violating FCC environmental rules
>               The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) notified United States Cellular Corporation (USCC) last Thursday that it had failed to comply with the Commission?s regulations regarding the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and other federal statutes when it constructed a tower in Harvey, Ill., and New Buffalo, Mich, in 2007 and 2008. The agency said the carrier did not file ? Read more
>
>              Share:
>             
>              Please let your friends and associates know about the only online community for communications design, installation and maintenance professionals!
>               
>             
>       
>       WirelessEstimator.com, Sample Road, Coral Springs, FL 33063
>                          SafeUnsubscribe? aa6dx at arrl.net
>                          Forward email | About our service provider
>                          Sent by craiglekutis at wirelessestimator.com in collaboration with
>                   
>                         
>                                Try it free today
>                         
>                   
>             
>        
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)



From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Sat Jul  2 03:19:57 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 00:19:57 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Questions on Antennas over sloping ground
In-Reply-To: <20160701231326.PZYBO.20533.imail@eastrmwml208>
References: <20160701231326.PZYBO.20533.imail@eastrmwml208>
Message-ID: <0daa9bd5-83c5-6858-056b-08e81c7e9b0b@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Fri,7/1/2016 8:13 PM, lstoskopf at cox.net wrote:
> I'm assuming that HFTA only uses radiation in free space out front as on a slope.


Perhaps you might buy the ARRL Antenna Book and hear it from the guy who 
wrote it. And you'll get a copy of HFTA on the CD.

73, Jim K9YC


From w2lk at bk-lk.com  Sat Jul  2 10:13:31 2016
From: w2lk at bk-lk.com (Les Kalmus)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 10:13:31 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
Message-ID: <e2ce3298-8aab-ab06-19f4-affa4d42f3d0@bk-lk.com>

I have an older UST HDX-589MDPL and a less old HDX-572MDPL. There was a 
discussion early this year about the type of lubrication to use in a Hub 
City reducer which was a great help in getting ready to relube both of 
my units.
The older 589 Hub City reducer was manufactured in Sep 1992 and the the 
newer in Jan 2005. Both are model 321. The older is style A and the 
newer style C.

I found Mobil SHC634 at McMaster for a good price and they also carry 
unbranded with the same specs for even less. Both reducers are mounted 
upside down with a vent or access plug on the top face. This plug is 
accessed through a hole in the motor mount plate. There are no drain 
plugs that I can find anywhere near the bottom face of the cases. There 
are several plugs in the sides of the cases which are aligned with the 
various shafts. Hub City told me these are mainly for checking the oil 
level depending on how the unit is mounted. Except for the vent on the 
top face there are no oil drainage access points on either case as shown 
in the Hub City documentation which is available on their website.

My questions for anyone who has done this are:

Did you have to remove the motor to access the upper plug?

Did you have a problem draining the oil using one of the lower level 
checking plugs?
I know someone mentioned using a turkey baster to suck out the remaining 
oil but he said there was about 1/2" of oil left after draining. In both 
of my cases it looks like there will be more like 3" of oil left to suck 
out. Is there a better idea than the turkey baster?

Does anyone know the size and letter of the V-belt from the motor to 
large pulley for either model?

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Les W2LK

From wa6zty at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  2 11:52:50 2016
From: wa6zty at yahoo.com (Mike Fahmie)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 15:52:50 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
In-Reply-To: <e2ce3298-8aab-ab06-19f4-affa4d42f3d0@bk-lk.com>
References: <e2ce3298-8aab-ab06-19f4-affa4d42f3d0@bk-lk.com>
Message-ID: <353230541.2335555.1467474770408.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

The V-belt on my HDX-572MDPL (circa 2003) is 4L-370.
-Mike-

 
      From: Les Kalmus <w2lk at bk-lk.com>
 To: TowerTalk at contesting.com 
 Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 7:13 AM
 Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
   
I have an older UST HDX-589MDPL and a less old HDX-572MDPL. There was a 
discussion early this year about the type of lubrication to use in a Hub 
City reducer which was a great help in getting ready to relube both of 
my units.
The older 589 Hub City reducer was manufactured in Sep 1992 and the the 
newer in Jan 2005. Both are model 321. The older is style A and the 
newer style C.

I found Mobil SHC634 at McMaster for a good price and they also carry 
unbranded with the same specs for even less. Both reducers are mounted 
upside down with a vent or access plug on the top face. This plug is 
accessed through a hole in the motor mount plate. There are no drain 
plugs that I can find anywhere near the bottom face of the cases. There 
are several plugs in the sides of the cases which are aligned with the 
various shafts. Hub City told me these are mainly for checking the oil 
level depending on how the unit is mounted. Except for the vent on the 
top face there are no oil drainage access points on either case as shown 
in the Hub City documentation which is available on their website.

My questions for anyone who has done this are:

Did you have to remove the motor to access the upper plug?

Did you have a problem draining the oil using one of the lower level 
checking plugs?
I know someone mentioned using a turkey baster to suck out the remaining 
oil but he said there was about 1/2" of oil left after draining. In both 
of my cases it looks like there will be more like 3" of oil left to suck 
out. Is there a better idea than the turkey baster?

Does anyone know the size and letter of the V-belt from the motor to 
large pulley for either model?

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Les W2LK
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


   
 

From k6uj at pacbell.net  Sat Jul  2 12:41:25 2016
From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Bob K6UJ)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 09:41:25 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
In-Reply-To: <353230541.2335555.1467474770408.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <e2ce3298-8aab-ab06-19f4-affa4d42f3d0@bk-lk.com>
	<353230541.2335555.1467474770408.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4521ba98-2b12-b46a-b034-4c4ebeaef0a3@pacbell.net>

Les,

The  worm drive reducer on my HDX-589 has a chain drive from the motor.
Sounds like mine is mounted differently than yours, looking front side 
at the pulleys, there is one
access plug on the left side about 2/3 the way up for filling and there 
is another plug on the back side
about 3" from the bottom of the case I used for draining.
There isn't much lube volume from the back access plug to the bottom 
because the worm gear displaces
a lot of the lube.  The turkey baster works fine, takes a few tries to 
get it all.  That's how I did mine.
Get your wife a new baster when done.

Bob
K6UJ




On 7/2/16 8:52 AM, Mike Fahmie via TowerTalk wrote:
> The V-belt on my HDX-572MDPL (circa 2003) is 4L-370.
> -Mike-
>
>   
>        From: Les Kalmus <w2lk at bk-lk.com>
>   To: TowerTalk at contesting.com
>   Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 7:13 AM
>   Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
>     
> I have an older UST HDX-589MDPL and a less old HDX-572MDPL. There was a
> discussion early this year about the type of lubrication to use in a Hub
> City reducer which was a great help in getting ready to relube both of
> my units.
> The older 589 Hub City reducer was manufactured in Sep 1992 and the the
> newer in Jan 2005. Both are model 321. The older is style A and the
> newer style C.
>
> I found Mobil SHC634 at McMaster for a good price and they also carry
> unbranded with the same specs for even less. Both reducers are mounted
> upside down with a vent or access plug on the top face. This plug is
> accessed through a hole in the motor mount plate. There are no drain
> plugs that I can find anywhere near the bottom face of the cases. There
> are several plugs in the sides of the cases which are aligned with the
> various shafts. Hub City told me these are mainly for checking the oil
> level depending on how the unit is mounted. Except for the vent on the
> top face there are no oil drainage access points on either case as shown
> in the Hub City documentation which is available on their website.
>
> My questions for anyone who has done this are:
>
> Did you have to remove the motor to access the upper plug?
>
> Did you have a problem draining the oil using one of the lower level
> checking plugs?
> I know someone mentioned using a turkey baster to suck out the remaining
> oil but he said there was about 1/2" of oil left after draining. In both
> of my cases it looks like there will be more like 3" of oil left to suck
> out. Is there a better idea than the turkey baster?
>
> Does anyone know the size and letter of the V-belt from the motor to
> large pulley for either model?
>
> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Les W2LK
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


From w2lk at bk-lk.com  Sat Jul  2 13:36:38 2016
From: w2lk at bk-lk.com (Les Kalmus)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 13:36:38 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
In-Reply-To: <4521ba98-2b12-b46a-b034-4c4ebeaef0a3@pacbell.net>
References: <e2ce3298-8aab-ab06-19f4-affa4d42f3d0@bk-lk.com>
	<353230541.2335555.1467474770408.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<4521ba98-2b12-b46a-b034-4c4ebeaef0a3@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <f65e6b40-7ea4-0cb3-5b4b-e61b4682fa95@bk-lk.com>

Bob,

Both of mine have a chain from the reducer to the cable reel and there 
is a plug in about the same position. These plugs are in line with the 
center line of the two shafts. In whichever position the unit is 
mounted, the upper plug is used to determine the oil level but I guess 
it can be used as an oil input too.

I'll wind up using that same lower one to empty the case but I'll use 
the upper one to fill it instead of fooling with the vent in the motor 
mount.

I have some very different V belt sizings now. I'll remove the V belt 
and work that step once I get started on this.

Les W2LK


On 7/2/2016 12:41 PM, Bob K6UJ wrote:
> Les,
>
> The  worm drive reducer on my HDX-589 has a chain drive from the motor.
> Sounds like mine is mounted differently than yours, looking front side 
> at the pulleys, there is one
> access plug on the left side about 2/3 the way up for filling and 
> there is another plug on the back side
> about 3" from the bottom of the case I used for draining.
> There isn't much lube volume from the back access plug to the bottom 
> because the worm gear displaces
> a lot of the lube.  The turkey baster works fine, takes a few tries to 
> get it all.  That's how I did mine.
> Get your wife a new baster when done.
>
> Bob
> K6UJ
>
>
>
>
> On 7/2/16 8:52 AM, Mike Fahmie via TowerTalk wrote:
>> The V-belt on my HDX-572MDPL (circa 2003) is 4L-370.
>> -Mike-
>>
>>          From: Les Kalmus <w2lk at bk-lk.com>
>>   To: TowerTalk at contesting.com
>>   Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 7:13 AM
>>   Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
>>     I have an older UST HDX-589MDPL and a less old HDX-572MDPL. There 
>> was a
>> discussion early this year about the type of lubrication to use in a Hub
>> City reducer which was a great help in getting ready to relube both of
>> my units.
>> The older 589 Hub City reducer was manufactured in Sep 1992 and the the
>> newer in Jan 2005. Both are model 321. The older is style A and the
>> newer style C.
>>
>> I found Mobil SHC634 at McMaster for a good price and they also carry
>> unbranded with the same specs for even less. Both reducers are mounted
>> upside down with a vent or access plug on the top face. This plug is
>> accessed through a hole in the motor mount plate. There are no drain
>> plugs that I can find anywhere near the bottom face of the cases. There
>> are several plugs in the sides of the cases which are aligned with the
>> various shafts. Hub City told me these are mainly for checking the oil
>> level depending on how the unit is mounted. Except for the vent on the
>> top face there are no oil drainage access points on either case as shown
>> in the Hub City documentation which is available on their website.
>>
>> My questions for anyone who has done this are:
>>
>> Did you have to remove the motor to access the upper plug?
>>
>> Did you have a problem draining the oil using one of the lower level
>> checking plugs?
>> I know someone mentioned using a turkey baster to suck out the remaining
>> oil but he said there was about 1/2" of oil left after draining. In both
>> of my cases it looks like there will be more like 3" of oil left to suck
>> out. Is there a better idea than the turkey baster?
>>
>> Does anyone know the size and letter of the V-belt from the motor to
>> large pulley for either model?
>>
>> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Les W2LK
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From richard at karlquist.com  Sat Jul  2 13:55:14 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 10:55:14 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
In-Reply-To: <f65e6b40-7ea4-0cb3-5b4b-e61b4682fa95@bk-lk.com>
References: <e2ce3298-8aab-ab06-19f4-affa4d42f3d0@bk-lk.com>
	<353230541.2335555.1467474770408.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<4521ba98-2b12-b46a-b034-4c4ebeaef0a3@pacbell.net>
	<f65e6b40-7ea4-0cb3-5b4b-e61b4682fa95@bk-lk.com>
Message-ID: <6f2ee6fc-b067-5d86-e1cf-af9c078bf21d@karlquist.com>

I'm looking at changing out the type of oil in my
HDX-5106.  4 years ago, I hired KJ6Y to work on it
and what he did was to tape a makeshift "funnel"
under the bottom hole, then unscrew the bottom
screw first.  Since the top screw was still in
place, the oil pressure did not blow out the
screw and cause it to get lost.  Once he did that,
he then removed the top screw and oil gushed
out of the bottom hole.  On my tower, both holes
are easily assailable.  This was all done with
the tower vertical BTW.  I would think the
589 would be similar to mine, but you never
know.

Skip didn't scavenge any oil, since I believe
he was replacing with the same type.  He used
a gear oil pump to put the new oil in.  The
same type of pump might be superior to a turkey
baster for scavenging.

I'm getting ready to change my oil this summer.
We have perfect weather for it (triple digit
temperature, single digit humidity, welcome
to Sacramento county)

Rick N6RK




On 7/2/2016 10:36 AM, Les Kalmus wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Both of mine have a chain from the reducer to the cable reel and there
> is a plug in about the same position. These plugs are in line with the
> center line of the two shafts. In whichever position the unit is
> mounted, the upper plug is used to determine the oil level but I guess
> it can be used as an oil input too.
>
> I'll wind up using that same lower one to empty the case but I'll use
> the upper one to fill it instead of fooling with the vent in the motor
> mount.
>
> I have some very different V belt sizings now. I'll remove the V belt
> and work that step once I get started on this.
>
> Les W2LK
>
>
> On 7/2/2016 12:41 PM, Bob K6UJ wrote:
>> Les,
>>
>> The  worm drive reducer on my HDX-589 has a chain drive from the motor.
>> Sounds like mine is mounted differently than yours, looking front side
>> at the pulleys, there is one
>> access plug on the left side about 2/3 the way up for filling and
>> there is another plug on the back side
>> about 3" from the bottom of the case I used for draining.
>> There isn't much lube volume from the back access plug to the bottom
>> because the worm gear displaces
>> a lot of the lube.  The turkey baster works fine, takes a few tries to
>> get it all.  That's how I did mine.
>> Get your wife a new baster when done.
>>
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/2/16 8:52 AM, Mike Fahmie via TowerTalk wrote:
>>> The V-belt on my HDX-572MDPL (circa 2003) is 4L-370.
>>> -Mike-
>>>
>>>          From: Les Kalmus <w2lk at bk-lk.com>
>>>   To: TowerTalk at contesting.com
>>>   Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 7:13 AM
>>>   Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
>>>     I have an older UST HDX-589MDPL and a less old HDX-572MDPL. There
>>> was a
>>> discussion early this year about the type of lubrication to use in a Hub
>>> City reducer which was a great help in getting ready to relube both of
>>> my units.
>>> The older 589 Hub City reducer was manufactured in Sep 1992 and the the
>>> newer in Jan 2005. Both are model 321. The older is style A and the
>>> newer style C.
>>>
>>> I found Mobil SHC634 at McMaster for a good price and they also carry
>>> unbranded with the same specs for even less. Both reducers are mounted
>>> upside down with a vent or access plug on the top face. This plug is
>>> accessed through a hole in the motor mount plate. There are no drain
>>> plugs that I can find anywhere near the bottom face of the cases. There
>>> are several plugs in the sides of the cases which are aligned with the
>>> various shafts. Hub City told me these are mainly for checking the oil
>>> level depending on how the unit is mounted. Except for the vent on the
>>> top face there are no oil drainage access points on either case as shown
>>> in the Hub City documentation which is available on their website.
>>>
>>> My questions for anyone who has done this are:
>>>
>>> Did you have to remove the motor to access the upper plug?
>>>
>>> Did you have a problem draining the oil using one of the lower level
>>> checking plugs?
>>> I know someone mentioned using a turkey baster to suck out the remaining
>>> oil but he said there was about 1/2" of oil left after draining. In both
>>> of my cases it looks like there will be more like 3" of oil left to suck
>>> out. Is there a better idea than the turkey baster?
>>>
>>> Does anyone know the size and letter of the V-belt from the motor to
>>> large pulley for either model?
>>>
>>> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Les W2LK
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

From w2lk at bk-lk.com  Sat Jul  2 15:36:31 2016
From: w2lk at bk-lk.com (Les Kalmus)
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 15:36:31 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
In-Reply-To: <353230541.2335555.1467474770408.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <e2ce3298-8aab-ab06-19f4-affa4d42f3d0@bk-lk.com>
	<353230541.2335555.1467474770408.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <83ea919f-3699-562d-e01e-cc52c05d70ff@bk-lk.com>

Mike,

After a lot of measuring and fooling with several online calculators, it 
looks like that's the one that should fit my 572 too.
The 589 requires a larger belt.

Thanks.

Les

On 7/2/2016 11:52 AM, Mike Fahmie via TowerTalk wrote:
> The V-belt on my HDX-572MDPL (circa 2003) is 4L-370.
> -Mike-
>
>   
>        From: Les Kalmus <w2lk at bk-lk.com>
>   To: TowerTalk at contesting.com
>   Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 7:13 AM
>   Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
>     
> I have an older UST HDX-589MDPL and a less old HDX-572MDPL. There was a
> discussion early this year about the type of lubrication to use in a Hub
> City reducer which was a great help in getting ready to relube both of
> my units.
> The older 589 Hub City reducer was manufactured in Sep 1992 and the the
> newer in Jan 2005. Both are model 321. The older is style A and the
> newer style C.
>
> I found Mobil SHC634 at McMaster for a good price and they also carry
> unbranded with the same specs for even less. Both reducers are mounted
> upside down with a vent or access plug on the top face. This plug is
> accessed through a hole in the motor mount plate. There are no drain
> plugs that I can find anywhere near the bottom face of the cases. There
> are several plugs in the sides of the cases which are aligned with the
> various shafts. Hub City told me these are mainly for checking the oil
> level depending on how the unit is mounted. Except for the vent on the
> top face there are no oil drainage access points on either case as shown
> in the Hub City documentation which is available on their website.
>
> My questions for anyone who has done this are:
>
> Did you have to remove the motor to access the upper plug?
>
> Did you have a problem draining the oil using one of the lower level
> checking plugs?
> I know someone mentioned using a turkey baster to suck out the remaining
> oil but he said there was about 1/2" of oil left after draining. In both
> of my cases it looks like there will be more like 3" of oil left to suck
> out. Is there a better idea than the turkey baster?
>
> Does anyone know the size and letter of the V-belt from the motor to
> large pulley for either model?
>
> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Les W2LK
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From wesattaway at bellsouth.net  Sat Jul  2 17:49:15 2016
From: wesattaway at bellsouth.net (Wes Attaway (N5WA))
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 16:49:15 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
In-Reply-To: <6f2ee6fc-b067-5d86-e1cf-af9c078bf21d@karlquist.com>
References: <e2ce3298-8aab-ab06-19f4-affa4d42f3d0@bk-lk.com><353230541.2335555.1467474770408.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com><4521ba98-2b12-b46a-b034-4c4ebeaef0a3@pacbell.net><f65e6b40-7ea4-0cb3-5b4b-e61b4682fa95@bk-lk.com>
	<6f2ee6fc-b067-5d86-e1cf-af9c078bf21d@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <BD5C87C415D842DCB4A7257A89E0EEEA@Office1>

This is a test to see if the Contesting.com mail server will talk to my
bellsouth mail server.  If this e-mail shows up on the list then all is
well.

   -------------------
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
   -------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Richard (Rick) Karlquist
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 12:55 PM
To: Les Kalmus; towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube

I'm looking at changing out the type of oil in my
HDX-5106.  4 years ago, I hired KJ6Y to work on it
and what he did was to tape a makeshift "funnel"
under the bottom hole, then unscrew the bottom
screw first.  Since the top screw was still in
place, the oil pressure did not blow out the
screw and cause it to get lost.  Once he did that,
he then removed the top screw and oil gushed
out of the bottom hole.  On my tower, both holes
are easily assailable.  This was all done with
the tower vertical BTW.  I would think the
589 would be similar to mine, but you never
know.

Skip didn't scavenge any oil, since I believe
he was replacing with the same type.  He used
a gear oil pump to put the new oil in.  The
same type of pump might be superior to a turkey
baster for scavenging.

I'm getting ready to change my oil this summer.
We have perfect weather for it (triple digit
temperature, single digit humidity, welcome
to Sacramento county)

Rick N6RK




On 7/2/2016 10:36 AM, Les Kalmus wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Both of mine have a chain from the reducer to the cable reel and there
> is a plug in about the same position. These plugs are in line with the
> center line of the two shafts. In whichever position the unit is
> mounted, the upper plug is used to determine the oil level but I guess
> it can be used as an oil input too.
>
> I'll wind up using that same lower one to empty the case but I'll use
> the upper one to fill it instead of fooling with the vent in the motor
> mount.
>
> I have some very different V belt sizings now. I'll remove the V belt
> and work that step once I get started on this.
>
> Les W2LK
>
>
> On 7/2/2016 12:41 PM, Bob K6UJ wrote:
>> Les,
>>
>> The  worm drive reducer on my HDX-589 has a chain drive from the motor.
>> Sounds like mine is mounted differently than yours, looking front side
>> at the pulleys, there is one
>> access plug on the left side about 2/3 the way up for filling and
>> there is another plug on the back side
>> about 3" from the bottom of the case I used for draining.
>> There isn't much lube volume from the back access plug to the bottom
>> because the worm gear displaces
>> a lot of the lube.  The turkey baster works fine, takes a few tries to
>> get it all.  That's how I did mine.
>> Get your wife a new baster when done.
>>
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/2/16 8:52 AM, Mike Fahmie via TowerTalk wrote:
>>> The V-belt on my HDX-572MDPL (circa 2003) is 4L-370.
>>> -Mike-
>>>
>>>          From: Les Kalmus <w2lk at bk-lk.com>
>>>   To: TowerTalk at contesting.com
>>>   Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 7:13 AM
>>>   Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
>>>     I have an older UST HDX-589MDPL and a less old HDX-572MDPL. There
>>> was a
>>> discussion early this year about the type of lubrication to use in a Hub
>>> City reducer which was a great help in getting ready to relube both of
>>> my units.
>>> The older 589 Hub City reducer was manufactured in Sep 1992 and the the
>>> newer in Jan 2005. Both are model 321. The older is style A and the
>>> newer style C.
>>>
>>> I found Mobil SHC634 at McMaster for a good price and they also carry
>>> unbranded with the same specs for even less. Both reducers are mounted
>>> upside down with a vent or access plug on the top face. This plug is
>>> accessed through a hole in the motor mount plate. There are no drain
>>> plugs that I can find anywhere near the bottom face of the cases. There
>>> are several plugs in the sides of the cases which are aligned with the
>>> various shafts. Hub City told me these are mainly for checking the oil
>>> level depending on how the unit is mounted. Except for the vent on the
>>> top face there are no oil drainage access points on either case as shown
>>> in the Hub City documentation which is available on their website.
>>>
>>> My questions for anyone who has done this are:
>>>
>>> Did you have to remove the motor to access the upper plug?
>>>
>>> Did you have a problem draining the oil using one of the lower level
>>> checking plugs?
>>> I know someone mentioned using a turkey baster to suck out the remaining
>>> oil but he said there was about 1/2" of oil left after draining. In both
>>> of my cases it looks like there will be more like 3" of oil left to suck
>>> out. Is there a better idea than the turkey baster?
>>>
>>> Does anyone know the size and letter of the V-belt from the motor to
>>> large pulley for either model?
>>>
>>> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Les W2LK
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From r_bakalov at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  3 10:55:03 2016
From: r_bakalov at yahoo.com (Rudy Bakalov)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 14:55:03 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
References: <795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

I have been thinking of building a few chokes for my station and long feedline runs. As I started looking into the different material mixes that Fair Rite offers I came across some that have not received any attention by the ham community, at least judging by the lack of written materials. Mixes 31 and 43 seem to get all the attention.
So, I was wondering why no references to mix 52 for the higher ham bands and mix 71 for 160m? Looking at the Fair Rite online catalog it seems that a 3 toroid design, using cores of materials 71 (160m), 31 (80-40m), and 52 (20-10m).
I also looked at this table, which also seems to indicate that 52 is better than 43
http://karinya.net/g3txq/chokes/

So, what am I missing? Why is 52 rarely mentioned and the debate is usually 31 vs 43? Does it make sense to build a "universal" choke using 2 or 3 different cores to cover the entire 160 to 10 m range?

Rudy N2WQ

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Sun Jul  3 12:17:43 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 09:17:43 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ae819fc8-2a95-e6d2-f976-2e1008d7cbaf@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Sun,7/3/2016 7:55 AM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
> So, what am I missing?

The fundamental principles upon which ferrite chokes work.

> Why is 52 rarely mentioned and the debate is usually 31 vs 43?
Quoting from the Fair-Rite engineering catalog, #52 is "a new high 
frequency NiZn ferrite material that combines a high saturation flux 
density and a high Curie temperature. SM beads, PC beads, and a range of 
rod cores are available in this material."

Someone asked this question several months ago, so I studied that catalog.
A thorough search found only very small circuit board components with 
that material,  components that are much too small to fit coax.

> Does it make sense to build a "universal" choke using 2 or 3 different cores to cover the entire 160 to 10 m range?

No. What DOES make sense is multiple chokes in series along a cable to 
cover a wide frequency range, each "tuned" to specific parts of that range.

Study k9yc.com/RFI-Ham.pdf  for an complete theoretical development of 
how chokes work, AND measured data that supports and is the basis for 
that development. I first published this material as an Audio 
Engineering Society Paper in 2005, and extended it to the ham world in 
2007. This particular applications note/tutorial has had more than 2 
million downloads from my website, and key elements have been added to 
the ARRL Handbook.

In all of my scientific writing (and I've done a lot), I've always cited 
the work of others on whom my work is based, or who have contributed to 
the topic. When someone sent me a link to W1HIS's work, I studied it, 
and cited it.  I continue to be disappointed that ten years after my 
first publication, G3TXQ  has yet to cite my work, which is the clear 
basis for his.

A primary reason for my focus on #31 material (and I am the guy who not 
only showed Fair-Rite that their new #31 was a useful HF material with 
that 2005 AES Paper, but also introduced it to the ham world), is that 
#31 is the universally useful material for use in building common mode 
chokes between the AM broadcast band and VHF. It is the BEST material 
below 5 MHz, and nearly as good as #43 ABOVE 10 MHz. This universality 
allows us as hams to buy in quantity, taking advantage of quantity price 
discounts from industrial vendors, and escaping the predatory high 
prices of ham vendors who sell at 2-4X these quantity prices.

73, Jim K9YC


From richard at karlquist.com  Sun Jul  3 12:36:39 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 09:36:39 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ae2c261e-3345-17f3-8514-4cacfad7df39@karlquist.com>



On 7/3/2016 7:55 AM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
> I have been thinking of building a few chokes for my station and long feedline runs. As I started looking into the different material mixes that Fair Rite offers I came across some that have not received any attention by the ham community, at least judging by the lack of written materials. Mixes 31 and 43 seem to get all the attention.
> So, I was wondering why no references to mix 52 for the higher ham bands and mix 71 for 160m? Looking at the Fair Rite online catalog it seems that a 3 toroid design, using cores of materials 71 (160m), 31 (80-40m), and 52 (20-10m).
> I also looked at this table, which also seems to indicate that 52 is better than 43
> http://karinya.net/g3txq/chokes/
>
> So, what am I missing? Why is 52 rarely mentioned and the debate is usually 31 vs 43? Does it make sense to build a "universal" choke using 2 or 3 different cores to cover the entire 160 to 10 m range?
>
> Rudy N2WQ
> _______________________________________________

Sorry for the long answer, but this is not a
simple question to deal with.

The general answer to your question is that many
mixes are only available in a limited selection
of shapes.  So a material that might otherwise
be suitable, might not come in the shape you
need.

The other issue is that stock in "distribution"
(IE available from authorized Fair-Rite distributors)
is a subset of what is shown in the Fair-Rite
catalog.  What is not stocked, may require waiting
an indeterminate time until it happens to be in
stock.  Or it may mean having to place a large
minimum order and wait many months.

If you can come up with a compelling "value proposition"
for some specialty ferrite component, maybe you
could organize group buy to get over the threshold
of minimum buy.

It is also possible to go directly to the manufacturer
and have them make a run of custom ferrites.  I did this
for a client once, where we wanted a custom shape in
68 material, which is normally only made in toroids.
The client was building CO2 lasers excited at 81.36
MHz and 68 material was the only material that worked
at that high of a frequency, IIRC.  The client had to
pay several thousand dollars for this run.  That
wouldn't be out of the question for a ham group
purchase IF there was a real advantage to be gained.

You seem to be seeking the "holy grail" of a universal
choke covering 160 to 10 meters.  I don't know of
any antenna that covers 160 to 10 meters, so why
do we need a choke that does that?  So my opinion is
that is doesn't make sense to do that.  It would
be better to simply use the optimum ferrite material
for the particular band(s) that the choke is to be
used for.

A place where there actually is a need for a 160 to
10 meters (or even 6 meters) choke is in solid
state amplifier design, for the DC feed choke.  I
studied this problem extensively a few years ago
looking at all Fair-Rite materials, pretending I
could get any shape, etc.  I even made some measurements
to fill in gaps in the Fair-Rite data sheets.  After
all that, the winner was ... boring old 43 material.
Luckily, this is probably the most available material.
Even a lot of competitors make their own version.
However, I found that the imitations were markedly
inferior to Fair-Rite 43 in this particular application.
They would probably be fine for general purpose RFI
fixing.

Rick N6RK

From r_bakalov at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  3 12:56:29 2016
From: r_bakalov at yahoo.com (Rudy Bakalov)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 16:56:29 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <ae2c261e-3345-17f3-8514-4cacfad7df39@karlquist.com>
References: <795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<ae2c261e-3345-17f3-8514-4cacfad7df39@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <1622797689.1232058.1467564989532.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Rick,
Thanks for taking the time to provide such a thoughtful response! Much appreciated.
So, let me clarify a couple of points:
1) The use case for a universal choke is at the output of the amplifiers and at the base of my tower. I run a SO2R switch and all bands go via one of the two feed lines from the shack to the SO2R switch at the base of the tower. While using different materials for different bands certainly makes sense (and is practical), it won't work for a true honest to God SO2R setup.
2) The reality of commercial availability did hit me fairly quickly, so I decided to limit my choices to materials that are readily available- both 31 and 52 meet the requirement. You can buy large OD mix 52 toroids from the usual distributors.
What I am wondering is if using different mixes in the same choke would "flatten" the curve and extend it across the entire 160 to 10 m range. The second question I wonder is if I can stack the two different mixes or that would be undesirable and they should be in series.

Rudy N2WQ      From: Richard (Rick) Karlquist <richard at karlquist.com>
 To: Rudy Bakalov <r_bakalov at yahoo.com>; Reflector -tower <towertalk at contesting.com> 
 Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2016 12:36 PM
 Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
   
Sorry for the long answer, but this is not a
simple question to deal with.

The general answer to your question is that many
mixes are only available in a limited selection
of shapes.? So a material that might otherwise
be suitable, might not come in the shape you
need.

The other issue is that stock in "distribution"
(IE available from authorized Fair-Rite distributors)
is a subset of what is shown in the Fair-Rite
catalog.? What is not stocked, may require waiting
an indeterminate time until it happens to be in
stock.? Or it may mean having to place a large
minimum order and wait many months.

If you can come up with a compelling "value proposition"
for some specialty ferrite component, maybe you
could organize group buy to get over the threshold
of minimum buy.

It is also possible to go directly to the manufacturer
and have them make a run of custom ferrites.? I did this
for a client once, where we wanted a custom shape in
68 material, which is normally only made in toroids.
The client was building CO2 lasers excited at 81.36
MHz and 68 material was the only material that worked
at that high of a frequency, IIRC.? The client had to
pay several thousand dollars for this run.? That
wouldn't be out of the question for a ham group
purchase IF there was a real advantage to be gained.

You seem to be seeking the "holy grail" of a universal
choke covering 160 to 10 meters.? I don't know of
any antenna that covers 160 to 10 meters, so why
do we need a choke that does that?? So my opinion is
that is doesn't make sense to do that.? It would
be better to simply use the optimum ferrite material
for the particular band(s) that the choke is to be
used for.

A place where there actually is a need for a 160 to
10 meters (or even 6 meters) choke is in solid
state amplifier design, for the DC feed choke.? I
studied this problem extensively a few years ago
looking at all Fair-Rite materials, pretending I
could get any shape, etc.? I even made some measurements
to fill in gaps in the Fair-Rite data sheets.? After
all that, the winner was ... boring old 43 material.
Luckily, this is probably the most available material.
Even a lot of competitors make their own version.
However, I found that the imitations were markedly
inferior to Fair-Rite 43 in this particular application.
They would probably be fine for general purpose RFI
fixing.

Rick N6RK


  

From r_bakalov at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  3 13:01:58 2016
From: r_bakalov at yahoo.com (Rudy Bakalov)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 17:01:58 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <1622797689.1232058.1467564989532.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<ae2c261e-3345-17f3-8514-4cacfad7df39@karlquist.com>
	<1622797689.1232058.1467564989532.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1670144813.1214037.1467565318079.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

BTW, here is a link to the Fair Rite item
http://www.fair-rite.com/product/toroids-5952003801/

Mouser, Amidon, and Arrow Electronics have sufficient quantities in stock.

Rudy N2WQ
      From: Rudy Bakalov <r_bakalov at yahoo.com>
 To: Richard (Rick) Karlquist <richard at karlquist.com>; Reflector -tower <towertalk at contesting.com> 
 Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2016 12:56 PM
 Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
   
Hi Rick,
Thanks for taking the time to provide such a thoughtful response! Much appreciated.
So, let me clarify a couple of points:
1) The use case for a universal choke is at the output of the amplifiers and at the base of my tower. I run a SO2R switch and all bands go via one of the two feed lines from the shack to the SO2R switch at the base of the tower. While using different materials for different bands certainly makes sense (and is practical), it won't work for a true honest to God SO2R setup.
2) The reality of commercial availability did hit me fairly quickly, so I decided to limit my choices to materials that are readily available- both 31 and 52 meet the requirement. You can buy large OD mix 52 toroids from the usual distributors.
What I am wondering is if using different mixes in the same choke would "flatten" the curve and extend it across the entire 160 to 10 m range. The second question I wonder is if I can stack the two different mixes or that would be undesirable and they should be in series.

Rudy N2WQ      From: Richard (Rick) Karlquist <richard at karlquist.com>
 To: Rudy Bakalov <r_bakalov at yahoo.com>; Reflector -tower <towertalk at contesting.com> 
 Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2016 12:36 PM
 Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
  
Sorry for the long answer, but this is not a
simple question to deal with.

The general answer to your question is that many
mixes are only available in a limited selection
of shapes.? So a material that might otherwise
be suitable, might not come in the shape you
need.

The other issue is that stock in "distribution"
(IE available from authorized Fair-Rite distributors)
is a subset of what is shown in the Fair-Rite
catalog.? What is not stocked, may require waiting
an indeterminate time until it happens to be in
stock.? Or it may mean having to place a large
minimum order and wait many months.

If you can come up with a compelling "value proposition"
for some specialty ferrite component, maybe you
could organize group buy to get over the threshold
of minimum buy.

It is also possible to go directly to the manufacturer
and have them make a run of custom ferrites.? I did this
for a client once, where we wanted a custom shape in
68 material, which is normally only made in toroids.
The client was building CO2 lasers excited at 81.36
MHz and 68 material was the only material that worked
at that high of a frequency, IIRC.? The client had to
pay several thousand dollars for this run.? That
wouldn't be out of the question for a ham group
purchase IF there was a real advantage to be gained.

You seem to be seeking the "holy grail" of a universal
choke covering 160 to 10 meters.? I don't know of
any antenna that covers 160 to 10 meters, so why
do we need a choke that does that?? So my opinion is
that is doesn't make sense to do that.? It would
be better to simply use the optimum ferrite material
for the particular band(s) that the choke is to be
used for.

A place where there actually is a need for a 160 to
10 meters (or even 6 meters) choke is in solid
state amplifier design, for the DC feed choke.? I
studied this problem extensively a few years ago
looking at all Fair-Rite materials, pretending I
could get any shape, etc.? I even made some measurements
to fill in gaps in the Fair-Rite data sheets.? After
all that, the winner was ... boring old 43 material.
Luckily, this is probably the most available material.
Even a lot of competitors make their own version.
However, I found that the imitations were markedly
inferior to Fair-Rite 43 in this particular application.
They would probably be fine for general purpose RFI
fixing.

Rick N6RK


   

  

From steve at karinya.net  Sun Jul  3 13:05:40 2016
From: steve at karinya.net (Steve Hunt)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 18:05:40 +0100
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f0e6c76d-8e2d-2d1e-c371-8195eca82d00@karinya.net>

Rudy,

The #52 mix is readily available in size "240" toroids and makes a 
useful choke for the higher HF bands. Take a look at the performance of 
11 turns on two stacked FT240-52 cores; it's the eleventh line on this 
chart:
http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/chokes/

And here's the detail:
http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/temp/52_mix.png

It achieves Rs>5000 Ohms from 10Mhz thru 28MHz, and Rs>8000 Ohms from 
12MHz thru 21MHz.

Steve G3TXQ



From richard at karlquist.com  Sun Jul  3 14:23:10 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 11:23:10 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <f0e6c76d-8e2d-2d1e-c371-8195eca82d00@karinya.net>
References: <795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<f0e6c76d-8e2d-2d1e-c371-8195eca82d00@karinya.net>
Message-ID: <2f379f74-0be9-ed91-ffee-b0f887a50cac@karlquist.com>



On 7/3/2016 10:05 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
> Rudy,

> http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/temp/52_mix.png
>
> It achieves Rs>5000 Ohms from 10Mhz thru 28MHz, and Rs>8000 Ohms from
> 12MHz thru 21MHz.
>
> Steve G3TXQ
>

It is more useful to think about Rp than Rs.  Rp determines the
power dissipation for a given voltage.  Although Z is a figure
of merit for how well the antenna works, Rp is a figure of merit
for how much power can be handled.  On the G3TXQ curves, note
that where Z=Rs, it is also true that Z=Rp.  Away from that
frequency, the general trend is that Rp monotonically increases
with frequency, at least up to resonance.

For the RF amplifier DC feed, Rp is everything.  Getting a high
enough Z pretty much takes care of itself if Rp is sufficient.
In the amplifier, you not only need to minimize the amount of
heat, but also the thermal resistance for cooling purposes.
It is a very complicated problem and there is no universal
solution.  Unlike the antenna case, there is no requirement
that Z is mostly resistive.  It is actually better if it
is mostly reactive.

It's nice to brag about extremely high Z values, but even if
Z=infinity, all you have accomplished is that you have
disconnected the feedline from the antenna.  It doesn't
guarantee there will be no feedline currents.  Also, it merely
PERMITS the antenna to be balanced, if there is no external
conductor otherwise perturbing it.  It does not guarantee
balance.

Rick N6RK

From wesattaway at bellsouth.net  Sun Jul  3 18:13:16 2016
From: wesattaway at bellsouth.net (Wes Attaway (N5WA))
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 17:13:16 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <ae819fc8-2a95-e6d2-f976-2e1008d7cbaf@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com><795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<ae819fc8-2a95-e6d2-f976-2e1008d7cbaf@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <871BA4444DC14D7DA48F897BCA86D633@Office1>

It is good to know that we can rely on #31 and #43 for many applications.

   -------------------
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
   -------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Brown
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2016 11:18 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns

On Sun,7/3/2016 7:55 AM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
> So, what am I missing?

The fundamental principles upon which ferrite chokes work.

> Why is 52 rarely mentioned and the debate is usually 31 vs 43?
Quoting from the Fair-Rite engineering catalog, #52 is "a new high 
frequency NiZn ferrite material that combines a high saturation flux 
density and a high Curie temperature. SM beads, PC beads, and a range of 
rod cores are available in this material."

Someone asked this question several months ago, so I studied that catalog.
A thorough search found only very small circuit board components with 
that material,  components that are much too small to fit coax.

> Does it make sense to build a "universal" choke using 2 or 3 different
cores to cover the entire 160 to 10 m range?

No. What DOES make sense is multiple chokes in series along a cable to 
cover a wide frequency range, each "tuned" to specific parts of that range.

Study k9yc.com/RFI-Ham.pdf  for an complete theoretical development of 
how chokes work, AND measured data that supports and is the basis for 
that development. I first published this material as an Audio 
Engineering Society Paper in 2005, and extended it to the ham world in 
2007. This particular applications note/tutorial has had more than 2 
million downloads from my website, and key elements have been added to 
the ARRL Handbook.

In all of my scientific writing (and I've done a lot), I've always cited 
the work of others on whom my work is based, or who have contributed to 
the topic. When someone sent me a link to W1HIS's work, I studied it, 
and cited it.  I continue to be disappointed that ten years after my 
first publication, G3TXQ  has yet to cite my work, which is the clear 
basis for his.

A primary reason for my focus on #31 material (and I am the guy who not 
only showed Fair-Rite that their new #31 was a useful HF material with 
that 2005 AES Paper, but also introduced it to the ham world), is that 
#31 is the universally useful material for use in building common mode 
chokes between the AM broadcast band and VHF. It is the BEST material 
below 5 MHz, and nearly as good as #43 ABOVE 10 MHz. This universality 
allows us as hams to buy in quantity, taking advantage of quantity price 
discounts from industrial vendors, and escaping the predatory high 
prices of ham vendors who sell at 2-4X these quantity prices.

73, Jim K9YC

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Sun Jul  3 19:49:21 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 16:49:21 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <f0e6c76d-8e2d-2d1e-c371-8195eca82d00@karinya.net>
References: <795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<795063956.1204582.1467557703902.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<f0e6c76d-8e2d-2d1e-c371-8195eca82d00@karinya.net>
Message-ID: <8fb425e5-61ee-b51e-94c3-d2fce25c0a01@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Sun,7/3/2016 10:05 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
> The #52 mix is readily available in size "240" toroids 

I didn't find this part in the Fair-Rite catalog because the assigned 
part number is for an inductive component, not for suppression. Many 
ferrite materials are useful as inductive components at lower 
frequencies and as suppression components at higher frequencies, so your 
measurements are not surprising given the material specs (see p 11 in 
the 17th edition of the Fair-Rite catalog).

BUT -- Fair-Rite controls specs based on their intended use, so 
inductive components are controlled for inductance, but NOT for loss 
impedance, and suppression components are controlled for suppression 
impedance and not for inductance. For example -- you can buy a #43 
2.4-in o.d. toroid controlled for impedance as Fair-Rite 2643803802. The 
same size #43 toroid controlled for inductance is 5943003801.

This may seem picky to those who have not worked in component 
manufacturing or as a circuit designer, but those of us who have 
certainly understand the difference. Some components come off the 
production line with relatively wide specs, and are sorted by measured 
performance for one or more parameters. Those that meet one set of 
performance tolerance specs get one part number, those that meet a 
different set get a different one.

BTW -- it should be noted that Fair-Rite does sell some #61 parts with 
suppression part numbers, but NOT the 2.4-in o.d. toroid. They made the 
right call on that one -- #61 is not sufficiently lossy at HF to be 
useful for suppression because the Q of the circuit resonance is too 
high. They DO sell smaller #61 components for suppression. They ARE 
lossy enough at high VHF and low UHF to be effective for use at those 
frequencies. For example, a single 0461164181 clamp-on resonates around 
450 MHz, and multiple turns through it would move the resonance down to 
about 2M.  0461176451 resonates around 250 MHz, and two turns would move 
it down to about 2M. In both cases, Z at resonance would increase by a 
factor of 2-3.

73, Jim K9YC


From kz8e at wt.net  Sun Jul  3 20:53:46 2016
From: kz8e at wt.net (Earl Morse)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 17:53:46 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
Message-ID: <20160703175346.761ABDFA@m0086238.ppops.net>

Not a ham application but I had to make a balun for work to test a wide band antenna design for EMC immunity testing.  It covered 150 kHz to over 20 MHz at 15 kW.

Sevick's book will help you a lot in doing these designs (K9YC's writings too).  You will discover about all the limitations and mutually exclusive characteristics of ferrite transformers that will limit your design.  Figuring out the desired amount of inductance at the low frequency in order to have enough core and turns to achieve it without saturation and then finding out the number of turns limits your high frequency response when the winding inductance resonates with the interturn capacitance.

Any core can be the right core at least for a little while.  I cranked out 4 of the baluns of two different designs (Ruthroff and Guanella) using junk I had around the lab within a day.  The parallel transmission line tranformer worked better than the coaxial one for bandwidth.  Only one caught fire during testing but that was because it arced over since I didn't have nice teflon sleeving and Thermaleze wire to make them with.  

Wide band, high power transmission line transformers are difficult to make.  I would highly suggest limiting the design to the antenna at hand, I mean how often are you going to move your 1.8 MHz transformer over to your 28 MHz yagi?  It will certainly make the design a lot easier to realize.

Earl
N8SS

  
> _______________________________________________


You seem to be seeking the "holy grail" of a universal
choke covering 160 to 10 meters.  I don't know of
any antenna that covers 160 to 10 meters, so why
do we need a choke that does that?  So my opinion is
that is doesn't make sense to do that.  It would
be better to simply use the optimum ferrite material
for the particular band(s) that the choke is to be
used for.

A place where there actually is a need for a 160 to
10 meters (or even 6 meters) choke is in solid
state amplifier design, for the DC feed choke.  I
studied this problem extensively a few years ago
looking at all Fair-Rite materials, pretending I
could get any shape, etc.  I even made some measurements
to fill in gaps in the Fair-Rite data sheets.  After
all that, the winner was ... boring old 43 material.
Luckily, this is probably the most available material.
Even a lot of competitors make their own version.
However, I found that the imitations were markedly
inferior to Fair-Rite 43 in this particular application.
They would probably be fine for general purpose RFI
fixing.

Rick N6RK


------------------------------




From jim.thom at telus.net  Mon Jul  4 02:08:02 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 23:08:02 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
Message-ID: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>

Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 11:23:10 -0700
From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard at karlquist.com>
To: Steve Hunt <steve at karinya.net>, Reflector -tower
<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns


On 7/3/2016 10:05 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
> Rudy,

> http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/temp/52_mix.png
>
> It achieves Rs>5000 Ohms from 10Mhz thru 28MHz, and Rs>8000 Ohms from
> 12MHz thru 21MHz.
>
> Steve G3TXQ
>

It is more useful to think about Rp than Rs.  Rp determines the
power dissipation for a given voltage.  Although Z is a figure
of merit for how well the antenna works, Rp is a figure of merit
for how much power can be handled.  On the G3TXQ curves, note
that where Z=Rs, it is also true that Z=Rp.  Away from that
frequency, the general trend is that Rp monotonically increases
with frequency, at least up to resonance.


It's nice to brag about extremely high Z values, but even if
Z=infinity, all you have accomplished is that you have
disconnected the feedline from the antenna.  It doesn't
guarantee there will be no feedline currents.  Also, it merely
PERMITS the antenna to be balanced, if there is no external
conductor otherwise perturbing it.  It does not guarantee
balance.

Rick N6RK

##  Ok, Im lost.   I thought  we wanted  Z >  RS > XS .  
Put another way, RS ideally should be the same as Z... or as close as
you can get to Z.   And  RS  should definitely be >  than XS. 

What is RP  ??  

Jim   VE7RF




From jim.thom at telus.net  Mon Jul  4 02:20:04 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 23:20:04 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
Message-ID: <F871D58D63D84C28BBD3BCB2BE6BC54E@JimPC>

Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 16:49:21 -0700
From: Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns

I didn't find this part in the Fair-Rite catalog because the assigned 
part number is for an inductive component, not for suppression. Many 
ferrite materials are useful as inductive components at lower 
frequencies and as suppression components at higher frequencies, so your 
measurements are not surprising given the material specs (see p 11 in 
the 17th edition of the Fair-Rite catalog).

BUT -- Fair-Rite controls specs based on their intended use, so 
inductive components are controlled for inductance, but NOT for loss 
impedance, and suppression components are controlled for suppression 
impedance and not for inductance. For example -- you can buy a #43 
2.4-in o.d. toroid controlled for impedance as Fair-Rite 2643803802. The 
same size #43 toroid controlled for inductance is 5943003801.

73, Jim K9YC

##  Ok, so the type 31  2.4 core we should be using for CM chokes is the 
toroid controlled for impedance... PN  2643803802    ?? 

## Good thing u mentioned the type 31 core  comes in 2 x versions.  I wonder
how many folks have ordered the wrong part number in error ?  

Jim   VE7RF 




From mskobier at charter.net  Mon Jul  4 11:28:51 2016
From: mskobier at charter.net (Mitch)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 08:28:51 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 6
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5.1467561603.18482.towertalk@contesting.com>
References: <mailman.5.1467561603.18482.towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <001901d1d608$c5133db0$4f39b910$@net>

Les, 
	You asked if there was a better method than the turkey baster for
removing the residual oil in the bottom of the gear box, so I offer this
suggestion. One of the shore-lander type of marine engine oil change tanks
might work for you. Basically, they are a small vacuum tank to which you can
attach small diameter tubing to allow the tube to be inserted down the oil
level dip stick tube to suck the oil out of the engine. They are generally
called an oil extractor, and there are a bunch of different variations.
Harbor Freight sells at least two different models. The one I have is the
green metal tank version, and I have had it at least 15 years, and have
removed many a gallon of oil with it.

Mitch KJ7JA



>>>
>>>          From: Les Kalmus <w2lk at bk-lk.com>
>>>   To: TowerTalk at contesting.com
>>>   Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 7:13 AM
>>>   Subject: [TowerTalk] Hub City relube
>>>     I have an older UST HDX-589MDPL and a less old HDX-572MDPL. 
>>> There was a discussion early this year about the type of lubrication 
>>> to use in a Hub City reducer which was a great help in getting ready 
>>> to relube both of my units.
>>> The older 589 Hub City reducer was manufactured in Sep 1992 and the 
>>> the newer in Jan 2005. Both are model 321. The older is style A and 
>>> the newer style C.
>>>
>>> I found Mobil SHC634 at McMaster for a good price and they also 
>>> carry unbranded with the same specs for even less. Both reducers are 
>>> mounted upside down with a vent or access plug on the top face. This 
>>> plug is accessed through a hole in the motor mount plate. There are 
>>> no drain plugs that I can find anywhere near the bottom face of the 
>>> cases. There are several plugs in the sides of the cases which are 
>>> aligned with the various shafts. Hub City told me these are mainly 
>>> for checking the oil level depending on how the unit is mounted. 
>>> Except for the vent on the top face there are no oil drainage access 
>>> points on either case as shown in the Hub City documentation which is
available on their website.
>>>
>>> My questions for anyone who has done this are:
>>>
>>> Did you have to remove the motor to access the upper plug?
>>>
>>> Did you have a problem draining the oil using one of the lower level 
>>> checking plugs?
>>> I know someone mentioned using a turkey baster to suck out the 
>>> remaining oil but he said there was about 1/2" of oil left after 
>>> draining. In both of my cases it looks like there will be more like 
>>> 3" of oil left to suck out. Is there a better idea than the turkey
baster?
>>>
>>> Does anyone know the size and letter of the V-belt from the motor to 
>>> large pulley for either model?
>>>
>>> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Les W2LK
>>> _______________________________________________



From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Mon Jul  4 13:02:21 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:02:21 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
Message-ID: <4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Sun,7/3/2016 11:08 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> ##  Ok, Im lost.   I thought  we wanted  Z >  RS > XS .
> Put another way, RS ideally should be the same as Z... or as close as
> you can get to Z.   And  RS  should definitely be >  than XS.
>
> What is RP  ??

You really are resistant to studying what I've written. :)

Rp is the resistance in the parallel (RLC) equivalent circuit of the 
choke. Rp is the Z at resonance (the peak value), L is the value 
computed from Z at frequencies below about half of the resonant 
frequency, C is the capacitance that resonates with L. This is nothing 
more than the classic curve-fitting that I learned in EE classes in 
college 50+ years ago.

I put my measured Z data (magnitude only) into a spreadsheet (I use an 
ancient version of Quattro Pro because it is FAR better at producing 
engineering plots of data than Excel), and plot that measured data on a 
log-scaled graph of Z vs log-scaled of frequency. On another page of the 
spreadsheet, I compute and plot the equation for parallel resonance, and 
tweak the values of R, L, and C that most closely fits the measured data.

The parallel equivalent circuit is important for at least two reasons. 
First, it helps us understand the choke as a component -- as hams, we 
understand that any coil has stray R and C, and it will resonate. We 
also know that we put a coil into a circuit, resonate it with C, and 
control the resonance by the number of turns and by squeezing or 
spreading turns to control both L and stray C.

Second, knowing the values for parallel R, L, and C, we can insert them 
into an NEC model of our antenna system and find the common mode current 
and the common mode power dissipated in the choke (by setting power in 
to model to the TX output power).

73, Jim K9YC

On Sun,7/3/2016 11:20 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> ##  Ok, so the type 31  2.4 core we should be using for CM chokes is the
> toroid controlled for impedance... PN  2643803802    ??

In Fair-Rite's part numbering system, the 26 indicates a cylindrical 
core  (NOT a clamp-on) controlled for impedance, the following two 
digits 43 indicates #43 material, and the remaining digits indicate the 
physical dimensions (I haven't figured out that code).  So a #31 
material in a cylindrical shape would have a part number that begins 
with 2631.

> ## Good thing u mentioned the type 31 core  comes in 2 x versions.  I wonder
> how many folks have ordered the wrong part number in error ?

#31 material is NOT sold in two versions -- it's designed ONLY for 
suppression.


From keepwalking188 at ac0c.com  Mon Jul  4 15:01:24 2016
From: keepwalking188 at ac0c.com (Jeff AC0C)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 14:01:24 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>

The G3 data on the type 52 looks pretty good.  It sure seems like a side by 
side bench test of the two materials would prove to be very interesting.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jim Brown
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 12:02 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns

On Sun,7/3/2016 11:08 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> ##  Ok, Im lost.   I thought  we wanted  Z >  RS > XS .
> Put another way, RS ideally should be the same as Z... or as close as
> you can get to Z.   And  RS  should definitely be >  than XS.
>
> What is RP  ??

You really are resistant to studying what I've written. :)

Rp is the resistance in the parallel (RLC) equivalent circuit of the
choke. Rp is the Z at resonance (the peak value), L is the value
computed from Z at frequencies below about half of the resonant
frequency, C is the capacitance that resonates with L. This is nothing
more than the classic curve-fitting that I learned in EE classes in
college 50+ years ago.

I put my measured Z data (magnitude only) into a spreadsheet (I use an
ancient version of Quattro Pro because it is FAR better at producing
engineering plots of data than Excel), and plot that measured data on a
log-scaled graph of Z vs log-scaled of frequency. On another page of the
spreadsheet, I compute and plot the equation for parallel resonance, and
tweak the values of R, L, and C that most closely fits the measured data.

The parallel equivalent circuit is important for at least two reasons.
First, it helps us understand the choke as a component -- as hams, we
understand that any coil has stray R and C, and it will resonate. We
also know that we put a coil into a circuit, resonate it with C, and
control the resonance by the number of turns and by squeezing or
spreading turns to control both L and stray C.

Second, knowing the values for parallel R, L, and C, we can insert them
into an NEC model of our antenna system and find the common mode current
and the common mode power dissipated in the choke (by setting power in
to model to the TX output power).

73, Jim K9YC

On Sun,7/3/2016 11:20 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> ##  Ok, so the type 31  2.4 core we should be using for CM chokes is the
> toroid controlled for impedance... PN  2643803802    ??

In Fair-Rite's part numbering system, the 26 indicates a cylindrical
core  (NOT a clamp-on) controlled for impedance, the following two
digits 43 indicates #43 material, and the remaining digits indicate the
physical dimensions (I haven't figured out that code).  So a #31
material in a cylindrical shape would have a part number that begins
with 2631.

> ## Good thing u mentioned the type 31 core  comes in 2 x versions.  I 
> wonder
> how many folks have ordered the wrong part number in error ?

#31 material is NOT sold in two versions -- it's designed ONLY for
suppression.

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Mon Jul  4 15:26:14 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 12:26:14 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
Message-ID: <7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Mon,7/4/2016 12:01 PM, Jeff AC0C wrote:
> The G3 data on the type 52 looks pretty good.  It sure seems like a 
> side by side bench test of the two materials would prove to be very 
> interesting. 

I'd be more interested in a study of power handling, which is a lot more 
difficult. A good starting point would be NEC modeling using the 
parallel equivalent circuit, which should give us a handle on the 
dissipation. Then subject the actual chokes to high common mode voltage 
to see how they hold up.

An easy to build test fixture would be to use the choke as the end 
insulator of an end-fed center-fed dipole, as I've shown a couple of 
places, and shove high power at a high duty cycle into the dipole. That 
test hits the choke with rather high common mode voltage. Blast it for a 
while, then go feel it for heating and inspect it for any damage. The 
choke in question seems to be resonant in the range of 15-20 MHz, so a 
suitable dipole should be easy to rig.

http://k9yc.com/VerticalDipole.pdf

73, Jim K9YC


From hanslg at aol.com  Mon Jul  4 19:26:52 2016
From: hanslg at aol.com (Hans Hammarquist)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:26:52 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <20160703175346.761ABDFA@m0086238.ppops.net>
References: <20160703175346.761ABDFA@m0086238.ppops.net>
Message-ID: <155b83c5c4e-5f71-ee7e@webprd-m04.mail.aol.com>

I have to answer you here, Earl:" I'm using a Windom/Longwire antenna. I can tune that to 160m - 10m easy. I can even load it up on 6m although I'm still waiting for a QSO there."


As I am "balancing" my feed line, or more correctly, am reducing the RF in my shack by putting a choke between the tuner and the radio (the "output" that is the end facing the TRX is well grounded for further reduction of RF in the shack) I am depending on maximum available Z in the choke all the way from 1.8 MHz to 29.7 MHz.


I am presently relying on a choke made of 50 feet of RG58 wound on a 4 inch PVC pipe. I am using a variable pits to avoid a specific resonance and thereby achieving a reasonably wideband, high Z. The choke is about 12 inch long.


Hans - N2JFS



-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Morse <kz8e at wt.net>
To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 3, 2016 8:54 pm
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns


.....e nice teflon sleeving and Thermaleze wire to make them with.  

Wide band, high power transmission line transformers are difficult to make.  I would highly suggest limiting the design to the antenna at hand, I mean how often are you going to move your 1.8 MHz transformer over to your 28 MHz yagi?  It will certainly make the design a lot easier to realize.

Earl
N8SS

  
> _______________________________________________


You seem to be seeking the "holy grail" of a universal
choke covering 160 to 10 meters.  I don't know of
any antenna that covers 160 to 10 meters, so why
do we need a choke that does that?  So my opinion is
that is doesn't make sense to do that.  It would
be better to simply use the optimum ferrite material
for the particular band(s) that the choke is to be
used for.

A place where there actually is a need for a 160 to
10 meters (or even 6 meters) choke is in solid
state amplifier design, for the DC feed choke.  I
studied this problem extensively a few years ago
looking at all Fair-Rite materials, pretending I
could get any shape, etc.  I even made some measurements
to fill in gaps in the Fair-Rite data sheets.  After
all that, the winner was ... boring old 43 material.
Luckily, this is probably the most available material.
Even a lot of competitors make their own version.
However, I found that the imitations were markedly
inferior to Fair-Rite 43 in this particular application.
They would probably be fine for general purpose RFI
fixing.

Rick N6RK


------------------------------



_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From richard at karlquist.com  Mon Jul  4 22:37:50 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:37:50 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <20160703175346.761ABDFA@m0086238.ppops.net>
References: <20160703175346.761ABDFA@m0086238.ppops.net>
Message-ID: <6cd249cf-b2ed-ff67-2a43-cb6155710deb@karlquist.com>

On 7/3/2016 5:53 PM, Earl Morse wrote:
> Wide band, high power transmission line transformers are difficult to make.
> Earl
> N8SS
>

It's not so much that they are hard to make:  I have a 50 ohm to
450 ohm transformer that works well from 1.8 to 54 MHz at the
kilowatt level.  It was difficult to design, but it is not
difficult to make.  The problem is that it ONLY works from 50 ohms
to 450 ohms.  It is not a general purpose 9:1 impedance
transformer, that can, for example, transform 10 ohms to
90 ohms.  Where people get into trouble is when they are
driving some wire antenna over many octaves of bandwidth
and the impedance is all over the place (not to mention the
antenna pattern).

Rick N6RK

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Mon Jul  4 23:03:13 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 20:03:13 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <6cd249cf-b2ed-ff67-2a43-cb6155710deb@karlquist.com>
References: <20160703175346.761ABDFA@m0086238.ppops.net>
	<6cd249cf-b2ed-ff67-2a43-cb6155710deb@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <605acaf8-527f-7c7b-253a-581ef686700f@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Mon,7/4/2016 7:37 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
> Where people get into trouble is when they are
> driving some wire antenna over many octaves of bandwidth
> and the impedance is all over the place (not to mention the
> antenna pattern). 


YES! They look at the TX output, see 50 ohms, look at the Zo of the 
line, see 450 ohms, and think those are the impedances they are 
matching. Nope -- the Z on the secondary is the wildly variable 
feedpoint Z of the antenna at the operating frequency, transformed by 
the length of the line, which varies as a function of frequency.

73, Jim K9YC


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Tue Jul  5 02:40:24 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 02:40:24 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
Message-ID: <a0d59801-d932-7f93-caba-59ec20357329@tm.net>

It's my understanding that a choke of  (theoretical) infinite Z does not 
disconnect the antenna. It would reduce the current flowing on the 
outside of the coax (common mode) to zero at that point. It has no 
effect on the interior currents

The choke does nothing to the balance of the antenna. It just stops 
(more correctly reduces) the CM current caused by a reasonable imbalance 
such as a sloping dipole, or that caused by nearby objects.  The greater 
the imbalance the greater the power dissipated in the core material.  
The difference between sloping, center fed dipoles on 80 Vs 40 is very 
pronounced
Different core materials will likely have different dissipation values.

OTOH it does not prevent that same exterior shield from picking up 
signals if long enough, or of the right (or wrong) length. Then a second 
and possibly third choke of smaller values  might be advisable making 
the shield appear as if it were broken up with insulators.

Unless referring to a specific antenna, I'd not expect Z to be 
relatively important. For a specific type of antenna Z & R vary with 
height, particularly on 160 and 75.   Sometimes by large amounts.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/4/2016 Monday 2:08 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 11:23:10 -0700
> From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard at karlquist.com>
> To: Steve Hunt <steve at karinya.net>, Reflector -tower
> <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
>
>
> On 7/3/2016 10:05 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
>> Rudy,
>> http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/temp/52_mix.png
>>
>> It achieves Rs>5000 Ohms from 10Mhz thru 28MHz, and Rs>8000 Ohms from
>> 12MHz thru 21MHz.
>>
>> Steve G3TXQ
>>
> It is more useful to think about Rp than Rs.  Rp determines the
> power dissipation for a given voltage.  Although Z is a figure
> of merit for how well the antenna works, Rp is a figure of merit
> for how much power can be handled.  On the G3TXQ curves, note
> that where Z=Rs, it is also true that Z=Rp.  Away from that
> frequency, the general trend is that Rp monotonically increases
> with frequency, at least up to resonance.
>
>
> It's nice to brag about extremely high Z values, but even if
> Z=infinity, all you have accomplished is that you have
> disconnected the feedline from the antenna.  It doesn't
> guarantee there will be no feedline currents.  Also, it merely
> PERMITS the antenna to be balanced, if there is no external
> conductor otherwise perturbing it.  It does not guarantee
> balance.
>
> Rick N6RK
>
> ##  Ok, Im lost.   I thought  we wanted  Z >  RS > XS .
> Put another way, RS ideally should be the same as Z... or as close as
> you can get to Z.   And  RS  should definitely be >  than XS.
>
> What is RP  ??
>
> Jim   VE7RF
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From jim.thom at telus.net  Tue Jul  5 08:52:54 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 05:52:54 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
Message-ID: <976F94F9A1874013B545C631F1BB6D35@JimPC>

Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 12:26:14 -0700
From: Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns

On Mon,7/4/2016 12:01 PM, Jeff AC0C wrote:
> The G3 data on the type 52 looks pretty good.  It sure seems like a 
> side by side bench test of the two materials would prove to be very 
> interesting. 

I'd be more interested in a study of power handling, which is a lot more 
difficult. A good starting point would be NEC modeling using the 
parallel equivalent circuit, which should give us a handle on the 
dissipation. Then subject the actual chokes to high common mode voltage 
to see how they hold up.

An easy to build test fixture would be to use the choke as the end 
insulator of an end-fed center-fed dipole, as I've shown a couple of 
places, and shove high power at a high duty cycle into the dipole. That 
test hits the choke with rather high common mode voltage. Blast it for a 
while, then go feel it for heating and inspect it for any damage. The 
choke in question seems to be resonant in the range of 15-20 MHz, so a 
suitable dipole should be easy to rig.

http://k9yc.com/VerticalDipole.pdf

73, Jim K9YC

##  yes a type  31  vs  52  would be  a good test, using various winding techniques. 
I don?t know if a  vertical dipole using  a CMC  as an end insulator  is a good test
for a CMC  or not.   It?s a one off  extreme case  antenna, that most will not use.
However you could easily get to the CMC to measure heating.   What else that would
work is installing the  type  31  / 52  CMC  right at the feed point  of a rotary dipole or
a  3 el yagi.  You could feel any heat with both those ants.  If it turns out that the  dipole
/ yagi  exhibits minimal heat   vs  a  vertical dipole and CMC used as an end insulator, the
results may well be more useful. 

Jim   VE7RF



From jim.thom at telus.net  Tue Jul  5 09:05:10 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 06:05:10 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Can type  31 cores be cut in half ?
Message-ID: <E0DA83DB1AC94B6EB429290AE03FB0D4@JimPC>

I have a one off application where I  want to get  1-2  additional 2.4 inch OD cores 
onto coax,  but dont want to take the existing CMC assy all apart.  The big clamp
on is aprx  1.5 inches long..and is too long for this application.   It?s a tight squeeze inside the
nema box, and  coax is already  silver soldered at both ends  to both connectors.  Dual silver
braids have been separated at each end of the  RG-393 coax, and bonded to 7-16 Dins. 

Can a  type  31  2.4 inch OD core be cut clean in half....like in a bandsaw ?   I have a 
vertical bandsaw with a metal cutting blade in... with 3 x speeds,  80-120-200  feet per
minute.   The idea here was..IF a core can be cut in half, to place the 2 x halves back around the
coax turns... and then either glue em back together..or  perhaps use a ty-rap  around the circumference.

If cores cant be cut,  I will have to disassemble the entire assy, and start from scratch, which Id
rather not have to do, pita. 

Jim   VE7RF    

From kz8e at wt.net  Tue Jul  5 09:07:06 2016
From: kz8e at wt.net (Earl Morse)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 06:07:06 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
Message-ID: <20160705060706.761FEEF6@m0087797.ppops.net>

Building it was easy.  Designing within the limitations was a little more difficult.  Actually, since the higher power baluns have some size to them due to the cores they were easier to wind than some of the smaller ones I have made.

In this case I was only concerned with 50:200 ohms, high power (15 kW), and had to cover 150 kHz to as high as I could get it to go.  If I couldn't get it to 20 MHz I was going to have to do the span in two different transformers.  It was never going to see the outside elements and only had to last for a couple of days.  I ended up pulling a turn off the initial design and bringing the low end roll off right to 150 kHz but being able to extend the high end to above 20 MHz.  Worked well for the purpose of our test.

Like you said, most hams think that a 4:1 balun that covers from 1-54 MHz at 1500 watts will match 10 ohms to 40 ohms, 50 ohms to 200 ohms, or 100 ohms to 400 ohms with equal zeal.  If only it were true.

I wouldn't even get into the antenna pattern discussion but at least if the transformer is doing its job you would be dumping your max power to the antenna regardless of how crappy a radiator it is and hopefully decoupling the feedline from the antenna as well..

Earl
N8SS

--- richard at karlquist.com wrote:

From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard at karlquist.com>
To: kz8e at wt.net, towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:37:50 -0700

On 7/3/2016 5:53 PM, Earl Morse wrote:
> Wide band, high power transmission line transformers are difficult to make.
> Earl
> N8SS
>

It's not so much that they are hard to make:  I have a 50 ohm to
450 ohm transformer that works well from 1.8 to 54 MHz at the
kilowatt level.  It was difficult to design, but it is not
difficult to make.  The problem is that it ONLY works from 50 ohms
to 450 ohms.  It is not a general purpose 9:1 impedance
transformer, that can, for example, transform 10 ohms to
90 ohms.  Where people get into trouble is when they are
driving some wire antenna over many octaves of bandwidth
and the impedance is all over the place (not to mention the
antenna pattern).

Rick N6RK



From jimlux at earthlink.net  Tue Jul  5 09:35:20 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 06:35:20 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>

On 7/4/16 12:26 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On Mon,7/4/2016 12:01 PM, Jeff AC0C wrote:
>> The G3 data on the type 52 looks pretty good.  It sure seems like a
>> side by side bench test of the two materials would prove to be very
>> interesting.
>
> I'd be more interested in a study of power handling, which is a lot more
> difficult. A good starting point would be NEC modeling using the
> parallel equivalent circuit, which should give us a handle on the
> dissipation. Then subject the actual chokes to high common mode voltage
> to see how they hold up.
>
> An easy to build test fixture would be to use the choke as the end
> insulator of an end-fed center-fed dipole, as I've shown a couple of
> places, and shove high power at a high duty cycle into the dipole.

end-fed center-fed? What's that?  Do you mean coax into one side of UUT, 
then of the two leads on the other side, connect one to "half 
wavelength" of wire, and then what does the other side go to? The 
antenna support?  Or, since you're looking at common mode, both "output" 
wires of the choke go to the same place?

It seems one could come up with a test fixture that is a bit more 
compact (and repeatable) than a piece of wire in the air.

Looking at some data I happened to calculate for something else, it 
looks like a doublet that's a wavelength long has a feed point impedance 
of about 1000 ohms at resonance (where X is 0), but, the X goes from 
+500 to -500 pretty quickly, passing through zero.

(the magnitude of the R is going to be greatly affected by the diameter 
of the conductor).

I think what you want is some sort of tuner on the amplifier side (so 
you can get the power into the test setup) and then your choke and a 
suitable load resistor (several hundred ohms?).  if your choke has a Z 
of a few k ohms, you'll need a fair voltage on it to get any significant 
power to flow, but that's what a tuner might help with (or, maybe a 10:1 
turns ratio RF transformer that can handle hundreds of watts?)








That
> test hits the choke with rather high common mode voltage. Blast it for a
> while, then go feel it for heating and inspect it for any damage. The
> choke in question seems to be resonant in the range of 15-20 MHz, so a
> suitable dipole should be easy to rig.
>
> http://k9yc.com/VerticalDipole.pdf
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From grants2 at pacbell.net  Tue Jul  5 09:58:31 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 06:58:31 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Can type 31 cores be cut in half ?
In-Reply-To: <E0DA83DB1AC94B6EB429290AE03FB0D4@JimPC>
References: <E0DA83DB1AC94B6EB429290AE03FB0D4@JimPC>
Message-ID: <577BBD07.2080701@pacbell.net>

Yes it is possible with a diamond saw in a surface grinder. However, it 
is very messy and and the dust/slurry is very abrasive so the grinder 
owner may say "no way".   We machined a lot of ferrite many years ago 
for recording heads and pretty quickly the grinders were trashed.

You need very flat and smooth mating surfaces (see a big clamp on) as 
this mating changes the magnetic properties of the core by inserting an 
air gap.  Obvious it can be made to work since #31 clamp ons are very 
effective if kept tightly closed.  A tungsten carbide blade will cut 
ferrite in your bandsaw but I think the cut will be so rough as to be 
useless. A diamond blade in a cut off saw may work if it last long 
enough without water cooling.

I think you need a bigger NEMA enclosure as any of these techniques will 
cost a lot more with probably poor results.

Grant KZ1W

On 7/5/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> I have a one off application where I  want to get  1-2  additional 2.4 inch OD cores
> onto coax,  but dont want to take the existing CMC assy all apart.  The big clamp
> on is aprx  1.5 inches long..and is too long for this application.   It?s a tight squeeze inside the
> nema box, and  coax is already  silver soldered at both ends  to both connectors.  Dual silver
> braids have been separated at each end of the  RG-393 coax, and bonded to 7-16 Dins.
>
> Can a  type  31  2.4 inch OD core be cut clean in half....like in a bandsaw ?   I have a
> vertical bandsaw with a metal cutting blade in... with 3 x speeds,  80-120-200  feet per
> minute.   The idea here was..IF a core can be cut in half, to place the 2 x halves back around the
> coax turns... and then either glue em back together..or  perhaps use a ty-rap  around the circumference.
>
> If cores cant be cut,  I will have to disassemble the entire assy, and start from scratch, which Id
> rather not have to do, pita.
>
> Jim   VE7RF
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From kz8e at wt.net  Tue Jul  5 10:02:30 2016
From: kz8e at wt.net (Earl Morse)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 07:02:30 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
Message-ID: <20160705070230.761FE982@m0087797.ppops.net>

Had to look at a Windom, couldn't remember exactly what it was.  I knew somebody would have a single antenna that did DC to daylight and need to match it to their rig.  I am fortunate now and have at least one if not two antennas on each band so I don't have to compromise as much.

We are actually talking about two different things.  The Windom looks like it uses part of the feed line as part of the antenna so needs a brute force choke to decouple the feedline and keep that part of the feedline as part of the antenna instead of bringing it into the shack.  It doesn't look like that choke does any of the impedance transformation or balanced to unbalanced transformation that a transmission line tranformer (balun) does except through brute force choking on the coax shield.  So it would need only have enough inductance to isolate and not so many turns that it goes resonant before getting above the range of frequencies at which you use the antenna. If the choke works at your lowest frequency it will have even more impedance at the higher frequencies until it hits self resonance.

The transmission line transformer (balun/unun) can very efficiently isolate, transform impedance, and tranform from balanced to unbalance within a limitation of impedance ranges and frequency ranges while the choke operates as an inductor having impedance until it hits the self resonant frequency (inductive reactance of coil equals the inter-turn capacitive reactance) so it essentially decouples the rest of the feed line from the antenna.  I would say that the Windom antenna starts at the choke and not at the center insulator.

Balun probably is the most misused word in ham radio, it has come to mean almost any bump on the line between the transmitter and antenna regardless of whether it is a choke, balun, unun, transmission line tranformer, length of feedline, insulator, etc.  I know I am guilty of interchanging balun and unun all the time, its just that balanced to unbalanced transmission line transformer is so long to say and type.

Earl 
N8SS


--- towertalk-request at contesting.com wrote:


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:26:52 -0400
From: Hans Hammarquist <hanslg at aol.com>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  Fair rite materials for choke baluns
Message-ID: <155b83c5c4e-5f71-ee7e at webprd-m04.mail.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

I have to answer you here, Earl:" I'm using a Windom/Longwire antenna. I can tune that to 160m - 10m easy. I can even load it up on 6m although I'm still waiting for a QSO there."


As I am "balancing" my feed line, or more correctly, am reducing the RF in my shack by putting a choke between the tuner and the radio (the "output" that is the end facing the TRX is well grounded for further reduction of RF in the shack) I am depending on maximum available Z in the choke all the way from 1.8 MHz to 29.7 MHz.


I am presently relying on a choke made of 50 feet of RG58 wound on a 4 inch PVC pipe. I am using a variable pits to avoid a specific resonance and thereby achieving a reasonably wideband, high Z. The choke is about 12 inch long.


Hans - N2JFS




From n0nb at n0nb.us  Tue Jul  5 10:03:23 2016
From: n0nb at n0nb.us (Nate Bargmann)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:03:23 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Hy-Gain antenna trap disassembly, tips?
Message-ID: <20160705140323.GE3968@n0nb.us>

Hi All.

Yesterday I pulled my Explorer 14 out of the barn where it has been
since late 1993 and cleaned off the acquired patina.  I'm thinking that
it would be a good idea to at least open and inspect the traps.  While I
can figure it out after a few tries I'd rather not ruin the first few in
the learning curve!

I presume the trap end caps are a friction fit.  I've also seen from
various pictures on the Web that one end has a tab that connects the
outer cover (capacitor tube) to the element tube.  I presume the cover
is removed sliding away from the trap assembly in the direction of the
tab.  I am aware of the internal spacers and that there are dimples in
the outer cover that hold the spacers in place.  Any tips on removing
the covers other than brute force with a hammer?  How about reassembly?

I found where one op in Europe affixed mosquito netting over the trap
drain holes to keep critters out in the future.  It seems like an
interesting idea, although I'm not sure it it's needed.

Thanks for any tips and suggestions.

73, Nate, N0NB

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us

From jim.thom at telus.net  Tue Jul  5 10:22:07 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 07:22:07 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
Message-ID: <00DB2447B07E4320BEC489C6999E5895@JimPC>

From: jimlux <jimlux at earthlink.net>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns


On 7/4/16 12:26 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

> An easy to build test fixture would be to use the choke as the end
> insulator of an end-fed center-fed dipole, as I've shown a couple of
> places, and shove high power at a high duty cycle into the dipole.

end-fed center-fed? What's that?  Do you mean coax into one side of UUT, 
then of the two leads on the other side, connect one to "half 
wavelength" of wire, and then what does the other side go to? The 
antenna support?  Or, since you're looking at common mode, both "output" 
wires of the choke go to the same place?

> http://k9yc.com/VerticalDipole.pdf

##  Look at the PDF.  Think of a dipole.. but turned vertical. 
With coax  going to center, and center conductor bonded to upper wire half, 
BUT, the lower wire leg, is replaced by the braid of the coax itself. 
A  CMC is inserted where the lower insulator would normally be placed on a wire dipole.
Below the  coax CMC... is just a continuation of the same coax... all the way back to the xcvr. 

##  it?s a unique way to build a vertically  polarized dipole...using a coaxial CMC  as the lower
insulator. It also places the CMC at an extreme high V / high Z point...and Im surprised the 
CMC  actually survives. 

Jim   VE7RF 

From kv0q at aol.com  Tue Jul  5 10:30:23 2016
From: kv0q at aol.com (Bill Johnson)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:30:23 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for professional tower assistance
Message-ID: <155bb779079-6273-12999@webprd-a53.mail.aol.com>


I am looking for a professional tower climber to assist me with moving some guys lines and removing and re-installing a few 20 meter yagis in Parker, Colorado.  If interested please email me at KV0Q at aol.com

73s,

Blll KV0Q

From jim.thom at telus.net  Tue Jul  5 10:34:11 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 07:34:11 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
Message-ID: <DFE3E228AC8F4C8B92A13B1DB64C620F@JimPC>

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 02:40:24 -0400
From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns

It's my understanding that a choke of  (theoretical) infinite Z does not 
disconnect the antenna. It would reduce the current flowing on the 
outside of the coax (common mode) to zero at that point. It has no 
effect on the interior currents

The choke does nothing to the balance of the antenna. It just stops 
(more correctly reduces) the CM current caused by a reasonable imbalance 
such as a sloping dipole, or that caused by nearby objects.  The greater 
the imbalance the greater the power dissipated in the core material.  
The difference between sloping, center fed dipoles on 80 Vs 40 is very 
pronounced
Different core materials will likely have different dissipation values.

OTOH it does not prevent that same exterior shield from picking up 
signals if long enough, or of the right (or wrong) length. Then a second 
and possibly third choke of smaller values  might be advisable making 
the shield appear as if it were broken up with insulators.

Unless referring to a specific antenna, I'd not expect Z to be 
relatively important. For a specific type of antenna Z & R vary with 
height, particularly on 160 and 75.   Sometimes by large amounts.

73

Roger (K8RI)

##  IF your sloping  half wave dipole is  UN balanced...then why insert a CMC  at the feed point at all ??
I would dump the CMC at the feedpoint, then perhaps  use a CMC  way downstream , like just
before the coax meets the tower..or at the base of the tower..or both.   Id assume a half wave sloping dipole
would be almost 100%  unbalanced...the same as a vertically polarized dipole.   Having said that, I have seen
CMCs  used at the feedpoint of 80M ground planes.... where the feedpoint is  8-12 ft above ground, with the
usual 4-6 radials..and coax  running up the side of a wooden 6 x 6.   Those simple CMCs didnt heat at all, zero
heat with qro power.  

Jim  VE7RF 


From jimlux at earthlink.net  Tue Jul  5 10:38:13 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 07:38:13 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <00DB2447B07E4320BEC489C6999E5895@JimPC>
References: <00DB2447B07E4320BEC489C6999E5895@JimPC>
Message-ID: <f7b90986-59be-cbd5-dffd-92c054d9dd7e@earthlink.net>

On 7/5/16 7:22 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> From: jimlux <jimlux at earthlink.net>
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
>
>
> On 7/4/16 12:26 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>
>> An easy to build test fixture would be to use the choke as the end
>> insulator of an end-fed center-fed dipole, as I've shown a couple of
>> places, and shove high power at a high duty cycle into the dipole.
>
> end-fed center-fed? What's that?  Do you mean coax into one side of UUT,
> then of the two leads on the other side, connect one to "half
> wavelength" of wire, and then what does the other side go to? The
> antenna support?  Or, since you're looking at common mode, both "output"
> wires of the choke go to the same place?
>
>> http://k9yc.com/VerticalDipole.pdf
>
> ##  Look at the PDF.  Think of a dipole.. but turned vertical.
> With coax  going to center, and center conductor bonded to upper wire half,
> BUT, the lower wire leg, is replaced by the braid of the coax itself.
> A  CMC is inserted where the lower insulator would normally be placed on a wire dipole.
> Below the  coax CMC... is just a continuation of the same coax... all the way back to the xcvr.
>

Got it..
much like a sleeve dipole, then.  (or even the old 2m isopole, but with, 
hopefully, better decoupling at the lower hot end)

So, in any case, we're looking at stopping the unbalanced current flow, 
and the load impedance here is hundreds or thousands of ohms, relative 
to "ground". If one thinks about "where's the other conductor in the 
loop in which current is flowing?"  that's basically capacitive coupling 
from the antenna assembly to earth and then back to your source, with 
the shield of the coax and the surroundings forming the rest of the loop.

As Jim (K9YC) had noted this is pretty easy to model if your goal is 
just to "reduce current" - make the impedance big, compared to the other 
impedances. But if you want to calculate power dissipation, that's a lot 
harder.




> ##  it?s a unique way to build a vertically  polarized dipole...using a coaxial CMC  as the lower
> insulator. It also places the CMC at an extreme high V / high Z point...and Im surprised the
> CMC  actually survives.
>
> Jim   VE7RF
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From steve at karinya.net  Tue Jul  5 11:03:35 2016
From: steve at karinya.net (Steve Hunt)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:03:35 +0100
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>

What I do is connect the choke across the output of a tuner to generate 
a CM signal across the winding. Adjust the tuner for a good match to 50 
Ohms and drive it from a transmitter. That way you have a 
well-controlled experiment.

You can measure the CM voltage across the choke and the current through 
it, or calculate them knowing the power output from the Tx.

Steve G3TXQ


On 05/07/2016 14:35, jimlux wrote:
> It seems one could come up with a test fixture that is a bit more 
> compact (and repeatable) than a piece of wire in the air.
>


From patrick_g at windstream.net  Tue Jul  5 11:56:06 2016
From: patrick_g at windstream.net (Patrick Greenlee)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:56:06 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Can type 31 cores be cut in half ?
In-Reply-To: <577BBD07.2080701@pacbell.net>
References: <E0DA83DB1AC94B6EB429290AE03FB0D4@JimPC>
	<577BBD07.2080701@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <75670b2b-8ed3-87de-053d-edbf088ad780@windstream.net>

A tile saw with diamond blade and water flow on the cut such as tile 
installers use is available in different styles inexpensively from 
Harbor Freight.

Patrick        NJ5G


On 7/5/2016 8:58 AM, Grant Saviers wrote:
> Yes it is possible with a diamond saw in a surface grinder. However, 
> it is very messy and and the dust/slurry is very abrasive so the 
> grinder owner may say "no way".   We machined a lot of ferrite many 
> years ago for recording heads and pretty quickly the grinders were 
> trashed.
>
> You need very flat and smooth mating surfaces (see a big clamp on) as 
> this mating changes the magnetic properties of the core by inserting 
> an air gap.  Obvious it can be made to work since #31 clamp ons are 
> very effective if kept tightly closed.  A tungsten carbide blade will 
> cut ferrite in your bandsaw but I think the cut will be so rough as to 
> be useless. A diamond blade in a cut off saw may work if it last long 
> enough without water cooling.
>
> I think you need a bigger NEMA enclosure as any of these techniques 
> will cost a lot more with probably poor results.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
> On 7/5/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>> I have a one off application where I  want to get  1-2  additional 
>> 2.4 inch OD cores
>> onto coax,  but dont want to take the existing CMC assy all apart.  
>> The big clamp
>> on is aprx  1.5 inches long..and is too long for this application.   
>> It?s a tight squeeze inside the
>> nema box, and  coax is already  silver soldered at both ends  to both 
>> connectors.  Dual silver
>> braids have been separated at each end of the  RG-393 coax, and 
>> bonded to 7-16 Dins.
>>
>> Can a  type  31  2.4 inch OD core be cut clean in half....like in a 
>> bandsaw ?   I have a
>> vertical bandsaw with a metal cutting blade in... with 3 x speeds,  
>> 80-120-200  feet per
>> minute.   The idea here was..IF a core can be cut in half, to place 
>> the 2 x halves back around the
>> coax turns... and then either glue em back together..or  perhaps use 
>> a ty-rap  around the circumference.
>>
>> If cores cant be cut,  I will have to disassemble the entire assy, 
>> and start from scratch, which Id
>> rather not have to do, pita.
>>
>> Jim   VE7RF
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Tue Jul  5 12:04:02 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:04:02 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <a0d59801-d932-7f93-caba-59ec20357329@tm.net>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<a0d59801-d932-7f93-caba-59ec20357329@tm.net>
Message-ID: <e9d090c1-c3af-5d62-7959-bc7ada0995c4@audiosystemsgroup.com>

Roger,

Both you and Rick understand things as I do. Rick is simply speaking 
figuratively, using exactly the same words I have. That is, an effective 
choke nearly eliminates the common mode connection between the feedline 
and the antenna. But no choke is perfect, so there will be some small 
current if there is imbalance in the system.

73, Jim K9YC

On Mon,7/4/2016 11:40 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
> It's my understanding that a choke of  (theoretical) infinite Z does 
> not disconnect the antenna. It would reduce the current flowing on the 
> outside of the coax (common mode) to zero at that point. It has no 
> effect on the interior currents
>
> The choke does nothing to the balance of the antenna. It just stops 
> (more correctly reduces) the CM current caused by a reasonable 
> imbalance such as a sloping dipole, or that caused by nearby objects.  
> The greater the imbalance the greater the power dissipated in the core 
> material.  The difference between sloping, center fed dipoles on 80 Vs 
> 40 is very pronounced
> Different core materials will likely have different dissipation values.
>
> OTOH it does not prevent that same exterior shield from picking up 
> signals if long enough, or of the right (or wrong) length. Then a 
> second and possibly third choke of smaller values  might be advisable 
> making the shield appear as if it were broken up with insulators.
>
> Unless referring to a specific antenna, I'd not expect Z to be 
> relatively important. For a specific type of antenna Z & R vary with 
> height, particularly on 160 and 75.   Sometimes by large amounts.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>
> On 7/4/2016 Monday 2:08 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 11:23:10 -0700
>> From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard at karlquist.com>
>> To: Steve Hunt <steve at karinya.net>, Reflector -tower
>> <towertalk at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
>>
>>
>> On 7/3/2016 10:05 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
>>> Rudy,
>>> http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/temp/52_mix.png
>>>
>>> It achieves Rs>5000 Ohms from 10Mhz thru 28MHz, and Rs>8000 Ohms from
>>> 12MHz thru 21MHz.
>>>
>>> Steve G3TXQ
>>>
>> It is more useful to think about Rp than Rs.  Rp determines the
>> power dissipation for a given voltage.  Although Z is a figure
>> of merit for how well the antenna works, Rp is a figure of merit
>> for how much power can be handled.  On the G3TXQ curves, note
>> that where Z=Rs, it is also true that Z=Rp.  Away from that
>> frequency, the general trend is that Rp monotonically increases
>> with frequency, at least up to resonance.
>>
>>
>> It's nice to brag about extremely high Z values, but even if
>> Z=infinity, all you have accomplished is that you have
>> disconnected the feedline from the antenna.  It doesn't
>> guarantee there will be no feedline currents.  Also, it merely
>> PERMITS the antenna to be balanced, if there is no external
>> conductor otherwise perturbing it.  It does not guarantee
>> balance.
>>
>> Rick N6RK
>>
>> ##  Ok, Im lost.   I thought  we wanted  Z >  RS > XS .
>> Put another way, RS ideally should be the same as Z... or as close as
>> you can get to Z.   And  RS  should definitely be >  than XS.
>>
>> What is RP  ??
>>
>> Jim   VE7RF
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>


From r_bakalov at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  5 12:05:43 2016
From: r_bakalov at yahoo.com (Rudy Bakalov)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:05:43 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
Message-ID: <63989917.2208689.1467734743998.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

It would be awesome if someone with the proper equipment would invest some time to build and test a choke with material 52.

Rudy N2WQ
      From: Jeff AC0C <keepwalking188 at ac0c.com>
 To: towertalk at contesting.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 3:01 PM
 Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
   
The G3 data on the type 52 looks pretty good.? It sure seems like a side by 
side bench test of the two materials would prove to be very interesting.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jim Brown
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 12:02 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns

On Sun,7/3/2016 11:08 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> ##? Ok, Im lost.? I thought? we wanted? Z >? RS > XS .
> Put another way, RS ideally should be the same as Z... or as close as
> you can get to Z.? And? RS? should definitely be >? than XS.
>
> What is RP? ??

You really are resistant to studying what I've written. :)

Rp is the resistance in the parallel (RLC) equivalent circuit of the
choke. Rp is the Z at resonance (the peak value), L is the value
computed from Z at frequencies below about half of the resonant
frequency, C is the capacitance that resonates with L. This is nothing
more than the classic curve-fitting that I learned in EE classes in
college 50+ years ago.

I put my measured Z data (magnitude only) into a spreadsheet (I use an
ancient version of Quattro Pro because it is FAR better at producing
engineering plots of data than Excel), and plot that measured data on a
log-scaled graph of Z vs log-scaled of frequency. On another page of the
spreadsheet, I compute and plot the equation for parallel resonance, and
tweak the values of R, L, and C that most closely fits the measured data.

The parallel equivalent circuit is important for at least two reasons.
First, it helps us understand the choke as a component -- as hams, we
understand that any coil has stray R and C, and it will resonate. We
also know that we put a coil into a circuit, resonate it with C, and
control the resonance by the number of turns and by squeezing or
spreading turns to control both L and stray C.

Second, knowing the values for parallel R, L, and C, we can insert them
into an NEC model of our antenna system and find the common mode current
and the common mode power dissipated in the choke (by setting power in
to model to the TX output power).

73, Jim K9YC

On Sun,7/3/2016 11:20 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> ##? Ok, so the type 31? 2.4 core we should be using for CM chokes is the
> toroid controlled for impedance... PN? 2643803802? ? ??

In Fair-Rite's part numbering system, the 26 indicates a cylindrical
core? (NOT a clamp-on) controlled for impedance, the following two
digits 43 indicates #43 material, and the remaining digits indicate the
physical dimensions (I haven't figured out that code).? So a #31
material in a cylindrical shape would have a part number that begins
with 2631.

> ## Good thing u mentioned the type 31 core? comes in 2 x versions.? I 
> wonder
> how many folks have ordered the wrong part number in error ?

#31 material is NOT sold in two versions -- it's designed ONLY for
suppression.

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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


  

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Tue Jul  5 12:05:54 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:05:54 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <3b7078a3-0112-62a3-3cb2-4ed4b78eda1f@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Tue,7/5/2016 6:35 AM, jimlux wrote:
> end-fed center-fed? What's that? 


See the link.


73, Jim


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Tue Jul  5 12:17:47 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:17:47 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <00DB2447B07E4320BEC489C6999E5895@JimPC>
References: <00DB2447B07E4320BEC489C6999E5895@JimPC>
Message-ID: <2d7fa6a6-1f04-4df1-5488-a4ed8d12d5fa@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Tue,7/5/2016 7:22 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>> >http://k9yc.com/VerticalDipole.pdf
> ##  Look at the PDF.  Think of a dipole.. but turned vertical.
> With coax  going to center, and center conductor bonded to upper wire half,
> BUT, the lower wire leg, is replaced by the braid of the coax itself.
> A  CMC is inserted where the lower insulator would normally be placed on a wire dipole.
> Below the  coax CMC... is just a continuation of the same coax... all the way back to the xcvr.
>
> ##  it?s a unique way to build a vertically  polarized dipole...using a coaxial CMC  as the lower
> insulator. It also places the CMC at an extreme high V / high Z point...and Im surprised the
> CMC  actually survives.

Yes. This is EXACTLY why I built my first vertical dipole in 2007 -- a 
worst case dissipation test for a ferrite choke wound with coax.  It was 
cut for 40M, and suspended in a tall redwood next to my house, and fed 
with RG59 (a Belden RG59 with real copper center and copper braid). The 
choke was one I had measured, 7-8 turns through a big clamp-on. It 
lasted about 15 minutes in a CW QSO at 1.5 kW. Failure mode was melting 
of the coax. I replaced the coax with a transmitting RG6 (two copper 
braid shields and copper center with Pasternak's name on it bought at a 
surplus store in Si Valley) and wound two of the same chokes on it. That 
combination held the TX power just fine. Double the resistance, so half 
the current, dissipation divided between the two chokes.

BTW -- this feed method could also be used to rig a dipole horizontally 
from a high window or roof to a tree.

73, Jim K9YC


From dickw1ksz at gmail.com  Tue Jul  5 12:21:21 2016
From: dickw1ksz at gmail.com (Richard Solomon)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:21:21 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Can type 31 cores be cut in half ?
In-Reply-To: <75670b2b-8ed3-87de-053d-edbf088ad780@windstream.net>
References: <E0DA83DB1AC94B6EB429290AE03FB0D4@JimPC>
	<577BBD07.2080701@pacbell.net>
	<75670b2b-8ed3-87de-053d-edbf088ad780@windstream.net>
Message-ID: <CAC5FBO87XBt1zUnEr5rmRP2yWyWG80GTJjrSJogT1YFy16_UoA@mail.gmail.com>

Sounds like a lot of work. Wouldn't
be easier just to make a new one
and keep the old one for testing
or ??

73, Dick, W1KSZ

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Patrick Greenlee <patrick_g at windstream.net>
wrote:

> A tile saw with diamond blade and water flow on the cut such as tile
> installers use is available in different styles inexpensively from Harbor
> Freight.
>
> Patrick        NJ5G
>
>
> On 7/5/2016 8:58 AM, Grant Saviers wrote:
>
>> Yes it is possible with a diamond saw in a surface grinder. However, it
>> is very messy and and the dust/slurry is very abrasive so the grinder owner
>> may say "no way".   We machined a lot of ferrite many years ago for
>> recording heads and pretty quickly the grinders were trashed.
>>
>> You need very flat and smooth mating surfaces (see a big clamp on) as
>> this mating changes the magnetic properties of the core by inserting an air
>> gap.  Obvious it can be made to work since #31 clamp ons are very effective
>> if kept tightly closed.  A tungsten carbide blade will cut ferrite in your
>> bandsaw but I think the cut will be so rough as to be useless. A diamond
>> blade in a cut off saw may work if it last long enough without water
>> cooling.
>>
>> I think you need a bigger NEMA enclosure as any of these techniques will
>> cost a lot more with probably poor results.
>>
>> Grant KZ1W
>>
>> On 7/5/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>>
>>> I have a one off application where I  want to get  1-2  additional 2.4
>>> inch OD cores
>>> onto coax,  but dont want to take the existing CMC assy all apart.  The
>>> big clamp
>>> on is aprx  1.5 inches long..and is too long for this application.
>>>  It?s a tight squeeze inside the
>>> nema box, and  coax is already  silver soldered at both ends  to both
>>> connectors.  Dual silver
>>> braids have been separated at each end of the  RG-393 coax, and bonded
>>> to 7-16 Dins.
>>>
>>> Can a  type  31  2.4 inch OD core be cut clean in half....like in a
>>> bandsaw ?   I have a
>>> vertical bandsaw with a metal cutting blade in... with 3 x speeds,
>>> 80-120-200  feet per
>>> minute.   The idea here was..IF a core can be cut in half, to place the
>>> 2 x halves back around the
>>> coax turns... and then either glue em back together..or  perhaps use a
>>> ty-rap  around the circumference.
>>>
>>> If cores cant be cut,  I will have to disassemble the entire assy, and
>>> start from scratch, which Id
>>> rather not have to do, pita.
>>>
>>> Jim   VE7RF
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Tue Jul  5 12:23:14 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:23:14 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <DFE3E228AC8F4C8B92A13B1DB64C620F@JimPC>
References: <DFE3E228AC8F4C8B92A13B1DB64C620F@JimPC>
Message-ID: <9d9fb714-543d-c7a9-30c8-7a176d513d73@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Tue,7/5/2016 7:34 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> IF your sloping  half wave dipole is  UN balanced...then why insert a CMC  at the feed point at all ??
> I would dump the CMC at the feedpoint, then perhaps  use a CMC  way downstream , like just
> before the coax meets the tower..or at the base of the tower..or both.

Nope! The first choke should ALWAYS be at the feedpoint. Additional 
chokes farther down the line can be used to prevent current induced on 
the feedline from causing grief in the shack (like with your rack full 
of un-necessary audio processing gear). :)

73, Jim K9YC


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Tue Jul  5 12:24:39 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:24:39 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
	<ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
Message-ID: <553f135b-e484-5435-c692-fa5d82d02b5c@audiosystemsgroup.com>

That sounds like a good test.

73, Jim K9YC

On Tue,7/5/2016 8:03 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
> What I do is connect the choke across the output of a tuner to 
> generate a CM signal across the winding. Adjust the tuner for a good 
> match to 50 Ohms and drive it from a transmitter. That way you have a 
> well-controlled experiment.
>
> You can measure the CM voltage across the choke and the current 
> through it, or calculate them knowing the power output from the Tx.
>
> Steve G3TXQ
>
>
> On 05/07/2016 14:35, jimlux wrote:
>> It seems one could come up with a test fixture that is a bit more 
>> compact (and repeatable) than a piece of wire in the air.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Tue Jul  5 12:32:43 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:32:43 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Can type 31 cores be cut in half ?
In-Reply-To: <577BBD07.2080701@pacbell.net>
References: <E0DA83DB1AC94B6EB429290AE03FB0D4@JimPC>
	<577BBD07.2080701@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <f218986f-735c-5b79-f2be-3854c31f3ae1@audiosystemsgroup.com>


On Tue,7/5/2016 6:58 AM, Grant Saviers wrote:
> Yes it is possible with a diamond saw in a surface grinder. However, 
> it is very messy and and the dust/slurry is very abrasive so the 
> grinder owner may say "no way".   We machined a lot of ferrite many 
> years ago for recording heads and pretty quickly the grinders were 
> trashed.
>
> You need very flat and smooth mating surfaces (see a big clamp on) as 
> this mating changes the magnetic properties of the core by inserting 
> an air gap.  Obvious it can be made to work since #31 clamp ons are 
> very effective if kept tightly closed.  A tungsten carbide blade will 
> cut ferrite in your bandsaw but I think the cut will be so rough as to 
> be useless. A diamond blade in a cut off saw may work if it last long 
> enough without water cooling.

Grant has very effectively detailed why it is a very bad idea to try 
cutting cores in half. Emphasizing, if the mating surfaces are not 
PERFECTLY smooth and parallel, there will be an air gap, and performance 
will be degraded, probably a lot.
>
> I think you need a bigger NEMA enclosure as any of these techniques 
> will cost a lot more with probably poor results. 

I can't think of a reason for using an enclosure at all. In the 9 years 
my work has been on the internet, no one has yet told me about damage of 
a choke by exposure to severe weather. Here along the Pacific coast, all 
my chokes see is a LOT of rain and sun, but I'm sure there are lots of 
ferrite chokes in parts of the world that have serious winter.  The only 
hazard I can think of is the ferrite cores cracking from freeze-thaw 
cycles.

73, Jim K9YC



From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Tue Jul  5 12:48:42 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:48:42 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Can type 31 cores be cut in half ?
In-Reply-To: <75CE0D33-0988-49B8-9342-2DBDBC60067E@mymts.net>
References: <E0DA83DB1AC94B6EB429290AE03FB0D4@JimPC>
	<577BBD07.2080701@pacbell.net>
	<f218986f-735c-5b79-f2be-3854c31f3ae1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<75CE0D33-0988-49B8-9342-2DBDBC60067E@mymts.net>
Message-ID: <9c78b15b-257d-a4e7-e6ec-167a1b9a4311@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Tue,7/5/2016 9:37 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>> >   The only hazard I can think of is the ferrite cores cracking from freeze-thaw cycles.
>> >
> Which would also occur inside an unheated enclosure, anyway.
>
The hazard is freeze-thaw of water, not the ferrite material.

73, Jim


From steve at karinya.net  Tue Jul  5 12:49:48 2016
From: steve at karinya.net (Steve Hunt)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:49:48 +0100
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <553f135b-e484-5435-c692-fa5d82d02b5c@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
	<ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
	<553f135b-e484-5435-c692-fa5d82d02b5c@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <4e89abf6-c902-f8ed-f7ab-b455dbb3b24a@karinya.net>

Jim,

I worried that the choke impedance might be too high to be matched by 
the tuner, but my TenTec 238 matches that Type 52 choke easily from 7MHz 
thru 30MHz, including resonance where its impedance is over 12,500 Ohms.

Steve G3TXQ


On 05/07/2016 17:24, Jim Brown wrote:
> That sounds like a good test.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>


From jimlux at earthlink.net  Tue Jul  5 13:32:52 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:32:52 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <DFE3E228AC8F4C8B92A13B1DB64C620F@JimPC>
References: <DFE3E228AC8F4C8B92A13B1DB64C620F@JimPC>
Message-ID: <0cc92094-d9f6-2513-df99-3458cca3ee25@earthlink.net>

On 7/5/16 7:34 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 02:40:24 -0400
> From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
>
>
> It's my understanding that a choke of  (theoretical) infinite Z does not
> disconnect the antenna. It would reduce the current flowing on the
> outside of the coax (common mode) to zero at that point. It has no
> effect on the interior currents
>
> The choke does nothing to the balance of the antenna. It just stops
> (more correctly reduces) the CM current caused by a reasonable imbalance
> such as a sloping dipole, or that caused by nearby objects.  The greater
> the imbalance the greater the power dissipated in the core material.
> The difference between sloping, center fed dipoles on 80 Vs 40 is very
> pronounced
> Different core materials will likely have different dissipation values.
>

> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
> ##  IF your sloping  half wave dipole is  UN balanced...then why insert a CMC  at the feed point at all ??


Think of the choke as being equivalent to putting an insulator to break 
up a guy wire.  the idea is to prevent segments of the feedline from 
coupling to the antenna and reradiating because of the current induced 
in the shield.

In some cases, there's no real point in trying to break up the feedline 
(a 100 foot piece of coax running alongside a 100ft tower... the tower 
is the big conductor in the near field of the antenna)

If you've got a sloping dipole, and the feedline comes off at right 
angles, in free space, the coupling is small, and, you're right, 
probably don't need a choke at the feedpoint.

on a real antenna, where the feedline probably isn't exactly 
perpendicular, and there's a big conductive supporting structure, and 
there's a somewhat conductive ground plane underneath.. maybe there is a 
significant current induced, maybe there isn't.

One could easily model this and *see* if there's significant current on 
the feedline in a non-ideal scenario.  If I ran the model, and I saw 
that the current everywhere in the wire that represents the feedline was 
<1/10th the current at the dipole feed, I'd call it done and go home. 
Nobody is looking for 20dB nulls from a dipole, and that's what that 
stray current would do.

It's sort of the same as the "is that rain gutter/downspout" going to 
cause a problem modeling.






From jimlux at earthlink.net  Tue Jul  5 13:34:35 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:34:35 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
	<ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
Message-ID: <a42b00d2-e6a6-d43e-34bb-ec55d640ed39@earthlink.net>

On 7/5/16 8:03 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
> What I do is connect the choke across the output of a tuner to generate
> a CM signal across the winding. Adjust the tuner for a good match to 50
> Ohms and drive it from a transmitter. That way you have a
> well-controlled experiment.
>
> You can measure the CM voltage across the choke and the current through
> it, or calculate them knowing the power output from the Tx.
>

that's sort of what I was thinking..  Once you know the loss properties, 
then you can figure out what the dissipation would be with some other load.

(assuming that the system is linear and you're not seeing saturation, 
which I'm not sure is always valid)



From jimlux at earthlink.net  Tue Jul  5 13:37:17 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:37:17 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <2d7fa6a6-1f04-4df1-5488-a4ed8d12d5fa@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <00DB2447B07E4320BEC489C6999E5895@JimPC>
	<2d7fa6a6-1f04-4df1-5488-a4ed8d12d5fa@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <fb55f2a2-e58c-86f2-ae8c-b645fb9e29e4@earthlink.net>

On 7/5/16 9:17 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On Tue,7/5/2016 7:22 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>>> >http://k9yc.com/VerticalDipole.pdf
>> ##  Look at the PDF.  Think of a dipole.. but turned vertical.
>> With coax  going to center, and center conductor bonded to upper wire
>> half,
>> BUT, the lower wire leg, is replaced by the braid of the coax itself.
>> A  CMC is inserted where the lower insulator would normally be placed
>> on a wire dipole.
>> Below the  coax CMC... is just a continuation of the same coax... all
>> the way back to the xcvr.
>>
>> ##  it?s a unique way to build a vertically  polarized dipole...using
>> a coaxial CMC  as the lower
>> insulator. It also places the CMC at an extreme high V / high Z
>> point...and Im surprised the
>> CMC  actually survives.
>
> Yes. This is EXACTLY why I built my first vertical dipole in 2007 -- a
> worst case dissipation test for a ferrite choke wound with coax.  It was
> cut for 40M, and suspended in a tall redwood next to my house, and fed
> with RG59 (a Belden RG59 with real copper center and copper braid). The
> choke was one I had measured, 7-8 turns through a big clamp-on. It
> lasted about 15 minutes in a CW QSO at 1.5 kW. Failure mode was melting
> of the coax. I replaced the coax with a transmitting RG6 (two copper
> braid shields and copper center with Pasternak's name on it bought at a
> surplus store in Si Valley) and wound two of the same chokes on it. That
> combination held the TX power just fine. Double the resistance, so half
> the current, dissipation divided between the two chokes.
>
> BTW -- this feed method could also be used to rig a dipole horizontally
> from a high window or roof to a tree.
>

It's also been used in one of ARRL Antenna Compendiums for an 
inductively loaded 4 square, except there, they ran the coax up inside 
the lower half which was tubing.   Same idea, though..

So you do need a fairly high Z on the outside of the shield for this.


From jimlux at earthlink.net  Tue Jul  5 13:42:34 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:42:34 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <9d9fb714-543d-c7a9-30c8-7a176d513d73@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <DFE3E228AC8F4C8B92A13B1DB64C620F@JimPC>
	<9d9fb714-543d-c7a9-30c8-7a176d513d73@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <a18175cb-c519-bf4b-8269-9affa6bd8ab8@earthlink.net>

On 7/5/16 9:23 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On Tue,7/5/2016 7:34 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>> IF your sloping  half wave dipole is  UN balanced...then why insert a
>> CMC  at the feed point at all ??
>> I would dump the CMC at the feedpoint, then perhaps  use a CMC  way
>> downstream , like just
>> before the coax meets the tower..or at the base of the tower..or both.
>
> Nope! The first choke should ALWAYS be at the feedpoint. Additional
> chokes farther down the line can be used to prevent current induced on
> the feedline from causing grief in the shack (like with your rack full
> of un-necessary audio processing gear). :)
>

I can conceive of situations where putting the choke somewhere down the 
line might be ok or desirable (from a mechanical standpoint).  Maybe not 
realistic or practical situations.  But if you had a 40 m sloping dipole 
that's 20 m long, and your choke were at, say, 2 meters, and the coax 
from dipole to choke were at right angles to the antenna, I think it 
would work just about as well.



On the other hand, and getting to the "practical" aspect putting it  at 
he feedpoint, the mass is better supported by the antenna itself.


From jimlux at earthlink.net  Tue Jul  5 13:43:59 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:43:59 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <4e89abf6-c902-f8ed-f7ab-b455dbb3b24a@karinya.net>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
	<ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
	<553f135b-e484-5435-c692-fa5d82d02b5c@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<4e89abf6-c902-f8ed-f7ab-b455dbb3b24a@karinya.net>
Message-ID: <a8767946-cd6c-2be3-c4b0-5011872b8082@earthlink.net>

On 7/5/16 9:49 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I worried that the choke impedance might be too high to be matched by
> the tuner, but my TenTec 238 matches that Type 52 choke easily from 7MHz
> thru 30MHz, including resonance where its impedance is over 12,500 Ohms.
>
> Steve G3TXQ
>
>

As long as you can measure the voltage and current, then the fact that 
the tuner is providing substantial reactive power to the circuit 
probably isn't a problem.


From steve at karinya.net  Tue Jul  5 14:00:30 2016
From: steve at karinya.net (Steve Hunt)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:00:30 +0100
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <a42b00d2-e6a6-d43e-34bb-ec55d640ed39@earthlink.net>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
	<ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
	<a42b00d2-e6a6-d43e-34bb-ec55d640ed39@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <c53a256e-2182-9829-858a-21c2e7f34237@karinya.net>

Do the maths on saturation - you'll find that core overheating occurs 
well before saturation for the duty-cycles typical of Ham operation.

To quote Amidon: "Overheating of the core will usually take place long 
before saturation in most applications above 100kHz."

Steve G3TXQ

On 05/07/2016 18:34, jimlux wrote:
> that's sort of what I was thinking..  Once you know the loss 
> properties, then you can figure out what the dissipation would be with 
> some other load.
>
> (assuming that the system is linear and you're not seeing saturation, 
> which I'm not sure is always valid)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>


From w5jmw at towerfarm.net  Tue Jul  5 16:35:44 2016
From: w5jmw at towerfarm.net (w5jmw at towerfarm.net)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 15:35:44 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] stacking vhf/uhf antennas
Message-ID: <05314e035b0270883fbe5f22d954f177@towerfarm.net>

Hello to all.This might be a little off subject for this reflector and 
if so just tell me where to post this question.I am getting to put up 
tower one.it is for uhf/vhf.I have a set of klm 144-16 with the baluns 
and combiner.Now at the top of the tower is a sidearm which will support 
a w9inn 160/8o dipole.Ok,the mast is 15ft.usable,the rest is in the 
tower for rotor.KLM suggest the stacking at 10ft.
nr1..Should I start at 5 ft up the mast?I also have a m2 432 yagi I 
would like to put on this tower.
nr2..can I put the 432 in between the vhf stack.would it not throw the 
parrern off.?
nr3..should I put the 432 on the bottom and give 3-5 ft between 
vhf/uhf..Thanks and always 73..john

From paul at n1bug.com  Tue Jul  5 17:12:54 2016
From: paul at n1bug.com (N1BUG)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:12:54 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] stacking vhf/uhf antennas
In-Reply-To: <05314e035b0270883fbe5f22d954f177@towerfarm.net>
References: <05314e035b0270883fbe5f22d954f177@towerfarm.net>
Message-ID: <577C22D6.8010102@n1bug.com>

You might want to have a look at this tech note...

http://directivesystems.com/contact-us/tech-notes/stacking-dis-similar-yagis/

73,
Paul N1BUG


On 07/05/2016 04:35 PM, w5jmw at towerfarm.net wrote:
> Hello to all.This might be a little off subject for this reflector and
> if so just tell me where to post this question.I am getting to put up
> tower one.it is for uhf/vhf.I have a set of klm 144-16 with the baluns
> and combiner.Now at the top of the tower is a sidearm which will support
> a w9inn 160/8o dipole.Ok,the mast is 15ft.usable,the rest is in the
> tower for rotor.KLM suggest the stacking at 10ft.
> nr1..Should I start at 5 ft up the mast?I also have a m2 432 yagi I
> would like to put on this tower.
> nr2..can I put the 432 in between the vhf stack.would it not throw the
> parrern off.?
> nr3..should I put the 432 on the bottom and give 3-5 ft between
> vhf/uhf..Thanks and always 73..john

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Tue Jul  5 18:21:50 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:21:50 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <c53a256e-2182-9829-858a-21c2e7f34237@karinya.net>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
	<ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
	<a42b00d2-e6a6-d43e-34bb-ec55d640ed39@earthlink.net>
	<c53a256e-2182-9829-858a-21c2e7f34237@karinya.net>
Message-ID: <1ee773f5-9e93-e0cd-37c8-fde7c4c625f9@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Tue,7/5/2016 11:00 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
> To quote Amidon: "Overheating of the core will usually take place long 
> before saturation in most applications above 100kHz." 

Many years ago there was a guy named Amidon, but he's long gone, 
probably SK. I don't know anything about him, but I suspect any tech 
info on the website is decades old. It took them and other ham vendors 
6-8 years to find my work on chokes and start selling #31 parts, some of 
them the wrong ones.

73, Jim K9YC


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Tue Jul  5 18:25:38 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 18:25:38 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Can type 31 cores be cut in half ?
In-Reply-To: <f218986f-735c-5b79-f2be-3854c31f3ae1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <E0DA83DB1AC94B6EB429290AE03FB0D4@JimPC>
	<577BBD07.2080701@pacbell.net>
	<f218986f-735c-5b79-f2be-3854c31f3ae1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <707bce08-1b17-1e1a-aeaf-a77bb753af32@tm.net>

The choke on my 75/80 meter sloping, fan dipole has lasted through quite 
a few Michigan fall, winter, and spring cycles.
Spring can be a particularly difficult time with ice storms leaving that 
choke one big glob of "heavy" ice
I've never had a core chip, or crack with temperature cycles from sub 
zero to 60 degrees.

All of my chokes are open to the elements.

I've taken two approaches to the core assembly. In the first approach, I 
epoxy, or glue the cores together using just enough glue to bond the 
face of the cores together. In the second, I space them an eighth to a 
quarter inch either using a comb like structure made of lexan, or simple 
spacers made from plastic washers, epoxied in place. This approach 
allows extra cooling. Close spacing as in one eighth inch (0.125"), or 
even one quarter inch (0.250") may allow enough water between the core. 
to force them apart when it freezes.  Typically, that won't hurt the 
cores, or the operation of the choke

NOTE: I've not seen any core surfaces that I'd call flat. All have had 
enough irregularities to allow water in between the faces. Cores with 
truly FLAT faces will stick when placed together as if they had been 
glued and it may not be possible to get them apart. Rather than going 
through the messy and labor intensive process of lapping the core faces, 
gluing is a whale of a lot easier and keeps the potentially damage 
causing moisture out. "Super Glue" works, but I prefer to fill the 
groves with epoxy to prevent water from getting a foothold where it can 
freeze, forcing the cores apart.

When using only 2 or 3 cores, I prefer to spacing the cores for 
additional cooling

With epoxy filling the groves as well as the spaces between the cores 
it's unlikely they can be disassembled. Super Glue can be removed in an 
ultrasonic cleaner with the temperature of the solvent at 130-140F.  
That requires a lot of ventilation, or do it outdoors.

I can't imagine cutting cores, but...
NOTES: on cutting cores. If sufficient wash is used, the abrasive 
particles are carried away and using a diamond abrasive cut off saw 
works just fine, nor would its life be shortened.  Lapping the faces is 
much preferable to a surface grinder. Surface grinders are messy at best 
and can be extremely dangerous. I saw one throw a work piece through a 
cinder block wall. (Never get off the end of one.)  They look simple, 
but are not for the inexperienced.
There is a bacteria that likes ceramic, or Silicon in the slurry that 
produces Hydrogen, so clean up right after finishing

Most machinists don't like to setup and cleanup for a simple one or two 
piece job and particularly one that can not be assured of tight, 
magnetic clamping.
If you are paying for their time, the set up and cleanup may cost more 
than the job time.

Lapping can be done with two or three steps in abrasive sizes. Use a 
different, flat glass plate for the aggressive compound than the one 
used for the fine and polishing compounds. The Jeweler's Rouge final 
step of polishing can probably be skipped as the fine lapping compound 
will likely be sufficient.

When bonding, use pressure and work the cores against each other to get 
the bonding layer as thin as possible.(It's similar to the proper 
installation of a heat sink on a CPU)  I use two 90 degree Al angles to 
keep the cores aligned.  The groves can be filled later

CAUTION: Many of today's ultrasonic cleaners will be damaged if more 
aggressive solvents, like acetone, are used.  Mine has a 2 gallon SS 
tank, but the valves and cover are plastic

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/5/2016 Tuesday 12:32 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>
> On Tue,7/5/2016 6:58 AM, Grant Saviers wrote:
>> Yes it is possible with a diamond saw in a surface grinder. However, 
>> it is very messy and and the dust/slurry is very abrasive so the 
>> grinder owner may say "no way".   We machined a lot of ferrite many 
>> years ago for recording heads and pretty quickly the grinders were 
>> trashed.
>>
>> You need very flat and smooth mating surfaces (see a big clamp on) as 
>> this mating changes the magnetic properties of the core by inserting 
>> an air gap.  Obvious it can be made to work since #31 clamp ons are 
>> very effective if kept tightly closed.  A tungsten carbide blade will 
>> cut ferrite in your bandsaw but I think the cut will be so rough as 
>> to be useless. A diamond blade in a cut off saw may work if it last 
>> long enough without water cooling.
>
> Grant has very effectively detailed why it is a very bad idea to try 
> cutting cores in half. Emphasizing, if the mating surfaces are not 
> PERFECTLY smooth and parallel, there will be an air gap, and 
> performance will be degraded, probably a lot.
>>
>> I think you need a bigger NEMA enclosure as any of these techniques 
>> will cost a lot more with probably poor results. 
>
> I can't think of a reason for using an enclosure at all. In the 9 
> years my work has been on the internet, no one has yet told me about 
> damage of a choke by exposure to severe weather. Here along the 
> Pacific coast, all my chokes see is a LOT of rain and sun, but I'm 
> sure there are lots of ferrite chokes in parts of the world that have 
> serious winter.  The only hazard I can think of is the ferrite cores 
> cracking from freeze-thaw cycles.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From richard at karlquist.com  Tue Jul  5 19:00:13 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:00:13 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <c53a256e-2182-9829-858a-21c2e7f34237@karinya.net>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
	<ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
	<a42b00d2-e6a6-d43e-34bb-ec55d640ed39@earthlink.net>
	<c53a256e-2182-9829-858a-21c2e7f34237@karinya.net>
Message-ID: <7902e501-be26-262c-03bb-6f49f2bbf495@karlquist.com>

On 7/5/2016 11:00 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
> Do the maths on saturation - you'll find that core overheating occurs
> well before saturation for the duty-cycles typical of Ham operation.
>
> To quote Amidon: "Overheating of the core will usually take place long
> before saturation in most applications above 100kHz."
>
> Steve G3TXQ

This generalization is valid for cores with an air gap and
powdered iron cores (which essentially have a built in air gap).
It most definitely doesn't apply to closed gap ferrites,
such as toroids.  One dit can not only saturate them, but
actually magnetize them.  I have actually done this, accidentally,
when I tried to use a current transformer and the secondary
was unloaded.  It was something of a corner case since the
primary of a current transformer is only 1 "turn".

Rick N6RK

From jbwolf at comcast.net  Tue Jul  5 19:58:56 2016
From: jbwolf at comcast.net (James Wolf)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:58:56 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Cable routing
Message-ID: <002201d1d719$31246cc0$936d4640$@comcast.net>

I'm looking for suggestions on coax routing.

I've got the Tennadyne log antenna almost ready to go up.  I have 12 turns
of coax at the feed point for a choke and the coax connects at the end of
the boom which means that the coax feedline needs to follow the bottom
square tubing which is 1/2 of the boom and is connected to one side of the
coax.  In my case I elected to connect the bottom 1/2 of the boom to the
shield.

I'm concerned about attaching the coax to the bottom 1/2 of the boom.   I
picked up some black UV protected cable ties and plan to put tape around
them to help keep the sun damage down.
I have experience with VHF/UHF yagi's where I've taped the coax to the boom
to get it back to the mast and over the decades, the best tape has
deteriorated and the cable is now dangling beneath the boom.
I don't want that to happen to the Tennadyne.  I've thought about the metal
ties that are used on commercial towers, but since the boom is "hot" I'm not
sure that is a good idea.
Since the two halves of the boom are close together, maybe 3/8" between the
two square booms, it is difficult to get the tape wrapped around it more
than about one turn before you have to cut it and start another piece on top
of it.

Any suggestions on how to secure the feedline to the boom on this antenna? 

Jim - KR9U


From jim.thom at telus.net  Tue Jul  5 20:02:16 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:02:16 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
Message-ID: <0B8BC1782762409F894C92B49F1E31F2@JimPC>

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:42:34 -0700
From: jimlux <jimlux at earthlink.net>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns

On 7/5/16 9:23 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On Tue,7/5/2016 7:34 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>> IF your sloping  half wave dipole is  UN balanced...then why insert a
>> CMC  at the feed point at all ??
>> I would dump the CMC at the feedpoint, then perhaps  use a CMC  way
>> downstream , like just
>> before the coax meets the tower..or at the base of the tower..or both.
>
> Nope! The first choke should ALWAYS be at the feedpoint. Additional
> chokes farther down the line can be used to prevent current induced on
> the feedline from causing grief in the shack (like with your rack full
> of un-necessary audio processing gear). :)
>

I can conceive of situations where putting the choke somewhere down the 
line might be ok or desirable (from a mechanical standpoint).  Maybe not 
realistic or practical situations.  But if you had a 40 m sloping dipole 
that's 20 m long, and your choke were at, say, 2 meters, and the coax 
from dipole to choke were at right angles to the antenna, I think it 
would work just about as well.



On the other hand, and getting to the "practical" aspect putting it  at 
he feedpoint, the mass is better supported by the antenna itself.

##  Roger,  K8RI  was talking about the 40 m  sloper system u see in the
old arrl books.   IE:  5 x half wave slopers, arranged  every  72 degs around
a  tower....or tree etc.   Only one is driven at a time.  Each feed line was aprx
.375 wave long.  The un-used coaxs had both their center conductor and braids
floating.   Braids were not bonded to each other, nor the metal casing on the metal
box  containing the various relays.   The length of the un-used lines made the ant 
look slightly xl at the feedpoint,  so the un-used slopers  become reflectors. 

##  I never saw one of those systems ever use a CMC at the feedpoint, and they all
had 3-4 db gain..and typ  20 db  FB.   The theory was...a  half wave sloping dipole
is unbalanced to begin with..so deep 6 the CMC at the feedpoint.   On those setups,
at most you might require a CMC  on the main feed line coming up the tower. 

##  I never saw anybody using CMC at the feedpoint of a 1/4  wave sloper either. 
But on 1/4 wave slopers, I always ran the coax down the inside of the tower, since it
was easy to do, since the tower I used at the time was 33 inches  across. ( I climbed 
up the inside of it). 

##  the yagis at the time all used gamma or omega matches... an no CMCs  used. 

Jim   VE7RF 





From kstover at ac0h.net  Tue Jul  5 20:32:04 2016
From: kstover at ac0h.net (Kevin)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:32:04 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Can type 31 cores be cut in half ?
In-Reply-To: <577BBD07.2080701@pacbell.net>
References: <E0DA83DB1AC94B6EB429290AE03FB0D4@JimPC>
	<577BBD07.2080701@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <a154123d-d632-93b9-d43c-bed3b2ca85bc@ac0h.net>

If I was going to do it I'd go rent a tub saw that flooring techs use to 
cut ceramic and stone tile of all sorts.

Slow turning diamond impregnated blade soaked with water pumped on the 
blade during the cut.

If it'll cut granite smooth as a baby's butt, and it does, it'll cut 
ferrite.


On 7/5/2016 8:58 AM, Grant Saviers wrote:
> Yes it is possible with a diamond saw in a surface grinder. However, 
> it is very messy and and the dust/slurry is very abrasive so the 
> grinder owner may say "no way".   We machined a lot of ferrite many 
> years ago for recording heads and pretty quickly the grinders were 
> trashed.
>
> You need very flat and smooth mating surfaces (see a big clamp on) as 
> this mating changes the magnetic properties of the core by inserting 
> an air gap.  Obvious it can be made to work since #31 clamp ons are 
> very effective if kept tightly closed.  A tungsten carbide blade will 
> cut ferrite in your bandsaw but I think the cut will be so rough as to 
> be useless. A diamond blade in a cut off saw may work if it last long 
> enough without water cooling.
>
> I think you need a bigger NEMA enclosure as any of these techniques 
> will cost a lot more with probably poor results.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
> On 7/5/2016 6:05 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>> I have a one off application where I  want to get  1-2  additional 
>> 2.4 inch OD cores
>> onto coax,  but dont want to take the existing CMC assy all apart.  
>> The big clamp
>> on is aprx  1.5 inches long..and is too long for this application.   
>> It?s a tight squeeze inside the
>> nema box, and  coax is already  silver soldered at both ends  to both 
>> connectors.  Dual silver
>> braids have been separated at each end of the  RG-393 coax, and 
>> bonded to 7-16 Dins.
>>
>> Can a  type  31  2.4 inch OD core be cut clean in half....like in a 
>> bandsaw ?   I have a
>> vertical bandsaw with a metal cutting blade in... with 3 x speeds,  
>> 80-120-200  feet per
>> minute.   The idea here was..IF a core can be cut in half, to place 
>> the 2 x halves back around the
>> coax turns... and then either glue em back together..or  perhaps use 
>> a ty-rap  around the circumference.
>>
>> If cores cant be cut,  I will have to disassemble the entire assy, 
>> and start from scratch, which Id
>> rather not have to do, pita.
>>
>> Jim   VE7RF
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From u1004467 at warwick.net  Tue Jul  5 20:49:00 2016
From: u1004467 at warwick.net (John Santillo)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 20:49:00 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tower Mast Wind Loading
Message-ID: <004201d1d720$2fb9dc10$8f2d9430$@net>

Hello,

 

I've volunteered to help out a friend of mine with a mast length vs. wind
loading question.

 

If I have a 2" diameter Chromoly Steel mast with a 0.25" wall thickness that
is 16 feet long (4 feet nested in the tower) sitting on top a HDX-555 tower,
how "safe" are we from this mast folding over with the following antennas
mounted to the mast at 80MPH?

 

Antenna #1 will be 1 foot above the thrust bearing and is 5.5 FT2

 

Antenna #2 will be 6 feet above the thrust bearing and is 2.9 FT2

 

Antenna #3 will be 10 feet above the thrust bearing and is 1.21 FT2

 

Antenna #4 will be 12 foot above the thrust bearing and is 0.42 FT2

 

 

Thanks for any help you can provide.

 

 

73,

 

John

N2HMM 

 

 


From k3lr at k3lr.com  Tue Jul  5 20:59:57 2016
From: k3lr at k3lr.com (Tim Duffy)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 20:59:57 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tower Mast Wind Loading
In-Reply-To: <004201d1d720$2fb9dc10$8f2d9430$@net>
References: <004201d1d720$2fb9dc10$8f2d9430$@net>
Message-ID: <E9B40AD379274786B83F67F26970AA12@laptop>

Hello John

You can get a close approximation by using this free online tool:

https://www.dxengineering.com/mastloadestimator

73
Tim K3LR

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of John
Santillo
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 8:49 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tower Mast Wind Loading

Hello,

 

I've volunteered to help out a friend of mine with a mast length vs. wind
loading question.

 

If I have a 2" diameter Chromoly Steel mast with a 0.25" wall thickness that
is 16 feet long (4 feet nested in the tower) sitting on top a HDX-555 tower,
how "safe" are we from this mast folding over with the following antennas
mounted to the mast at 80MPH?

 

Antenna #1 will be 1 foot above the thrust bearing and is 5.5 FT2

 

Antenna #2 will be 6 feet above the thrust bearing and is 2.9 FT2

 

Antenna #3 will be 10 feet above the thrust bearing and is 1.21 FT2

 

Antenna #4 will be 12 foot above the thrust bearing and is 0.42 FT2

 

 

Thanks for any help you can provide.

 

 

73,

 

John

N2HMM 

 

 

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From jim.thom at telus.net  Tue Jul  5 22:25:46 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:25:46 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
Message-ID: <8342ED8094DE4B049A97DE9E0978C89C@JimPC>

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:00:13 -0700
From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard at karlquist.com>
To: Steve Hunt <steve at karinya.net>, towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns

On 7/5/2016 11:00 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
> Do the maths on saturation - you'll find that core overheating occurs
> well before saturation for the duty-cycles typical of Ham operation.
>
> To quote Amidon: "Overheating of the core will usually take place long
> before saturation in most applications above 100kHz."
>
> Steve G3TXQ

This generalization is valid for cores with an air gap and
powdered iron cores (which essentially have a built in air gap).
It most definitely doesn't apply to closed gap ferrites,
such as toroids.  One dit can not only saturate them, but
actually magnetize them.  I have actually done this, accidentally,
when I tried to use a current transformer and the secondary
was unloaded.  It was something of a corner case since the
primary of a current transformer is only 1 "turn".

Rick N6RK

##  So duty cycle does play into all this.  As in it could be possible
to saturate the cores...without heating them up,  as in via  low duty cycle pulse tuning
an amplifier with real low duty cycles, or perhaps un-processed  ssb etc. 

##  Ok, what happens when cores ARE saturated... but with minimal heating
involved ?    I cant  see the SWR changing  on a  CMC.... but I can see the 
CMC  ceasing to work, and   CM  currents increasing a bunch.  IOW,  it
might be like the  CMC  isnt even there.  Once saturated, will the CMC 
function again,  if power is reduced, or say after a period of  time.  

Jim   VE7RF     

 

From richard at karlquist.com  Tue Jul  5 22:26:52 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:26:52 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Can type 31 cores be cut in half ?
In-Reply-To: <a154123d-d632-93b9-d43c-bed3b2ca85bc@ac0h.net>
References: <E0DA83DB1AC94B6EB429290AE03FB0D4@JimPC>
	<577BBD07.2080701@pacbell.net>
	<a154123d-d632-93b9-d43c-bed3b2ca85bc@ac0h.net>
Message-ID: <f916b7e0-dd6c-bd31-9221-8e06f7f6de8c@karlquist.com>

I suggest you ask Fair-Rite Products whether
they offer a machining service or can refer
you to a job shop.  It is routine for cup
cores to have a custom air gap machined, for
example.  Why go off on your own and reinvent
the wheel?

Rick N6RK


From richard at karlquist.com  Tue Jul  5 22:30:49 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:30:49 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <8342ED8094DE4B049A97DE9E0978C89C@JimPC>
References: <8342ED8094DE4B049A97DE9E0978C89C@JimPC>
Message-ID: <f6441efa-2cd8-2ae6-308a-712acc97a5ac@karlquist.com>



On 7/5/2016 7:25 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:

>
> ##  Ok, what happens when cores ARE saturated... but with minimal heating
> involved ?    I cant  see the SWR changing  on a  CMC.... but I can see the
> CMC  ceasing to work, and   CM  currents increasing a bunch.  IOW,  it
> might be like the  CMC  isnt even there.  Once saturated, will the CMC
> function again,  if power is reduced, or say after a period of  time.
>
> Jim   VE7RF
>

My current transformer was permanently disabled by a single
incident of core saturation.  It might have been revived
by heating above the curie temperature.

Rick N6RK

From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Tue Jul  5 23:17:09 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 23:17:09 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <0cc92094-d9f6-2513-df99-3458cca3ee25@earthlink.net>
References: <DFE3E228AC8F4C8B92A13B1DB64C620F@JimPC>
	<0cc92094-d9f6-2513-df99-3458cca3ee25@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <0337ce1f-930e-541e-5fe7-291d37753e75@tm.net>

<LOL> The reason for the CM choke on the 75 meter sloping dipoles is 
"because it is unbalanced" Without the choke the feedline is so hot  the 
200W rig could start lighting the LEDs up in the shack. With one choke 
800 watts was the limit before the LEDs in the shack light up. It took 
two chokes before I could run the legal limit.  The tuner let the rig 
see R=50 and an SWR of 1:1 and still the lights lit up.

With the choke not at the antenna, the feedline becomes part of the antenna.

As to the feedline and a center fed half wave sloping dipole. As close 
to the feedpoint as is practical works for me.
Only a few feet of feedline are perpendicular to the antenna. From the 
bottom of the catenary to the tower they are almost parallel (about a 
third of the feedline length.)  Even if the feedline were perpendicular 
all the way to the ground, it would still need to be decoupled.

The chokes work and serve a very useful function.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/5/2016 Tuesday 1:32 PM, jimlux wrote:
> On 7/5/16 7:34 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 02:40:24 -0400
>> From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
>>
>>
>> It's my understanding that a choke of  (theoretical) infinite Z does not
>> disconnect the antenna. It would reduce the current flowing on the
>> outside of the coax (common mode) to zero at that point. It has no
>> effect on the interior currents
>>
>> The choke does nothing to the balance of the antenna. It just stops
>> (more correctly reduces) the CM current caused by a reasonable imbalance
>> such as a sloping dipole, or that caused by nearby objects.  The greater
>> the imbalance the greater the power dissipated in the core material.
>> The difference between sloping, center fed dipoles on 80 Vs 40 is very
>> pronounced
>> Different core materials will likely have different dissipation values.
>>
>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>> ##  IF your sloping  half wave dipole is  UN balanced...then why 
>> insert a CMC  at the feed point at all ??
>
>
> Think of the choke as being equivalent to putting an insulator to 
> break up a guy wire.  the idea is to prevent segments of the feedline 
> from coupling to the antenna and reradiating because of the current 
> induced in the shield.
>
> In some cases, there's no real point in trying to break up the 
> feedline (a 100 foot piece of coax running alongside a 100ft tower... 
> the tower is the big conductor in the near field of the antenna)
>
> If you've got a sloping dipole, and the feedline comes off at right 
> angles, in free space, the coupling is small, and, you're right, 
> probably don't need a choke at the feedpoint.
>
> on a real antenna, where the feedline probably isn't exactly 
> perpendicular, and there's a big conductive supporting structure, and 
> there's a somewhat conductive ground plane underneath.. maybe there is 
> a significant current induced, maybe there isn't.
>
> One could easily model this and *see* if there's significant current 
> on the feedline in a non-ideal scenario.  If I ran the model, and I 
> saw that the current everywhere in the wire that represents the 
> feedline was <1/10th the current at the dipole feed, I'd call it done 
> and go home. Nobody is looking for 20dB nulls from a dipole, and 
> that's what that stray current would do.
>
> It's sort of the same as the "is that rain gutter/downspout" going to 
> cause a problem modeling.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From n6sj at earthlink.net  Tue Jul  5 23:52:34 2016
From: n6sj at earthlink.net (Steve Jones)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 20:52:34 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Cable routing
In-Reply-To: <002201d1d719$31246cc0$936d4640$@comcast.net>
References: <002201d1d719$31246cc0$936d4640$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <000301d1d739$d51d25e0$7f5771a0$@earthlink.net>

Jim-

For my Yagi feed point I bought a 50' flexible 3/4" garden hose, cut off the
ends and ran the coax through it before terminating it.  The hose protects
the coax and provides a good grip for tie wraps going around it and around
the boom.

73,
Steve
N6SJ


-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of James
Wolf
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 4:59 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Cable routing

I'm looking for suggestions on coax routing.

I've got the Tennadyne log antenna almost ready to go up.  I have 12 turns
of coax at the feed point for a choke and the coax connects at the end of
the boom which means that the coax feedline needs to follow the bottom
square tubing which is 1/2 of the boom and is connected to one side of the
coax.  In my case I elected to connect the bottom 1/2 of the boom to the
shield.

I'm concerned about attaching the coax to the bottom 1/2 of the boom.   I
picked up some black UV protected cable ties and plan to put tape around
them to help keep the sun damage down.
I have experience with VHF/UHF yagi's where I've taped the coax to the boom
to get it back to the mast and over the decades, the best tape has
deteriorated and the cable is now dangling beneath the boom.
I don't want that to happen to the Tennadyne.  I've thought about the metal
ties that are used on commercial towers, but since the boom is "hot" I'm not
sure that is a good idea.
Since the two halves of the boom are close together, maybe 3/8" between the
two square booms, it is difficult to get the tape wrapped around it more
than about one turn before you have to cut it and start another piece on top
of it.

Any suggestions on how to secure the feedline to the boom on this antenna? 

Jim - KR9U

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Wed Jul  6 02:01:03 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 23:01:03 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <0B8BC1782762409F894C92B49F1E31F2@JimPC>
References: <0B8BC1782762409F894C92B49F1E31F2@JimPC>
Message-ID: <d0659887-e51b-c2c7-1bc4-803631299c86@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Tue,7/5/2016 5:02 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> ##  I never saw one of those systems ever use a CMC at the feedpoint, and they all
> had 3-4 db gain..and typ  20 db  FB.   The theory was...a  half wave sloping dipole
> is unbalanced to begin with..so deep 6 the CMC at the feedpoint.   On those setups,
> at most you might require a CMC  on the main feed line coming up the tower.
>
> ##  I never saw anybody using CMC at the feedpoint of a 1/4  wave sloper either.
> But on 1/4 wave slopers, I always ran the coax down the inside of the tower, since it
> was easy to do, since the tower I used at the time was 33 inches  across. ( I climbed
> up the inside of it).
Somehow, you seem to miss the point, which is NOT gain, but rather 
keeping RF picked up on the feedline from coupling to the antenna, and 
from there via the feedline in differential mode to the receiver.

> ##  the yagis at the time all used gamma or omega matches... an no CMCs  used.

Just because you never saw it doesn't mean that it's not good practice. 
It just means you never saw an installation where someone was smart 
enough to do it. :) Good practice is to do whatever the mfr of the 
antenna designed for matching, and then ADD a common mode choke.

When I first published my work on using ferrite chokes at the feedpoint 
of antennas, guys in our contest club started doing it and found that 
their antennas were quieter. Guys in multi-transmitter stations found 
less interaction between stations. This includes everything from 
dipoles, to monoband and multiband arrays of aluminum, to SteppIRs, and 
is independent of how they are fed. Even verticals benefit from a coax 
choke at the feedpoint.

73, Jim K9YC





From steve at karinya.net  Wed Jul  6 03:31:43 2016
From: steve at karinya.net (Steve Hunt)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 08:31:43 +0100
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <7902e501-be26-262c-03bb-6f49f2bbf495@karlquist.com>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
	<ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
	<a42b00d2-e6a6-d43e-34bb-ec55d640ed39@earthlink.net>
	<c53a256e-2182-9829-858a-21c2e7f34237@karinya.net>
	<7902e501-be26-262c-03bb-6f49f2bbf495@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <ac0c4587-da6a-86bd-d5ad-3a86202a1a6c@karinya.net>

Note what I said about duty cycles!

Steve G3TXQ


On 06/07/2016 00:00, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
> On 7/5/2016 11:00 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
>> Do the maths on saturation - you'll find that core overheating occurs
>> well before saturation for the duty-cycles typical of Ham operation.
>>
>> To quote Amidon: "Overheating of the core will usually take place long
>> before saturation in most applications above 100kHz."
>>
>> Steve G3TXQ
>
> This generalization is valid for cores with an air gap and
> powdered iron cores (which essentially have a built in air gap).
> It most definitely doesn't apply to closed gap ferrites,
> such as toroids.  One dit can not only saturate them, but
> actually magnetize them.  I have actually done this, accidentally,
> when I tried to use a current transformer and the secondary
> was unloaded.  It was something of a corner case since the
> primary of a current transformer is only 1 "turn".
>
> Rick N6RK
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>


From john at kk9a.com  Wed Jul  6 07:45:00 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 07:45:00 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Cable routing
Message-ID: <8c3f8569e9fba8fcb6ae364265be944e.squirrel@www11.qth.com>

I use Panduit black cable ties to secure the coax to the boom and tower
and they hold up very well, even in Sunny Aruba. Do not use the cable ties
from the big box stores, they are junk.

John KK9A


To:	<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject:	[TowerTalk] Cable routing
From:	"James Wolf" <jbwolf at comcast.net>
Reply-to:	jbwolf at comcast.net
Date:	Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:58:56 -0400


I'm looking for suggestions on coax routing.

I've got the Tennadyne log antenna almost ready to go up.  I have 12 turns
of coax at the feed point for a choke and the coax connects at the end of
the boom which means that the coax feedline needs to follow the bottom
square tubing which is 1/2 of the boom and is connected to one side of the
coax.  In my case I elected to connect the bottom 1/2 of the boom to the
shield.

I'm concerned about attaching the coax to the bottom 1/2 of the boom.   I
picked up some black UV protected cable ties and plan to put tape around
them to help keep the sun damage down.
I have experience with VHF/UHF yagi's where I've taped the coax to the boom
to get it back to the mast and over the decades, the best tape has
deteriorated and the cable is now dangling beneath the boom.
I don't want that to happen to the Tennadyne.  I've thought about the metal
ties that are used on commercial towers, but since the boom is "hot" I'm not
sure that is a good idea.
Since the two halves of the boom are close together, maybe 3/8" between the
two square booms, it is difficult to get the tape wrapped around it more
than about one turn before you have to cut it and start another piece on top
of it.

Any suggestions on how to secure the feedline to the boom on this antenna?

Jim - KR9U


From sawyered at earthlink.net  Wed Jul  6 08:00:24 2016
From: sawyered at earthlink.net (Ed Sawyer)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 08:00:24 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tower Mast Wind Loading
Message-ID: <004b01d1d77d$fafca440$f0f5ecc0$@earthlink.net>

I have a 22 ft .25in wall steel molly mast.  It is very strong.  

 

I think you are asking the wrong question.  With only 4 ft in the tower and
12 ft above, with the torque translated by this very strong based overwhelm
the top of the tower connections - thrust bearing and rotor connection.

 

The usual rule of thumb is to have 50% of the length in the tower.  I have
10 ft of the 22 ft mast in the tower and the top antenna is 9 ft above the
tower.  The last 3 ft are for a truss.

 

Ed


From TexasRF at aol.com  Wed Jul  6 08:38:35 2016
From: TexasRF at aol.com (TexasRF at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 08:38:35 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tower Mast Wind Loading
Message-ID: <effcf.4c24a8c5.44ae55c7@aol.com>

John, assuming a mast material yield strength of 110,000 psi the system  
described will survive 161 mph peak winds. The antennas will be stripped away  
well before reaching that wind speed so the mast survival wind speed would 
be  much higher than that. 
 
This is based on RS222 rev F criteria, rev G would show an even higher wind 
 survival. The mast is not the limiting factor by in this case.
 
73,
Gerald K5GW
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/5/2016 7:50:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
u1004467 at warwick.net writes:

Hello,



I've volunteered to help out a friend of mine  with a mast length vs. wind
loading question.



If I have a 2"  diameter Chromoly Steel mast with a 0.25" wall thickness 
that
is 16 feet  long (4 feet nested in the tower) sitting on top a HDX-555 
tower,
how  "safe" are we from this mast folding over with the following  antennas
mounted to the mast at 80MPH?



Antenna #1 will be 1  foot above the thrust bearing and is 5.5 FT2



Antenna #2 will be  6 feet above the thrust bearing and is 2.9 FT2



Antenna #3 will  be 10 feet above the thrust bearing and is 1.21 FT2



Antenna #4  will be 12 foot above the thrust bearing and is 0.42  FT2





Thanks for any help you can  provide.





73,



John

N2HMM  





_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk  mailing  list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From jimlux at earthlink.net  Wed Jul  6 09:12:24 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 06:12:24 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <d0659887-e51b-c2c7-1bc4-803631299c86@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <0B8BC1782762409F894C92B49F1E31F2@JimPC>
	<d0659887-e51b-c2c7-1bc4-803631299c86@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <76cfa297-ba69-fa60-bd9b-7988cc5f9acd@earthlink.net>

On 7/5/16 11:01 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On Tue,7/5/2016 5:02 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>
> Somehow, you seem to miss the point, which is NOT gain, but rather
> keeping RF picked up on the feedline from coupling to the antenna, and
> from there via the feedline in differential mode to the receiver.

I wouldn't think of it as a gain thing, but more that there's coupling 
between the feedline and antenna, and then (the shield of) the feedline 
becomes "part" of the antenna system.

I don't know that it would change gain all that much, but it could 
certainly ruin a null.

And it might provide a path from a near field noise source (some low 
level RFI source that's very close to the feedline), but then, you'd 
really want a choke near the noise source.



>
>> ##  the yagis at the time all used gamma or omega matches... an no
>> CMCs  used.
>
> Just because you never saw it doesn't mean that it's not good practice.
> It just means you never saw an installation where someone was smart
> enough to do it. :) Good practice is to do whatever the mfr of the
> antenna designed for matching, and then ADD a common mode choke.
>
> When I first published my work on using ferrite chokes at the feedpoint
> of antennas, guys in our contest club started doing it and found that
> their antennas were quieter. Guys in multi-transmitter stations found
> less interaction between stations. This includes everything from
> dipoles, to monoband and multiband arrays of aluminum, to SteppIRs, and
> is independent of how they are fed. Even verticals benefit from a coax
> choke at the feedpoint.
>

I think that's generally the whole "if you avoid large conducting things 
near your antenna, and particularly, connected to your antenna, they 
work better".



From jimlux at earthlink.net  Wed Jul  6 09:15:49 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 06:15:49 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <ac0c4587-da6a-86bd-d5ad-3a86202a1a6c@karinya.net>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
	<ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
	<a42b00d2-e6a6-d43e-34bb-ec55d640ed39@earthlink.net>
	<c53a256e-2182-9829-858a-21c2e7f34237@karinya.net>
	<7902e501-be26-262c-03bb-6f49f2bbf495@karlquist.com>
	<ac0c4587-da6a-86bd-d5ad-3a86202a1a6c@karinya.net>
Message-ID: <00bfb309-c37f-51dd-b24c-21a250f35a7a@earthlink.net>

On 7/6/16 12:31 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
> Note what I said about duty cycles!
>

I would think that most ham use is a low duty cycle operation (leaving 
you EME and RTTY contesters aside): saturation (and magnetization) is 
purely a peak level thing.  You could saturate a core in a single cycle 
(or dit, or on a short voice peak), and you'd not see any appreciable 
heating.

I wonder if anyone has ever had a core ruined by a lightning impulse?



> Steve G3TXQ
>
>
> On 06/07/2016 00:00, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
>> On 7/5/2016 11:00 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
>>> Do the maths on saturation - you'll find that core overheating occurs
>>> well before saturation for the duty-cycles typical of Ham operation.
>>>
>>> To quote Amidon: "Overheating of the core will usually take place long
>>> before saturation in most applications above 100kHz."
>>>
>>> Steve G3TXQ
>>
>> This generalization is valid for cores with an air gap and
>> powdered iron cores (which essentially have a built in air gap).
>> It most definitely doesn't apply to closed gap ferrites,
>> such as toroids.  One dit can not only saturate them, but
>> actually magnetize them.  I have actually done this, accidentally,
>> when I tried to use a current transformer and the secondary
>> was unloaded.  It was something of a corner case since the
>> primary of a current transformer is only 1 "turn".
>>
>> Rick N6RK
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From r_bakalov at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 09:31:25 2016
From: r_bakalov at yahoo.com (Rudy Bakalov)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:31:25 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <00bfb309-c37f-51dd-b24c-21a250f35a7a@earthlink.net>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
	<ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
	<a42b00d2-e6a6-d43e-34bb-ec55d640ed39@earthlink.net>
	<c53a256e-2182-9829-858a-21c2e7f34237@karinya.net>
	<7902e501-be26-262c-03bb-6f49f2bbf495@karlquist.com>
	<ac0c4587-da6a-86bd-d5ad-3a86202a1a6c@karinya.net>
	<00bfb309-c37f-51dd-b24c-21a250f35a7a@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <269373571.2819696.1467811885662.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

One of my friends asked a reasonable question: "Are you sure you need a choke to feed your commercial antennas? How do you know that M2 does not have choking capabilities for their yagis?"
So, the real question is: if my commercial yagi already has some sort of a balun, how do I know if it is any good from CM perspective? I suspect the answer is that the baluns on my M2 yagis are just for matching purposes, but I should ask you guys anyway.

Rudy N2WQ


   

From john at kk9a.com  Wed Jul  6 09:50:55 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:50:55 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tower Mast Wind Loading
Message-ID: <5d424ffc35101189ab67007c3786cf74.squirrel@www11.qth.com>

Really? I never heard this rule of thumb before.

John KK9A

To:	<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject:	Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Mast Wind Loading
From:	"Ed Sawyer" <sawyered at earthlink.net>
Reply-to:	sawyered at earthlink.net
Date:	Wed, 6 Jul 2016 08:00:24 -0400




The usual rule of thumb is to have 50% of the length in the tower.  I have
10 ft of the 22 ft mast in the tower and the top antenna is 9 ft above the
tower.  The last 3 ft are for a truss.



Ed


From sawyered at earthlink.net  Wed Jul  6 10:21:11 2016
From: sawyered at earthlink.net (Ed Sawyer)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:21:11 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tower Mast Wind Loading
Message-ID: <005301d1d791$a5fa9e70$f1efdb50$@earthlink.net>

 

 

"Really? I never heard this rule of thumb before."

 

John KK9A

 

 

It was always what I learned.  And seems to make sense from a moment arm
standpoint.

 

I would be interested in what others do in their designs.

 

Ed  N1UR

 


From jim.thom at telus.net  Wed Jul  6 10:42:28 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 07:42:28 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Cable routing
Message-ID: <39DF909D71324D95A3C96A2D9AB68850@JimPC>

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:58:56 -0400
From: "James Wolf" <jbwolf at comcast.net>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Cable routing
Message-ID: <002201d1d719$31246cc0$936d4640$@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I'm looking for suggestions on coax routing.

I've got the Tennadyne log antenna almost ready to go up.  I have 12 turns
of coax at the feed point for a choke and the coax connects at the end of
the boom which means that the coax feedline needs to follow the bottom
square tubing which is 1/2 of the boom and is connected to one side of the
coax.  In my case I elected to connect the bottom 1/2 of the boom to the
shield.

I'm concerned about attaching the coax to the bottom 1/2 of the boom.   I
picked up some black UV protected cable ties and plan to put tape around
them to help keep the sun damage down.
I have experience with VHF/UHF yagi's where I've taped the coax to the boom
to get it back to the mast and over the decades, the best tape has
deteriorated and the cable is now dangling beneath the boom.
I don't want that to happen to the Tennadyne.  I've thought about the metal
ties that are used on commercial towers, but since the boom is "hot" I'm not
sure that is a good idea.
Since the two halves of the boom are close together, maybe 3/8" between the
two square booms, it is difficult to get the tape wrapped around it more
than about one turn before you have to cut it and start another piece on top
of it.

Any suggestions on how to secure the feedline to the boom on this antenna? 

Jim ? KR9U

##    W8JI has  a tech note on feeding the Tennadyne LPDA yagis.   They have hot booms,
and you cant just tape the coax to the boom.  It requires a CMC  where the coax leaves the
hot boom, right at the mast.   http://www.w8ji.com/baluns_on_log_perodic_antennas.htm

Jim  VE7RF


From n4lg at qx.net  Wed Jul  6 11:25:06 2016
From: n4lg at qx.net (Bill Cotter)
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 11:25:06 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] FS: Force12 MAG620340N 3ele40m/6ele20M yagi
Message-ID: <20160706152511.F0406AC8198@mx.contesting.com>


Greetings,

I have for sale a new-in-crate, unused Force12 MAG620/340N antenna.
This is MONSTER 6ele on 20M and 3ele on 40M on the same 47ft boom.
It requires a tower such as Rohn-45/55, and a healthy rotor such as
a prop pitch unit. The present-day cost for this antenna is quoted 
at $6,710 plus up to $500 shipping.

Pictures and manual summary
http://web.qx.net/bcotter/forsale/MAG620340N/

I ordered this from Force12 several years ago in the spring and it 
took almost 24mo to get it to my door. Between the production 
efforts, material supply issues and other problems, and the 
continuous delays, I opted for other antennas. I ended up using a 
4ele20M 36ft boom and a 4-square on 40M.

I have this unassembled antenna kit (crate is 150" x 25" x 25" and
350lbs) in my garage. The 47ft boom starts out 6" dia, tapers to 5"
and finally tapers to 3". The mast plate (actually a cradle) is
made from 18" x 18" x 1/2" aluminum, and all the elements are very
heavy duty (N=100mph). The up-the-tower weight is stated to be
250lbs, but may be slightly more.

My preference, for obvious reasons, is to sell it pickup-locally.
However, If you wish to use a freight carrier, I am good with a
prepaid shipment. I am located in Nicholasville, KY outside of
Lexington.

$3,500 (plus shipping, needed)

73 Bill N4LG
(859)552-7481


http://www.force12inc.com/products/magnum-340-620-interlaced-full-size-3-element-40-6-element-20-meter-yagi-beam.html

SPECS:

Antenna MAG 620/340
Boom Lngth 47'
Wind Load 18.5
Frequency in MHz 14.000-14.350
Net Gain @74'1 13.6dBd
F/B Ratio 23db
VSWR (max) <1.4:1
Frequency in MHz 7.000-7.300
Net Gain @74' 5.1dbd
F/B Ratio 22db
VSWR (max) 270kHz (2:1)
Turning Radius 30.2'
Wt. 230lbs (N=255lbs)
Mast Torque <1200in/lb
MAG620/340 - 6ele 20, 3ele 40, 2 band Yagi, 2 feed lines, 44' boom
$5,749








From W5LT at verizon.net  Wed Jul  6 11:58:44 2016
From: W5LT at verizon.net (Robert Kellow)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:58:44 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tower Mast Wind Loading
In-Reply-To: <004b01d1d77d$fafca440$f0f5ecc0$@earthlink.net>
References: <004b01d1d77d$fafca440$f0f5ecc0$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <007f01d1d79f$4662b160$d3281420$@verizon.net>

The problem statement might be incomplete.
The type of tower was not stated (self-supporting [and type of SS]; or
guyed. If guyed, is the top section guyed at the top?)
Depending, the top section may be overstressed by shear and moment forces. 
Bob, W5LT

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Sawyer [mailto:sawyered at earthlink.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 7:00 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Mast Wind Loading

I have a 22 ft .25in wall steel molly mast.  It is very strong.  

 

I think you are asking the wrong question.  With only 4 ft in the tower and
12 ft above, with the torque translated by this very strong based overwhelm
the top of the tower connections - thrust bearing and rotor connection.

 

The usual rule of thumb is to have 50% of the length in the tower.  I have
10 ft of the 22 ft mast in the tower and the top antenna is 9 ft above the
tower.  The last 3 ft are for a truss.

 

Ed




From cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jul  6 12:20:18 2016
From: cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net (Kimberly Elmore)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:20:18 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Cable routing
In-Reply-To: <39DF909D71324D95A3C96A2D9AB68850@JimPC>
References: <39DF909D71324D95A3C96A2D9AB68850@JimPC>
Message-ID: <1306904949.2930984.1467822018254.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

I got tired of replacing deteriorating black tape and I could never get ty-wraps to last long enough. So, I used SS worm-type hose clamps. I was very careful to make them only a *little bit* snug, lest I crush the cabling. I figure these will last longer than the cable. I did on the mast and the antenna booms and have never looked back. I have CMCs on each antenna, but need to add them to the cable end that enters the shack. The only square material to which I needed to secure cables was rather small and only a short run. I used only enough pressure on the clamp to make the cable snug, *not* tight.?
Kim N5OP

      From: Jim Thomson <jim.thom at telus.net>
 To: towertalk at contesting.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 9:42 AM
 Subject: [TowerTalk] Cable routing
   
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:58:56 -0400
From: "James Wolf" <jbwolf at comcast.net>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Cable routing
Message-ID: <002201d1d719$31246cc0$936d4640$@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I'm looking for suggestions on coax routing.

I've got the Tennadyne log antenna almost ready to go up.? I have 12 turns
of coax at the feed point for a choke and the coax connects at the end of
the boom which means that the coax feedline needs to follow the bottom
square tubing which is 1/2 of the boom and is connected to one side of the
coax.? In my case I elected to connect the bottom 1/2 of the boom to the
shield.

I'm concerned about attaching the coax to the bottom 1/2 of the boom.? I
picked up some black UV protected cable ties and plan to put tape around
them to help keep the sun damage down.
I have experience with VHF/UHF yagi's where I've taped the coax to the boom
to get it back to the mast and over the decades, the best tape has
deteriorated and the cable is now dangling beneath the boom.
I don't want that to happen to the Tennadyne.? I've thought about the metal
ties that are used on commercial towers, but since the boom is "hot" I'm not
sure that is a good idea.
Since the two halves of the boom are close together, maybe 3/8" between the
two square booms, it is difficult to get the tape wrapped around it more
than about one turn before you have to cut it and start another piece on top
of it.

Any suggestions on how to secure the feedline to the boom on this antenna? 

Jim ? KR9U

##? ? W8JI has? a tech note on feeding the Tennadyne LPDA yagis.? They have hot booms,
and you cant just tape the coax to the boom.? It requires a CMC? where the coax leaves the
hot boom, right at the mast.? http://www.w8ji.com/baluns_on_log_perodic_antennas.htm

Jim? VE7RF

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


  

From grants2 at pacbell.net  Wed Jul  6 12:44:07 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:44:07 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <00bfb309-c37f-51dd-b24c-21a250f35a7a@earthlink.net>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
	<ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
	<a42b00d2-e6a6-d43e-34bb-ec55d640ed39@earthlink.net>
	<c53a256e-2182-9829-858a-21c2e7f34237@karinya.net>
	<7902e501-be26-262c-03bb-6f49f2bbf495@karlquist.com>
	<ac0c4587-da6a-86bd-d5ad-3a86202a1a6c@karinya.net>
	<00bfb309-c37f-51dd-b24c-21a250f35a7a@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <577D3557.1060300@pacbell.net>

Why would an RF choke ferrite core be "ruined" if saturated?  And if 
saturated, why can't it be demagnetized?

Wouldn't the modern rig envelope amplitude decay of a "dit" or of voice, 
tend to demagnetize the core out of saturation?  Since RF chokes aren't 
square loop ("hard") ferrites, wouldn't normal amplitudes tend also to 
return to lower remanent magnetization as minor loops are traversed?

OTOH, it would be interesting to add a DC current winding to a choke and 
run some experiments.  Why would the results would be any different than 
with a laminated metal core choke designed for a power supply?

However, from what little I know about ferrites, it is possible with 
overheating to irreversibly damage them.

Grant KZ1W

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Wed Jul  6 12:58:52 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:58:52 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <269373571.2819696.1467811885662.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
	<ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
	<a42b00d2-e6a6-d43e-34bb-ec55d640ed39@earthlink.net>
	<c53a256e-2182-9829-858a-21c2e7f34237@karinya.net>
	<7902e501-be26-262c-03bb-6f49f2bbf495@karlquist.com>
	<ac0c4587-da6a-86bd-d5ad-3a86202a1a6c@karinya.net>
	<00bfb309-c37f-51dd-b24c-21a250f35a7a@earthlink.net>
	<269373571.2819696.1467811885662.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <b2d53e7c-1c8e-9fb6-ab66-96a6e815fc51@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Wed,7/6/2016 6:31 AM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
> "Are you sure you need a choke to feed your commercial antennas?

Yes.

> How do you know that M2 does not have choking capabilities for their yagis?"

Because I don't see any circuit elements to do that.

> So, the real question is: if my commercial yagi already has some sort of a balun, how do I know if it is any good from CM perspective? I suspect the answer is that the baluns on my M2 yagis are just for matching purposes

That's what I've said over and over.

73, Jim K9YC
> , but I should ask you guys anyway.



From mryan001 at tampabay.rr.com  Wed Jul  6 13:16:50 2016
From: mryan001 at tampabay.rr.com (Mike Ryan)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:16:50 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tower Mast Wind Loading
In-Reply-To: <005301d1d791$a5fa9e70$f1efdb50$@earthlink.net>
References: <005301d1d791$a5fa9e70$f1efdb50$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <E2CE4802899A4DA6AC3A6C4900DF5546@MichaelRyanPC>

Ed, While in lived in the D.C. area some years ago, I had a 160ft stick of 
Rohn 45 with a similar mast as you described. Eight feet of my 24ft mast 
were in the top section which employed 2 thrust bearings and a T2x rotator. 
Above was a 4 element monobander for 17, a Hygain 204BA, and a HyGain 
Discoverer 3 (3 ele 40mtr monobander). That worked well for me for the 9 
years I lived there.  -Mike

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ed Sawyer
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 10:21 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Mast Wind Loading





"Really? I never heard this rule of thumb before."



John KK9A





It was always what I learned.  And seems to make sense from a moment arm
standpoint.



I would be interested in what others do in their designs.



Ed  N1UR



_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 


From jimlux at earthlink.net  Wed Jul  6 14:10:35 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 11:10:35 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fair rite materials for choke baluns
In-Reply-To: <577D3557.1060300@pacbell.net>
References: <449DCB4E9DB74FDA8F9A78B7EEEBBE62@JimPC>
	<4acb40a2-de92-458e-58b9-457aad8fc62f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<F95C3B26CBB846F6883E88A484500517@w520>
	<7f009151-8b4a-2a72-c687-25f5e59a25e1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<8c17fdcc-08f6-5aac-bd01-be985c0a241d@earthlink.net>
	<ab2442e3-5699-c356-f9aa-fbda118cabb6@karinya.net>
	<a42b00d2-e6a6-d43e-34bb-ec55d640ed39@earthlink.net>
	<c53a256e-2182-9829-858a-21c2e7f34237@karinya.net>
	<7902e501-be26-262c-03bb-6f49f2bbf495@karlquist.com>
	<ac0c4587-da6a-86bd-d5ad-3a86202a1a6c@karinya.net>
	<00bfb309-c37f-51dd-b24c-21a250f35a7a@earthlink.net>
	<577D3557.1060300@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <78487132-660f-388d-105b-51dd9d7f7996@earthlink.net>

On 7/6/16 9:44 AM, Grant Saviers wrote:
> Why would an RF choke ferrite core be "ruined" if saturated?  And if
> saturated, why can't it be demagnetized?

Most magnetic materials have some residual magnetism (except things like 
soft iron).  If you exceed a threshold H field, then it "takes a set". 
I believe that's the "tip of the curve" on the B/H plot

Yes, you can, sometimes, demagnetize.  when they demagnetize steel 
tools, for instance, they impose an alternating field that is greater 
than the field required to magnetize, and then you gradually reduce the 
field. Since the field everywhere in the metal isn't exactly the same, 
that has the effect of randomizing the residual magnetism on all the 
little magnetic domains (e.g. when the field drops too low for a 
particular domain, it stays where it was last left), so the net is that 
the thing is "demagnetized".



>
> Wouldn't the modern rig envelope amplitude decay of a "dit" or of voice,
> tend to demagnetize the core out of saturation?  Since RF chokes aren't
> square loop ("hard") ferrites, wouldn't normal amplitudes tend also to
> return to lower remanent magnetization as minor loops are traversed?

I think that for a lot of materials, there's really (small signal) 
curves within  (large signal) curve

31 material has about 0.5 Oersted spread between the two arms of the 
loop with the tip of the loop at 5 Oersted. (400 Amp Turn/meter), that's 
about 10 times the saturation field (about 0.5 Oersted estimating off 
the plot where the curve really starts to bend)

The data sheet says coercive force of 0.28 Oersted (at 25C)

>
> OTOH, it would be interesting to add a DC current winding to a choke and
> run some experiments.  Why would the results would be any different than
> with a laminated metal core choke designed for a power supply?

Probably quite similar, difference is in relative magnitude
>
> However, from what little I know about ferrites, it is possible with
> overheating to irreversibly damage them.

There's several factors there: one is the curie point - raise above it, 
and the material becomes not-magnetizeable (e.g. the domains are 
scrambled), and not all materials become magnetic again as they cool. 
There also might be some chemical or structural changes - in steel, for 
instance, the crystal structure can change over temperature.   For 
notionally non-magnetic stainless steel, this is how it can become 
magnetic, because it goes through a transition to a different form of 
steel and crystals.  I'm not a metallurgist, so the above is about the 
limit of my knowledge.




From jbwolf at comcast.net  Wed Jul  6 16:36:36 2016
From: jbwolf at comcast.net (James Wolf)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:36:36 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 22
In-Reply-To: <mailman.4953.1467828672.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
References: <mailman.4953.1467828672.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <00b201d1d7c6$17c83bf0$4758b3d0$@comcast.net>


>>> I got tired of replacing deteriorating black tape and I could never get
ty-wraps to last long enough. So, I used SS worm-type hose clamps. I was
very careful to make them only a *little bit* snug, lest I crush the
cabling. I figure these will last longer than the cable. I did on the mast
and the antenna booms and have never looked back. I have CMCs on each
antenna, but need to add them to the cable end that enters the shack. The
only square material to which I needed to secure cables was rather small and
only a short run. I used only enough pressure on the clamp to make the cable
snug, *not* tight.?
Kim N5OP
*******************

In this case I don't want to use metallic material on the boom since the
boom (the bottom half) is part of the feed system.   The manufacturer runs
the feedline along the bottom of the boom and doesn't mention any
repercussions from doing so.  I have the shield of the coax attached to the
bottom of the boom.  

John, KK9A suggested the use of Panduit cable ties.  I have Dacron rope that
I could use, but if wet it could provide an RF Path between the two booms.

Jim - KR9U


From cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jul  6 17:19:16 2016
From: cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net (Kim Elmore)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:19:16 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 22
In-Reply-To: <00b201d1d7c6$17c83bf0$4758b3d0$@comcast.net>
References: <mailman.4953.1467828672.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
	<00b201d1d7c6$17c83bf0$4758b3d0$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <8789BC1D-BF26-4133-A13B-69BDE72F180E@sbcglobal.net>

That, of course, wasn't an
Issue in my case. If you could thread the SS clamps between the booms, such that it contacted only the boom to which the coax braid is also bonded, I suppose it might work. But I don't know the antennas well at all. 

If KK9A recommends Panduit ties, then by all means go with those!

Kim N5OP

"People that make music together cannot be enemies, at least as long as the music lasts." -- Paul Hindemith

> On Jul 6, 2016, at 15:36, James Wolf <jbwolf at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>> I got tired of replacing deteriorating black tape and I could never get
> ty-wraps to last long enough. So, I used SS worm-type hose clamps. I was
> very careful to make them only a *little bit* snug, lest I crush the
> cabling. I figure these will last longer than the cable. I did on the mast
> and the antenna booms and have never looked back. I have CMCs on each
> antenna, but need to add them to the cable end that enters the shack. The
> only square material to which I needed to secure cables was rather small and
> only a short run. I used only enough pressure on the clamp to make the cable
> snug, *not* tight.?
> Kim N5OP
> *******************
> 
> In this case I don't want to use metallic material on the boom since the
> boom (the bottom half) is part of the feed system.   The manufacturer runs
> the feedline along the bottom of the boom and doesn't mention any
> repercussions from doing so.  I have the shield of the coax attached to the
> bottom of the boom.  
> 
> John, KK9A suggested the use of Panduit cable ties.  I have Dacron rope that
> I could use, but if wet it could provide an RF Path between the two booms.
> 
> Jim - KR9U
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From EZRhino at fastmovers.biz  Wed Jul  6 17:47:22 2016
From: EZRhino at fastmovers.biz (EZ Rhino)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 15:47:22 -0600
Subject: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 22
In-Reply-To: <8789BC1D-BF26-4133-A13B-69BDE72F180E@sbcglobal.net>
References: <mailman.4953.1467828672.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
	<00b201d1d7c6$17c83bf0$4758b3d0$@comcast.net>
	<8789BC1D-BF26-4133-A13B-69BDE72F180E@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <345162C7-DD7B-49B6-80F5-6D5AD5FD0C5D@fastmovers.biz>

There are cable ties, then there are Panduit!  Nearly everything in Home Despot or Blowe's are crap and deteriorate in the sun, even the black ones.  Panduit are great, as well as some other brands as discussed here in the past.  And yes, they cost more.

Chris
KF7P





On Jul 6, 2016, at 15:19 , Kim Elmore wrote:

That, of course, wasn't an
Issue in my case. If you could thread the SS clamps between the booms, such that it contacted only the boom to which the coax braid is also bonded, I suppose it might work. But I don't know the antennas well at all. 

If KK9A recommends Panduit ties, then by all means go with those!

Kim N5OP

"People that make music together cannot be enemies, at least as long as the music lasts." -- Paul Hindemith

> On Jul 6, 2016, at 15:36, James Wolf <jbwolf at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>> I got tired of replacing deteriorating black tape and I could never get
> ty-wraps to last long enough. So, I used SS worm-type hose clamps. I was
> very careful to make them only a *little bit* snug, lest I crush the
> cabling. I figure these will last longer than the cable. I did on the mast
> and the antenna booms and have never looked back. I have CMCs on each
> antenna, but need to add them to the cable end that enters the shack. The
> only square material to which I needed to secure cables was rather small and
> only a short run. I used only enough pressure on the clamp to make the cable
> snug, *not* tight.?
> Kim N5OP
> *******************
> 
> In this case I don't want to use metallic material on the boom since the
> boom (the bottom half) is part of the feed system.   The manufacturer runs
> the feedline along the bottom of the boom and doesn't mention any
> repercussions from doing so.  I have the shield of the coax attached to the
> bottom of the boom.  
> 
> John, KK9A suggested the use of Panduit cable ties.  I have Dacron rope that
> I could use, but if wet it could provide an RF Path between the two booms.
> 
> Jim - KR9U
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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



From K7LXC at aol.com  Wed Jul  6 17:57:33 2016
From: K7LXC at aol.com (K7LXC at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:57:33 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
Message-ID: <442c66.57724efc.44aed8cd@aol.com>

I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're closing the 
doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be one 
of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens. 
 
Cheers,
Steve     K7LXC

From dickw1ksz at gmail.com  Wed Jul  6 18:10:29 2016
From: dickw1ksz at gmail.com (Richard Solomon)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 15:10:29 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <442c66.57724efc.44aed8cd@aol.com>
References: <442c66.57724efc.44aed8cd@aol.com>
Message-ID: <CAC5FBO-ZJd0FdzfyOGe3fZnMUR=nYh8BFO2F=2iW42gL-ZEzGA@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting ... their Web Page is still
up and active. Nothing mentioned
on it.

73, Dick, W1KSZ

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:57 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <
towertalk at contesting.com> wrote:

> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're closing the
> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be one
> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve     K7LXC
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From jbwolf at comcast.net  Wed Jul  6 18:25:05 2016
From: jbwolf at comcast.net (James Wolf)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 18:25:05 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
Message-ID: <000301d1d7d5$3f1bafc0$bd530f40$@comcast.net>

 

Continuing the discussion on how to attach the coax to the ?hot? boom of a Tennadyne T8 antenna.

 

As I assembled this antenna, I became increasingly confused and concerned about the feed system.   With this log antenna, instead of running open feedline wires crossing over to the elements, it uses two boom pieces and each is insulated from the mast and each boom is ?hot?.  The instructions indicate and show how to attach the feedline to the bottom boom piece using a Collins type balun at the feed point which is at the forward end of the antenna.  

 

My concern is that of the coax shield separated only by the coax insulation alongside one of the ?hot? boom pieces would couple and cause radiation (phase shift) problems with the antenna or at the very least radiate as it goes vertical down the mast.

 

Due to the element mounting method it is not possible to run the feedline inside the boom to the mast.   

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on why running the coax along the ?hot? boom would be an OK idea?

And if not, how else would one feed the antenna?

 

Jim ? KR9U


From kstover at ac0h.net  Wed Jul  6 20:09:43 2016
From: kstover at ac0h.net (Kevin)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:09:43 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
In-Reply-To: <000301d1d7d5$3f1bafc0$bd530f40$@comcast.net>
References: <000301d1d7d5$3f1bafc0$bd530f40$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <6b496a77-7fdf-b3bd-3f5d-4184545aedc4@ac0h.net>

That is exactly what Tennadyne has in their manual.

They have you tape the coax to the bottom boom.

Now think about this. Would you tape the feed line to a dipole to one of 
the wires?

I'd hope not.

The better way to feed a hot boom log is to let the coax hang a foot or 
two, from the feed-point all the way back to the mast, with appropriate 
mechanical support, OR, feed it like Tennadyne suggests and have one 
killer common mode choke where the feed line exits the antenna. The 
coiled coax at the feed really does nothing. You need a high quality 1:1 
balun.

Look here. http://w8ji.com/baluns_on_log_perodic_antennas.htm


On 7/6/2016 5:25 PM, James Wolf wrote:
>   
>
> Continuing the discussion on how to attach the coax to the ?hot? boom of a Tennadyne T8 antenna.
>
>   
>
> As I assembled this antenna, I became increasingly confused and concerned about the feed system.   With this log antenna, instead of running open feedline wires crossing over to the elements, it uses two boom pieces and each is insulated from the mast and each boom is ?hot?.  The instructions indicate and show how to attach the feedline to the bottom boom piece using a Collins type balun at the feed point which is at the forward end of the antenna.
>
>   
>
> My concern is that of the coax shield separated only by the coax insulation alongside one of the ?hot? boom pieces would couple and cause radiation (phase shift) problems with the antenna or at the very least radiate as it goes vertical down the mast.
>
>   
>
> Due to the element mounting method it is not possible to run the feedline inside the boom to the mast.
>
>   
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on why running the coax along the ?hot? boom would be an OK idea?
>
> And if not, how else would one feed the antenna?
>
>   
>
> Jim ? KR9U
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From john at kk9a.com  Wed Jul  6 20:29:15 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:29:15 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Cable routing
Message-ID: <006d01d1d7e6$9807c130$c8174390$@com>

Just to be clear I am saying that Panduit ties are of excellent quality and
hold up well outdoors, even in high UV locations. There are other brands
that are also excellent but you will not find any of these at the big box
stores. I have no experience with attaching coax to the Tennadyne log boom/
feed. I did use a small Tennadyne beam while in St Croix, VI in March while
operating as WP2AA, but I did not pay attention to the coax mounting. It
looked and acted like a dipole on each of the five bands, I would love to
see a model.

John KK9A

Subject:	Re: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 22
From:	Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net>
Date:	Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:19:16 -0500

That, of course, wasn't an
Issue in my case. If you could thread the SS clamps between the booms, such 
that it contacted only the boom to which the coax braid is also bonded, I 
suppose it might work. But I don't know the antennas well at all. 

If KK9A recommends Panduit ties, then by all means go with those!

Kim N5OP

"
> 
> In this case I don't want to use metallic material on the boom since the
> boom (the bottom half) is part of the feed system.   The manufacturer runs
> the feedline along the bottom of the boom and doesn't mention any
> repercussions from doing so.  I have the shield of the coax attached to
the
> bottom of the boom.  
> 
> John, KK9A suggested the use of Panduit cable ties.  I have Dacron rope
that
> I could use, but if wet it could provide an RF Path between the two booms.
> 
> Jim - KR9U


From john at kk9a.com  Wed Jul  6 20:29:46 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:29:46 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Cable routing
Message-ID: <006e01d1d7e6$aa7d18b0$ff774a10$@com>

I used to use Home Depot black ties for temporary antennas but in the last
few years it appears that the quality has worsened. I have had many break
when pulling them tight by hand and I'm certainly no powerhouse.  Many that
did stay on were broken shortly later.

John KK9A

Subject:	Re: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 22
From:	EZ Rhino <EZRhino at fastmovers.biz>
Date:	Wed, 6 Jul 2016 15:47:22 -0600

There are cable ties, then there are Panduit!  Nearly everything in Home
Despot 
or Blowe's are crap and deteriorate in the sun, even the black ones.
Panduit 
are great, as well as some other brands as discussed here in the past.  And 
yes, they cost more.

Chris
KF7P


From john at kk9a.com  Wed Jul  6 20:34:37 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:34:37 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] re  AES SK
Message-ID: <006f01d1d7e7$5823e660$086bb320$@com>

Sad news. I do not recall seeing a catalog in a while. Many years ago while
living in Chicago I used to buy from the Milwaukee store frequently and I
would have the item(s) the next day.

John KK9A 

From:	K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Reply-to:	K7LXC at aol.com
Date:	Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:57:33 -0400

I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're closing the 
doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be one 
of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens. 
 
Cheers,
Steve     K7LXC


From jp at ezoom.net  Wed Jul  6 20:42:26 2016
From: jp at ezoom.net (J.P.)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:42:26 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] re  AES SK
Message-ID: <320E7A6D-73B1-4097-ACD1-80B419944FDC@ezoom.net>

I've been a customer of theirs since the late 70s and still frequent the local (Las Vegas) store a few times a year when I need something ham related. 

Sad to see them go. 

J.P. W2XX/7

> On Jul 6, 2016, at 5:34 PM, <john at kk9a.com> <john at kk9a.com> wrote:
> 
> Sad news. I do not recall seeing a catalog in a while. Many years ago while
> living in Chicago I used to buy from the Milwaukee store frequently and I
> would have the item(s) the next day.
> 
> John KK9A 
> 
> From:    K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Reply-to:    K7LXC at aol.com
> Date:    Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:57:33 -0400
> 
> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're closing the 
> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be one 
> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Steve     K7LXC
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From KK4CPS at gmail.com  Wed Jul  6 21:15:55 2016
From: KK4CPS at gmail.com (Matthew King - KK4CPS)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 21:15:55 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] re AES SK
In-Reply-To: <006f01d1d7e7$5823e660$086bb320$@com>
References: <006f01d1d7e7$5823e660$086bb320$@com>
Message-ID: <CAKs+UsnTMfLdGodnmHqEsenbx+NChKKBf8voW=QvtQ8uwyeLiQ@mail.gmail.com>

I've been a ham for about 5 years now, and I've seen their website many
times.

I've never ordered from them as they've never been particularly competitive
on price or shipping.

I think in today's market of competing primarily on price with quality
customer service being a given and not something that you "pay a little
extra for", they were unwilling or unable to lower their prices. There's
other retail pricing outlets (DX Engineering, HRO, etc...) that are still
going strong (and growing, it seems) so I'm not sure what was different in
their business model to prevent them from being able to persevere.

It's always sad to see a company go by the wayside, to be sure.

Best of luck to their employees!

73

Matt
KW4VY

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:34 PM, <john at kk9a.com> wrote:

> Sad news. I do not recall seeing a catalog in a while. Many years ago while
> living in Chicago I used to buy from the Milwaukee store frequently and I
> would have the item(s) the next day.
>
> John KK9A
>
> From:   K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Reply-to:       K7LXC at aol.com
> Date:   Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:57:33 -0400
>
> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're closing the
> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be one
> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve     K7LXC
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From k6uj at pacbell.net  Wed Jul  6 21:21:09 2016
From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Bob K6UJ)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 18:21:09 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] re AES SK
In-Reply-To: <320E7A6D-73B1-4097-ACD1-80B419944FDC@ezoom.net>
References: <320E7A6D-73B1-4097-ACD1-80B419944FDC@ezoom.net>
Message-ID: <bd4fe362-8a99-e05b-a21f-2fa0349dbf8f@pacbell.net>

I am sorry to see them go also.  I used the Las Vegas store a lot over 
the years.  Order one day and sometimes
get it the next day, two days max with UPS to here in CA.   Great to 
deal with.

Bob
K6UJ

On 7/6/16 5:42 PM, J.P. wrote:
> I've been a customer of theirs since the late 70s and still frequent the local (Las Vegas) store a few times a year when I need something ham related.
>
> Sad to see them go.
>
> J.P. W2XX/7
>
>> On Jul 6, 2016, at 5:34 PM, <john at kk9a.com> <john at kk9a.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sad news. I do not recall seeing a catalog in a while. Many years ago while
>> living in Chicago I used to buy from the Milwaukee store frequently and I
>> would have the item(s) the next day.
>>
>> John KK9A
>>
>> From:    K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
>> Reply-to:    K7LXC at aol.com
>> Date:    Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:57:33 -0400
>>
>> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're closing the
>> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be one
>> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Steve     K7LXC
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


From L at w0vt.us  Wed Jul  6 21:21:41 2016
From: L at w0vt.us (Lee)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:21:41 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] re AES SK
In-Reply-To: <320E7A6D-73B1-4097-ACD1-80B419944FDC@ezoom.net>
References: <320E7A6D-73B1-4097-ACD1-80B419944FDC@ezoom.net>
Message-ID: <9867c141-d663-68d1-8cf8-c13f47020c19@w0vt.us>

I took my Novice test the same day Terry Sterman took his at the 
Milwaukee Court House back in 1953.  We were both very young teenagers.  
Terry became WN9DIA and I became WN9DRC.  Terry started his ham business 
on a card table in the back of his fathers appliance store in Fon du 
Lac, Wisconsin.  I bought a new Hallicrafters SX-96 from him in 1956 
before he had a store of his own.  When he opened his store at his first 
address in Milwaukee, he made Steve Puddyandy (sp?),  his store 
manager.  Steve's call was W9EAN.  He was a great guy.  Ray Granier 
(sp?) became his long time Service Manager.  Ray headed the service 
department for many years.  Terry also hired W9NHE (nice hot eggs) and 
he had a passion for printing.  So Terry made Ted Willett (sp?) his 
printing manager and they printed QSL cards and then branched out into 
commercial printing.  Later Terry upgraded his color printing presses 
and donated his old color printing equipment to The ARRL. That is how 
The ARRL got into printing QST into color..  Terry became very 
successful and I have many memories of him and the Fon du Lac yearly 
banquet he and I attended along with many other hams from Wisconsin.  
There is much more I could say but some things are best not told.  
Terry's life ended in a very sad way.  His business was carried on for 
many years with other family members. Terry dated on and off his 
girlfriend, Ellen.  She was the gal holding up the QSL card clear 
plastic holders he sold in his store.  Years later they married after 
both went through other marriagies.

Lee Bahr, w0vt



From grf at npgcable.com  Wed Jul  6 21:32:18 2016
From: grf at npgcable.com (Jerry France)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 18:32:18 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] re AES SK
In-Reply-To: <CAKs+UsnTMfLdGodnmHqEsenbx+NChKKBf8voW=QvtQ8uwyeLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <006f01d1d7e7$5823e660$086bb320$@com>
	<CAKs+UsnTMfLdGodnmHqEsenbx+NChKKBf8voW=QvtQ8uwyeLiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <37b2a65c-2674-790d-c1f0-e28fbd1ec7b0@npgcable.com>

I'll sure miss them here in Lake Havasu City, AZ....when ever I needed 
something in time before a contest weekend they were there for a quick 
in-time delivery....great, quick service.

Jerry

K7lY


On 7/6/2016 6:15 PM, Matthew King - KK4CPS wrote:
> I've been a ham for about 5 years now, and I've seen their website many
> times.
>
> I've never ordered from them as they've never been particularly competitive
> on price or shipping.
>
> I think in today's market of competing primarily on price with quality
> customer service being a given and not something that you "pay a little
> extra for", they were unwilling or unable to lower their prices. There's
> other retail pricing outlets (DX Engineering, HRO, etc...) that are still
> going strong (and growing, it seems) so I'm not sure what was different in
> their business model to prevent them from being able to persevere.
>
> It's always sad to see a company go by the wayside, to be sure.
>
> Best of luck to their employees!
>
> 73
>
> Matt
> KW4VY
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:34 PM, <john at kk9a.com> wrote:
>
>> Sad news. I do not recall seeing a catalog in a while. Many years ago while
>> living in Chicago I used to buy from the Milwaukee store frequently and I
>> would have the item(s) the next day.
>>
>> John KK9A
>>
>> From:   K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
>> Reply-to:       K7LXC at aol.com
>> Date:   Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:57:33 -0400
>>
>> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're closing the
>> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be one
>> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Steve     K7LXC
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From ki5dq at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  6 21:44:48 2016
From: ki5dq at yahoo.com (J. Hunt)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 01:44:48 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] re AES SK
References: <1069902018.3029426.1467855888484.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1069902018.3029426.1467855888484.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Very surprised and saddened to read AES SK.
My first transceiver, Yaesu Ft-101zd and gear was purchased from Milwaukee AES while I was a young teenager.

73,
James
ki5dq
(ka9fhf)
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 7/6/16, Jerry France <grf at npgcable.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] re AES SK
 To: towertalk at contesting.com
 Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016, 8:32 PM
 
 I'll sure miss them here in Lake Havasu City, AZ....when ever I needed  something in time before a contest weekend they
 were there for a quick  in-time delivery....great, quick service.
 
 Jerry
  K7lY
 
 
 On 7/6/2016
 6:15 PM, Matthew King - KK4CPS wrote:
 > I've been a ham for about 5 years now, and I've seen their website many times.
 >
 > I've never ordered from them as they've never been particularly competitive on price or shipping.
 >
 > I think in today's market of competing primarily on price with quality customer service being a given and not something that you "pay a little
 > extra for", they were unwilling or unable to lower their prices. There's other retail pricing outlets (DX Engineering, HRO, etc...) that are still
 > going strong (and growing, it seems) so I'm not sure what was different in their business model to prevent them from being able to
 persevere.
 >
 > It's always sad to see a company go by the wayside, to be sure.
 >
 > Best of luck to their employees!
 >
 > 73
 >
 > Matt
 > KW4VY
 >
 > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:34 PM, <john at kk9a.com> wrote:
 >
 >> Sad news. I do not recall seeing a catalog in a while. Many years ago while living in Chicago I used to buy from the Milwaukee store frequently and I would have the item(s) the next day.
 >>
 >> John
 KK9A
 >>
 >>
 From:???K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
 >> Reply-to:? ? ???K7LXC at aol.com
 >> Date:???Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:57:33 -0400
 >>
 >> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES? that they're closing the doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since? they used to be one of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently? stuff happens.
 >>
 >> Cheers,
 >> Steve? ???K7LXC
 >>
 >>
 _______________________________________________
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 _______________________________________________
 >> TowerTalk mailing list
 >> TowerTalk at contesting.com
 >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
 >>
 >

From wesattaway at bellsouth.net  Wed Jul  6 22:01:28 2016
From: wesattaway at bellsouth.net (Wes Attaway (N5WA))
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 21:01:28 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] re AES SK
In-Reply-To: <9867c141-d663-68d1-8cf8-c13f47020c19@w0vt.us>
References: <320E7A6D-73B1-4097-ACD1-80B419944FDC@ezoom.net>
	<9867c141-d663-68d1-8cf8-c13f47020c19@w0vt.us>
Message-ID: <213269EC1C5449F6895B624C6D5D732E@Office1>

Great historical context.  Thanks for the info.

   -------------------
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
   -------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Lee
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 8:22 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] re AES SK

I took my Novice test the same day Terry Sterman took his at the 
Milwaukee Court House back in 1953.  We were both very young teenagers.  
Terry became WN9DIA and I became WN9DRC.  Terry started his ham business 
on a card table in the back of his fathers appliance store in Fon du 
Lac, Wisconsin.  I bought a new Hallicrafters SX-96 from him in 1956 
before he had a store of his own.  When he opened his store at his first 
address in Milwaukee, he made Steve Puddyandy (sp?),  his store 
manager.  Steve's call was W9EAN.  He was a great guy.  Ray Granier 
(sp?) became his long time Service Manager.  Ray headed the service 
department for many years.  Terry also hired W9NHE (nice hot eggs) and 
he had a passion for printing.  So Terry made Ted Willett (sp?) his 
printing manager and they printed QSL cards and then branched out into 
commercial printing.  Later Terry upgraded his color printing presses 
and donated his old color printing equipment to The ARRL. That is how 
The ARRL got into printing QST into color..  Terry became very 
successful and I have many memories of him and the Fon du Lac yearly 
banquet he and I attended along with many other hams from Wisconsin.  
There is much more I could say but some things are best not told.  
Terry's life ended in a very sad way.  His business was carried on for 
many years with other family members. Terry dated on and off his 
girlfriend, Ellen.  She was the gal holding up the QSL card clear 
plastic holders he sold in his store.  Years later they married after 
both went through other marriagies.

Lee Bahr, w0vt


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From w9ac at arrl.net  Wed Jul  6 22:19:02 2016
From: w9ac at arrl.net (Paul Christensen)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:19:02 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] re AES SK
In-Reply-To: <9867c141-d663-68d1-8cf8-c13f47020c19@w0vt.us>
References: <320E7A6D-73B1-4097-ACD1-80B419944FDC@ezoom.net>
	<9867c141-d663-68d1-8cf8-c13f47020c19@w0vt.us>
Message-ID: <001d01d1d7f5$ee4e18f0$caea4ad0$@arrl.net>

>I took my Novice test the same day Terry Sterman took his at the Milwaukee
Court House back in 1953.  We were both very young teenagers.  

My OM, W9EAC would have just preceded you in 1947 while living on the south
side of Milwaukee.  My first recollection of the Milwaukee store on Fon du
Lac Avenue was at age 4 or 5.  It was a cold evening and I distinctly
remember my OM loading a large box into our 1959 Chevy Impala.  Years later,
after I was licensed, he told me what he purchased that night.  It was a
Knight-kit T-150A transmitter that he never did like -- mostly because of
problems with VFO drift and key clicks that he eventually solved.

Many more purchases through my teen years while living in Northern Illinois.
My last visit there was in 1978 when I purchased a Yaesu FT-101EE.  Between
these two events, I recall a very large selection of used equipment on the
shelves - National, Collins, Hammarlund, and endless Hallicrafters gear. 

This article may be of interest for those who remember the "King of
Traders.":

https://www.aesham.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/terrysterman.pdf

Paul, W9AC


From fishflorida at gmail.com  Wed Jul  6 22:51:14 2016
From: fishflorida at gmail.com (Mickey Baker)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:51:14 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] re AES SK
In-Reply-To: <001d01d1d7f5$ee4e18f0$caea4ad0$@arrl.net>
References: <320E7A6D-73B1-4097-ACD1-80B419944FDC@ezoom.net>
	<9867c141-d663-68d1-8cf8-c13f47020c19@w0vt.us>
	<001d01d1d7f5$ee4e18f0$caea4ad0$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <CAOB+T5Yh75RmTXQ7T-KBcDPtxSuFeT3qTfn4f3vWPEKio6D+pQ@mail.gmail.com>

Paul,

Thanks for posting the link to Terry Sterman's article. I remember my own
adolescence as busy, my time committed much of the time. My parents
encouraged this, to an extent. To this day, people ask me, "where do you
find the time..." The answer is in the article - form a plan, make good on
commitments and work.

Thank you AES. I've mail ordered from you for 45 years, in the early years
a postal money order in an envelope, but I must confess, as of late, my
favorite gear and accessories have come from direct manufacture purchases,
hamfests, and the remaining few local stores. I wish I had been a better
customer.

I'll miss visiting your store in Orlando and seeing the long train of folks
walking in with everything from crystal controlled 2m rigs to Wollensak
tape recorders, being assisted cordially with time and friendliness, and
walking out without buying anything. I remember a time when you could show
up and operate the finest gear available anywhere.

Terry and all, I wish you the best in whatever your plans are. If you
consider selling out, please choose a buyer who will care for amateur radio
the way that you have all these years.

Thanks for the memories and the equipment. I hope it has done you well.

73,

Mickey N4MB





Mickey Baker, N4MB
Palm Beach Gardens
*?Tell me, and I will listen. Show me, and I will understand. Involve me,
and I will learn.? *Teton Lakota, American Indian Saying.

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Paul Christensen <w9ac at arrl.net> wrote:

> >I took my Novice test the same day Terry Sterman took his at the Milwaukee
> Court House back in 1953.  We were both very young teenagers.
>
> My OM, W9EAC would have just preceded you in 1947 while living on the south
> side of Milwaukee.  My first recollection of the Milwaukee store on Fon du
> Lac Avenue was at age 4 or 5.  It was a cold evening and I distinctly
> remember my OM loading a large box into our 1959 Chevy Impala.  Years
> later,
> after I was licensed, he told me what he purchased that night.  It was a
> Knight-kit T-150A transmitter that he never did like -- mostly because of
> problems with VFO drift and key clicks that he eventually solved.
>
> Many more purchases through my teen years while living in Northern
> Illinois.
> My last visit there was in 1978 when I purchased a Yaesu FT-101EE.  Between
> these two events, I recall a very large selection of used equipment on the
> shelves - National, Collins, Hammarlund, and endless Hallicrafters gear.
>
> This article may be of interest for those who remember the "King of
> Traders.":
>
> https://www.aesham.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/terrysterman.pdf
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From k6uj at pacbell.net  Wed Jul  6 23:07:42 2016
From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Bob K6UJ)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:07:42 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] re AES SK
In-Reply-To: <001d01d1d7f5$ee4e18f0$caea4ad0$@arrl.net>
References: <320E7A6D-73B1-4097-ACD1-80B419944FDC@ezoom.net>
	<9867c141-d663-68d1-8cf8-c13f47020c19@w0vt.us>
	<001d01d1d7f5$ee4e18f0$caea4ad0$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <80bc56c7-6945-44e2-c2ab-07953e414cf7@pacbell.net>

Great memories you guys.  Thanks for sharing !

Bob
K6UJ



On 7/6/16 7:19 PM, Paul Christensen wrote:
>> I took my Novice test the same day Terry Sterman took his at the Milwaukee
> Court House back in 1953.  We were both very young teenagers.
>
> My OM, W9EAC would have just preceded you in 1947 while living on the south
> side of Milwaukee.  My first recollection of the Milwaukee store on Fon du
> Lac Avenue was at age 4 or 5.  It was a cold evening and I distinctly
> remember my OM loading a large box into our 1959 Chevy Impala.  Years later,
> after I was licensed, he told me what he purchased that night.  It was a
> Knight-kit T-150A transmitter that he never did like -- mostly because of
> problems with VFO drift and key clicks that he eventually solved.
>
> Many more purchases through my teen years while living in Northern Illinois.
> My last visit there was in 1978 when I purchased a Yaesu FT-101EE.  Between
> these two events, I recall a very large selection of used equipment on the
> shelves - National, Collins, Hammarlund, and endless Hallicrafters gear.
>
> This article may be of interest for those who remember the "King of
> Traders.":
>
> https://www.aesham.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/terrysterman.pdf
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From mryan001 at tampabay.rr.com  Wed Jul  6 23:36:39 2016
From: mryan001 at tampabay.rr.com (Mike Ryan)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 23:36:39 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Cable routing
In-Reply-To: <006e01d1d7e6$aa7d18b0$ff774a10$@com>
References: <006e01d1d7e6$aa7d18b0$ff774a10$@com>
Message-ID: <D3DC2C85BE374C80AB39144BC2B6194E@MichaelRyanPC>

I never use wire ties. I buy 12 gauge solid core insulated wire and use it 
instead. UV never bothers the copper. - Mike

-----Original Message----- 
From: john at kk9a.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 8:29 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Cable routing

I used to use Home Depot black ties for temporary antennas but in the last
few years it appears that the quality has worsened. I have had many break
when pulling them tight by hand and I'm certainly no powerhouse.  Many that
did stay on were broken shortly later.

John KK9A

Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 22
From: EZ Rhino <EZRhino at fastmovers.biz>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 15:47:22 -0600

There are cable ties, then there are Panduit!  Nearly everything in Home
Despot
or Blowe's are crap and deteriorate in the sun, even the black ones.
Panduit
are great, as well as some other brands as discussed here in the past.  And
yes, they cost more.

Chris
KF7P

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 


From k7mks at comcast.net  Thu Jul  7 00:10:37 2016
From: k7mks at comcast.net (k7mks at comcast.net)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 04:10:37 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <191554379.35725591.1467863643626.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1246510077.35731356.1467864637579.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>

While living/working in Waukegan in the mid-50's it was a treat to browse thru the AES store in Milwaukee. Thanks to the staff who always took time to answer questions or show the latest offerings. You will be missed. Joe k7mks 

From pvjoe at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  7 00:26:18 2016
From: pvjoe at yahoo.com (Joe)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 04:26:18 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] (no subject)
References: <1374462353.3016136.1467865578044.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1374462353.3016136.1467865578044.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Thanks Lee for your nostalgic comments...I too go way back with AES and Terry Sterman/Stermin ?(in particular)...I too ordered from them in the mid '50's from just down the road in SE LA.....in my early days while in High School and College growing up on a lil farm therejust East of Baton Rouge and North of New Orleans... ?It was remarkable times back then too...
Sorry to hear of Terry's difficulties too.....
Sorry to hear of their going out of business as well...
73 all
Joe ?K5KT

From fredkeen at ymail.com  Thu Jul  7 00:33:06 2016
From: fredkeen at ymail.com (Fred Keen)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 04:33:06 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] FS: Force12 MAG620340N 3ele40m/6ele20M yagi
In-Reply-To: <20160706152511.F0406AC8198@mx.contesting.com>
References: <20160706152511.F0406AC8198@mx.contesting.com>
Message-ID: <213394682.3067679.1467865986076.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

As a footnote Bill, I ordered a Force12 6BA yagi in August last year, it was shipped in early June.Missing the boom to mast plate, which has yet to arrive. Also ordered an 80 meter rotatable dipole last August, it has yet to ship,,, Communication with Mr. Hein is,,,. 

FredKC5YN 

    On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10:25 AM, Bill Cotter <n4lg at qx.net> wrote:
 

 
Greetings,

I have for sale a new-in-crate, unused Force12 MAG620/340N antenna.
This is MONSTER 6ele on 20M and 3ele on 40M on the same 47ft boom.
It requires a tower such as Rohn-45/55, and a healthy rotor such as
a prop pitch unit. The present-day cost for this antenna is quoted 
at $6,710 plus up to $500 shipping.

Pictures and manual summary
http://web.qx.net/bcotter/forsale/MAG620340N/

I ordered this from Force12 several years ago in the spring and it 
took almost 24mo to get it to my door. Between the production 
efforts, material supply issues and other problems, and the 
continuous delays, I opted for other antennas. I ended up using a 
4ele20M 36ft boom and a 4-square on 40M.

I have this unassembled antenna kit (crate is 150" x 25" x 25" and
350lbs) in my garage. The 47ft boom starts out 6" dia, tapers to 5"
and finally tapers to 3". The mast plate (actually a cradle) is
made from 18" x 18" x 1/2" aluminum, and all the elements are very
heavy duty (N=100mph). The up-the-tower weight is stated to be
250lbs, but may be slightly more.

My preference, for obvious reasons, is to sell it pickup-locally.
However, If you wish to use a freight carrier, I am good with a
prepaid shipment. I am located in Nicholasville, KY outside of
Lexington.

$3,500 (plus shipping, needed)

73 Bill N4LG
(859)552-7481


http://www.force12inc.com/products/magnum-340-620-interlaced-full-size-3-element-40-6-element-20-meter-yagi-beam.html

SPECS:

Antenna MAG 620/340
Boom Lngth 47'
Wind Load 18.5
Frequency in MHz 14.000-14.350
Net Gain @74'1 13.6dBd
F/B Ratio 23db
VSWR (max) <1.4:1
Frequency in MHz 7.000-7.300
Net Gain @74' 5.1dbd
F/B Ratio 22db
VSWR (max) 270kHz (2:1)
Turning Radius 30.2'
Wt. 230lbs (N=255lbs)
Mast Torque <1200in/lb
MAG620/340 - 6ele 20, 3ele 40, 2 band Yagi, 2 feed lines, 44' boom
$5,749







_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


   

From sawyered at earthlink.net  Thu Jul  7 06:16:08 2016
From: sawyered at earthlink.net (Ed Sawyer)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 06:16:08 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
Message-ID: <001001d1d838$9481d580$bd858080$@earthlink.net>

I used AES many, many times over the years but they never had a local store
where I lived.  I think that it's a case of the Internet killing a brick and
mortar store that didn't adapt well.

 

HRO and DX Engineering have a much better store and internet model.  

 

I have an HRO store within a next day UPS Ground circle of my QTH and its
free shipping over $100.  I just pool up my needs and place the order when
its over $100.

 

I do remember going through the store in OH on a number of occasions that I
was in the area on business.  The used equipment shelves - pre internet -
were second to none.  Now, most of that business is done on line between
parties.

 

A piece of history that is respected in my opinion but I can't say that I am
surprised given the competition.

 

Ed  N1UR


From Chuck.Gooden at comcast.net  Thu Jul  7 07:21:13 2016
From: Chuck.Gooden at comcast.net (Chuck Gooden)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 06:21:13 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <442c66.57724efc.44aed8cd@aol.com>
References: <442c66.57724efc.44aed8cd@aol.com>
Message-ID: <819fd449-d2a2-1fb4-317f-cc17d1cf681c@comcast.net>


I would of expected that, the company would be up for sale to someone 
that would be interested in keeping ham radio alive.  So I am waiting 
until I see an official notice.

Chuck Gooden N9QBT


On 7/6/2016 4:57 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're closing the
> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be one
> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>   
> Cheers,
> Steve     K7LXC
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From john at kk9a.com  Thu Jul  7 07:39:16 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 07:39:16 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
Message-ID: <d9895a23c3c62dc7324b7b20310ee5ad.squirrel@www11.qth.com>

I guess the days of going to the store and turning the knobs of various
transceivers is over. I have been to the AES Milwaukee store a number of
times even before I had a license. I picked up my first tribander and
transceiver there. One nice thing about AES was that they also repaired
radios and you could trade yours in for a different model. In recent years
I have infrequently ordered from AES. Other companies like HRO and DX
Engineering have excellent pricing, easy to use websites and in some cases
free shipping. DX Engineering has free shipping on many items if your
order is over $99 and in my experience their customer service has been
outstanding.

John KK9A


To:	<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject:	Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK
From:	"Ed Sawyer" <sawyered at earthlink.net>
Reply-to:	sawyered at earthlink.net
Date:	Thu, 7 Jul 2016 06:16:08 -0400

I used AES many, many times over the years but they never had a local store
where I lived.  I think that it's a case of the Internet killing a brick and
mortar store that didn't adapt well.



HRO and DX Engineering have a much better store and internet model.



I have an HRO store within a next day UPS Ground circle of my QTH and its
free shipping over $100.  I just pool up my needs and place the order when
its over $100.



I do remember going through the store in OH on a number of occasions that I
was in the area on business.  The used equipment shelves - pre internet -
were second to none.  Now, most of that business is done on line between
parties.



A piece of history that is respected in my opinion but I can't say that I am
surprised given the competition.



Ed  N1UR


From bigdon39 at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 08:15:12 2016
From: bigdon39 at gmail.com (Big Don)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 05:15:12 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <001001d1d838$9481d580$bd858080$@earthlink.net>
References: <001001d1d838$9481d580$bd858080$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CAKzjVf=_mxL-JWaKi-Cyyd=XgCUVLP4U+PLZXG7vy4bROBnRpQ@mail.gmail.com>

Geezerz are croaking, shortage of new blood, and not that much business to
go around...
also $30 Baofengs etc.direct from Amazon....
Don   N7EF

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:16 AM, Ed Sawyer <sawyered at earthlink.net> wrote:

> I used AES many, many times over the years but they never had a local store
> where I lived.  I think that it's a case of the Internet killing a brick
> and
> mortar store that didn't adapt well.
>
>
>
> HRO and DX Engineering have a much better store and internet model.
>
>
>
> I have an HRO store within a next day UPS Ground circle of my QTH and its
> free shipping over $100.  I just pool up my needs and place the order when
> its over $100.
>
>
>
> I do remember going through the store in OH on a number of occasions that I
> was in the area on business.  The used equipment shelves - pre internet -
> were second to none.  Now, most of that business is done on line between
> parties.
>
>
>
> A piece of history that is respected in my opinion but I can't say that I
> am
> surprised given the competition.
>
>
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From thompson at mindspring.com  Thu Jul  7 08:30:12 2016
From: thompson at mindspring.com (Dave Thompson)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:30:12 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
Message-ID: <12829111.1467894612619.JavaMail.wam@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

This is bad news for the amateur radio community.  I remember when the outside firm bought AES in about 1995. Remember, ham radio is not a big market and I am surprised that HRO has done so well.

Back when I got started in 1956 I bought my first receiver from Bob Henry in Butler, MO.  I bought a used Henry 2K from Bob in 1969 that belonged to Cam Pierce W5HJT later W6PU. By 1969
AES had come on the scene to replace WRL as the top amateur radio dealer. My friend Bryan was running Edwards Electronics (W5KFT) and I had bought my Drake line from him. Bob Henry was one of the Henry brothers to run stores in CA and MO.  I visited Harrison Radio in NYC and Bil even tried to open a store in Atlanta in the mid 1970's. Soon all of these dealers were out of business altho Leo at WRL tried to turn over his firm to his son.

Many of the dealers ran the amateur radio portion as just a part of their business. In the South, Ack Radio (Birmingham, Atlanta) was mostly a commercial electronics business.  Ack is still in business but no longer in anything but the parts business. They even tried the internet to sell their old tube and amateur parts recently.

There seems to be several new amateur radio stores opening or expanding every year. Mot live off telephone or internet sales but do try to maintain a store front. HRO is the most successful store front but I used to visit AES Orlando.  One visit I met TI2WD who was one of my first Costa Rica contacts. Steve W9EAN also worked at the Orlando store after retirement from Milwaukee.

RIP AES

Dave K4JRB 

>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From ve4xt at mymts.net  Tue Jul  5 12:37:18 2016
From: ve4xt at mymts.net (Kelly Taylor)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:37:18 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Can type 31 cores be cut in half ?
In-Reply-To: <f218986f-735c-5b79-f2be-3854c31f3ae1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <E0DA83DB1AC94B6EB429290AE03FB0D4@JimPC>
	<577BBD07.2080701@pacbell.net>
	<f218986f-735c-5b79-f2be-3854c31f3ae1@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <75CE0D33-0988-49B8-9342-2DBDBC60067E@mymts.net>


>   The only hazard I can think of is the ferrite cores cracking from freeze-thaw cycles.
> 

Which would also occur inside an unheated enclosure, anyway. 

> 73, Jim K9YC
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From xx9tnh at gmail.com  Tue Jul  5 16:30:18 2016
From: xx9tnh at gmail.com (Luis Teixeira)
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 21:30:18 +0100
Subject: [TowerTalk] Help with TH2MK3 BETA MATCH dimensions
Message-ID: <CAJtGpzYJmD4ydWKzmQxCHHG+m_WobvkUQvrw5y+96+zZqoTqeQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi guys,

I'm restoring one old TH2MK3 Hygain antenna but I dont have the beta match,
so if someone has the exact dimensions of it and its configuration (I have
the antenna manual) I would appreciate very much. Looked around but no way
to find the dimensions (including the aluminium wire diameter).
Any help would be very much appreciated
Thanks and best 73 de CT4NH

From pstark at suddenlink.net  Wed Jul  6 18:24:36 2016
From: pstark at suddenlink.net (Pete Stark)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 18:24:36 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <CAC5FBO-ZJd0FdzfyOGe3fZnMUR=nYh8BFO2F=2iW42gL-ZEzGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <442c66.57724efc.44aed8cd@aol.com>
	<CAC5FBO-ZJd0FdzfyOGe3fZnMUR=nYh8BFO2F=2iW42gL-ZEzGA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e66185d3-0853-df1a-8a4e-c2aa8248ae35@suddenlink.net>

http://www.dxzone.com/aes-amateur-electronic-supply-going-out-of-business/



K4OM



On 7/6/2016 6:10 PM, Richard Solomon wrote:
> Interesting ... their Web Page is still
> up and active. Nothing mentioned
> on it.
>
> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:57 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <
> towertalk at contesting.com> wrote:
>
>> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're closing the
>> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be one
>> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Steve     K7LXC
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-- 

From k0son at frontiernet.net  Thu Jul  7 09:09:06 2016
From: k0son at frontiernet.net (Bruce Jungwirth)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:09:06 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Help with TH2MK3 BETA MATCH dimensions
In-Reply-To: <CAJtGpzYJmD4ydWKzmQxCHHG+m_WobvkUQvrw5y+96+zZqoTqeQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJtGpzYJmD4ydWKzmQxCHHG+m_WobvkUQvrw5y+96+zZqoTqeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <96F5E347-7163-4C08-B9E0-F1E09BBC165A@frontiernet.net>

You could contact Hy-Gain (MFJ) it is still a current model.

Bruce, K0son

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 5, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Luis Teixeira <xx9tnh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm restoring one old TH2MK3 Hygain antenna but I dont have the beta match,
> so if someone has the exact dimensions of it and its configuration (I have
> the antenna manual) I would appreciate very much. Looked around but no way
> to find the dimensions (including the aluminium wire diameter).
> Any help would be very much appreciated
> Thanks and best 73 de CT4NH
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From w4nz at comcast.net  Thu Jul  7 10:45:07 2016
From: w4nz at comcast.net (Ted Bryant)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:45:07 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Help with TH2MK3 BETA MATCH dimensions
In-Reply-To: <96F5E347-7163-4C08-B9E0-F1E09BBC165A@frontiernet.net>
References: <CAJtGpzYJmD4ydWKzmQxCHHG+m_WobvkUQvrw5y+96+zZqoTqeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<96F5E347-7163-4C08-B9E0-F1E09BBC165A@frontiernet.net>
Message-ID: <005701d1d85e$288204b0$79860e10$@comcast.net>

You can download the TH2MK3 manual here:

<http://www.hy-gain.com/support.php>


73, Ted W4NZ


-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Jungwirth
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 9:09 AM
To: Luis Teixeira
Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Help with TH2MK3 BETA MATCH dimensions

You could contact Hy-Gain (MFJ) it is still a current model.

Bruce, K0son

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 5, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Luis Teixeira <xx9tnh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm restoring one old TH2MK3 Hygain antenna but I dont have the beta 
> match, so if someone has the exact dimensions of it and its 
> configuration (I have the antenna manual) I would appreciate very 
> much. Looked around but no way to find the dimensions (including the
aluminium wire diameter).
> Any help would be very much appreciated Thanks and best 73 de CT4NH 
> _______________________________________________


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Thu Jul  7 10:47:55 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:47:55 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <001001d1d838$9481d580$bd858080$@earthlink.net>
References: <001001d1d838$9481d580$bd858080$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <6e4f8b40-6fd9-0cfb-b50e-09b4dc588c2f@tm.net>

I used AES quite a few times over the years, but mainly small ticket items.

The Internet didn't kill them as when properly used it can increase 
market share while decreasing handling costs as well as overhead., but 
it does require proper organization of shipping and advertising along 
with the mindset to use it..  It's "little different" than mail order 
business.

Even once large, major, prosperous chains with an Internet presence are 
slimming down.  Our town, which rode the economy well, losing few jobs 
has seen a number of large chain stores close with more major store 
closings on the way.  There are, after all, over 90 million Americans 
out of work, rather than the few percent the unemployment figures show.  
Recent mergers of major manufacturing companies WILL end up costing 
thousands of manufacturing and middle management jobs here and in the 
companies involved in the mergers as duplication of services and 
unprofitable ventures are spun off.

Methods for figuring cost of living and unemployment numbers have been 
adjusted many times over the past few decades to make the numbers look 
good.  Both are far higher than the actual numbers given would indicate.

People are finally starting to plan ahead, with the likelihood of the 
dollar losing its place as the international standard bringing the 
potential of greatly increased costs.  Easy credit allowing the young to 
run up huge debt they can't afford for college they don't need and 
aren't suited for, removes a whole generation (or two) from the customer 
chain.

The last couple of generations seem to have lacked any semblance of 
financial knowledge, or planning ability. Huge college loans that their 
chosen fields can never pay back. I was 47 before I figured I could 
afford college. Buying on credit can easily double the cost of items, 
removing a great deal of cash from discretionary spending.  Easy credit 
was "supposed to" increase spending and it did until the huge increase 
in costs due to interest came due.  How many would take out loans for 
18% (or more) when loans are available for a few %, but that's exactly 
what they do when carrying a balance on credit cards

Amateur Radio has always been a niche market that required effort to 
reach.  "In general" the last two generations want it now, instead of 
doing things that require both mental and physical effort.

The lack of desire, ambition, curiosity, and money have hurt Amateur 
Radio from the number of new Hams joining, to equipment available, while 
the cost of quality rigs is in an ever upward spiral.

Gone are the days of substantial inventories of high ticket Ham 
Equipment. Just-in-time supply chains work for some products and not 
others.  Once big name manufacturers  have closed their doors, or have 
been gobbled up, for pennies on the dollar for companies that want the names

I predict that antenna lines with long delivery times, days are 
numbered. People will settle for less instead of waiting.for quality, 
causing more companies to shut their doors.

Let's face it. "Most Hams are cheap"! Otherwise, why would so much 
"CHEAP" stuff sell at swaps? Only the major swaps and swaps near large 
cities draw full line vendors.  In the 70s a vendor could load up and 
sell nearly everything at a swap.   You could make good money at swaps!  
Times have changed!

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/7/2016 Thursday 6:16 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
> I used AES many, many times over the years but they never had a local store
> where I lived.  I think that it's a case of the Internet killing a brick and
> mortar store that didn't adapt well.
>
>   
>
> HRO and DX Engineering have a much better store and internet model.
>
>   
>
> I have an HRO store within a next day UPS Ground circle of my QTH and its
> free shipping over $100.  I just pool up my needs and place the order when
> its over $100.
>
>   
>
> I do remember going through the store in OH on a number of occasions that I
> was in the area on business.  The used equipment shelves - pre internet -
> were second to none.  Now, most of that business is done on line between
> parties.
>
>   
>
> A piece of history that is respected in my opinion but I can't say that I am
> surprised given the competition.
>
>   
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From nv8a at charter.net  Thu Jul  7 11:24:15 2016
From: nv8a at charter.net (Alan NV8A)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 11:24:15 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <819fd449-d2a2-1fb4-317f-cc17d1cf681c@comcast.net>
References: <442c66.57724efc.44aed8cd@aol.com>
	<819fd449-d2a2-1fb4-317f-cc17d1cf681c@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <39fbaa40-8c04-0bc1-3b02-c23bca94145c@charter.net>

I have been surprised at the number of local businesses that are simply 
shut down when the owner decides to retire: they have a "going out of 
business sale," and that's it. I would have expected them to sell the 
business -- with its "good will" -- as a going concern.

73

Alan NV8A


On 07/07/2016 07:21 AM, Chuck Gooden wrote:
>
> I would of expected that, the company would be up for sale to someone
> that would be interested in keeping ham radio alive.  So I am waiting
> until I see an official notice.
>
> Chuck Gooden N9QBT
>
>
> On 7/6/2016 4:57 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're
>> closing the
>> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be one
>> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.




From scottw3tx at verizon.net  Thu Jul  7 11:43:34 2016
From: scottw3tx at verizon.net (ScottW3TX)
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:43:34 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <39fbaa40-8c04-0bc1-3b02-c23bca94145c@charter.net>
Message-ID: <D3A3EDC9.3B605%scottw3tx@verizon.net>

Most brick and mortar stores run on very thin profit margins that are
getting squeezed smaller and smaller in this new economy shift. Costs
(especially health insurance, regulatory, and base services to keep the
doors open), are going up at 8 to 12% per year. Meanwhile competition does
not allow for the final seller of products or service to raise prices.
There are no longer excess profits in smaller businesses to fund owner and
employee retirement plans. Therefore there is rarely any "goodwill" or
"blue-sky" value in the sale. Just inventory (if it is sellable) and real
estate.

The bigger picture is what will happen to amateur radio sales companies?
The trend is that the smaller, niche companies are either closing down or
selling to the two dominant buyers.

Is such consolidation good for the future of amateur radio?

What happens when MFJ or DXE go up for sale?  Most likely the only
potential buyers will be publicly traded companies that have less interest
in the customer than the current stake-holders that are active amateur
radio operators themselves.  And will there even be a buy when one factors
in the demographics?

When I took my 13 year old son to the DX Dinner at Dayton this year he was
probably the youngest person there. I was probably the second youngest
(49).  

Unless amateur radio quickly and effectively figures out how to connect
itself into the STEM and Programming wave I fear that Nathan and I will be
the only guys at the DX Dinner someday.

At least he and I will have darn good antennas :)

73, Scott W3TX



On 7/7/16 11:24 AM, "Alan NV8A" <nv8a at charter.net> wrote:

>I have been surprised at the number of local businesses that are simply
>shut down when the owner decides to retire: they have a "going out of
>business sale," and that's it. I would have expected them to sell the
>business -- with its "good will" -- as a going concern.
>
>73
>
>Alan NV8A
>
>
>On 07/07/2016 07:21 AM, Chuck Gooden wrote:
>>
>> I would of expected that, the company would be up for sale to someone
>> that would be interested in keeping ham radio alive.  So I am waiting
>> until I see an official notice.
>>
>> Chuck Gooden N9QBT
>>
>>
>> On 7/6/2016 4:57 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>>> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're
>>> closing the
>>> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be
>>>one
>>> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



From K7LXC at aol.com  Thu Jul  7 12:28:34 2016
From: K7LXC at aol.com (K7LXC at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:28:34 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
Message-ID: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>

>    There are, after all, over 90 million Americans out  of work,
 
    Whoa! Would you please cite where you got this  info? Methinks that 
would have to include infants and students to reach that  number.
 
Cheers,
Steve     K7LXC
 
 

From j_hector_garcia at sbcglobal.net  Thu Jul  7 12:32:02 2016
From: j_hector_garcia at sbcglobal.net (Hector Garcia,XE2K)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:32:02 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] ORION 2300 Rotator Help
References: <196488540.386846.1467909122040.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <196488540.386846.1467909122040.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Hi GuysI got a OR-2300 in very good shape and is running but ?no control boxbut I will like to know the cable configuration ?from the POTthere are 3 cables from the POT that I need to ID.
A manual photo also can be great of this part.?J.Hector Garcia ?XE2K / AD6D
 Mexicali B.C DM22fp / El Centro
P.O.Box 73 
El Centro CA 92244-0073
USA
http://xe2k.net
Tweeter @XE2K


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Thu Jul  7 12:33:18 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 09:33:18 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <D3A3EDC9.3B605%scottw3tx@verizon.net>
References: <D3A3EDC9.3B605%scottw3tx@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <635864e4-1990-2ea1-e6bc-db66e04acb5d@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Thu,7/7/2016 8:43 AM, ScottW3TX wrote:
> The bigger picture is what will happen to amateur radio sales companies?
> The trend is that the smaller, niche companies are either closing down or
> selling to the two dominant buyers.

To me, the only value added by retail ham stores is the opportunity they 
provide to actually use a radio on the air, and that is only available 
to hams who live close enough to visit them. The Sunnyvale HRO store, 
the only ham store I've visited in the last 30 years, has a such a 
station, and there are often hams hanging out there chewing the rag.

I strongly prefer the direct sale policy adopted by Elecraft, Ten Tec, 
Flex, DX Engineering, and a handful of smaller vendors. Elecraft has a 
reputation for great support, so did Ten Tec until it went through 
several sales and appears to be returning to that good reputation with 
their new owner. I've had good service from DX Engineering on the few of 
their products I own. I don't know anything about Flex in that regard.

When hams are looking for service on radios sold by the box stores, the 
recommendation is always to an individual ham or small service shop. 
I've yet to see a recommendation for sending the rig to the box store 
for repair.

73, Jim K9YC


From n1mmtomwagner at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 12:38:28 2016
From: n1mmtomwagner at gmail.com (Tom)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:38:28 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
References: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4d58cfdd-0596-9953-f829-1a7e16bd0897@gmail.com>

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm

They are not out of work, they are not working.

The disturbing chart is this one:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Change the start date to get a larger historical perspective.

Unemployment rate does not include those who have given up on finding work.

73,

Tom - N1MM


On 7/7/2016 12:28 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>>     There are, after all, over 90 million Americans out  of work,
>   
>      Whoa! Would you please cite where you got this  info? Methinks that
> would have to include infants and students to reach that  number.
>   
> Cheers,
> Steve     K7LXC
>   
>   
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From lovewell at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 12:45:43 2016
From: lovewell at gmail.com (Matt Lovewell)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 11:45:43 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Optibeam or Force12
Message-ID: <CANXoCJdUUpKQw7uLoWFC+h_-EFo=QvwdAW_bvCcPP79dZ-uxSg@mail.gmail.com>

Simple question I think.

I'll be going large from 10-40 across two beams and actually prefer some of
Opti-beam's larger offerings to the force 12 offerings on the higher bands
(more elements).  I have had nice discussions so far with the staff at
force 12 but I've heard of tale of lead times being very long and
incomplete order fulfillment - and with the Euro down in the dumps the
Opti-beam is less expensive, even freighted from Germany.

I'd like to know your take on their overall product quality/service.

I know in this tight knit community that people may be afraid to speak out
if they had a problem with a company so feel free to respond off list in
absolute confidence that I would never breathe a word of your e-mail to
anyone.

Thank you,

Matt Lovewell
W0MLD

From lists at subich.com  Thu Jul  7 13:06:39 2016
From: lists at subich.com (Joe Subich, W4TV)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:06:39 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <39fbaa40-8c04-0bc1-3b02-c23bca94145c@charter.net>
References: <442c66.57724efc.44aed8cd@aol.com>
	<819fd449-d2a2-1fb4-317f-cc17d1cf681c@comcast.net>
	<39fbaa40-8c04-0bc1-3b02-c23bca94145c@charter.net>
Message-ID: <bb091d34-7a88-6329-9c78-0de9d9c44a69@subich.com>

On 7/7/2016 11:24 AM, Alan NV8A wrote:
> I would have expected them to sell the business -- with its "good
> will" -- as a going concern.

Unfortunately, there is little value in "good will" for small
businesses these days.  The truth is that the liquidation value of
inventory, receivables and physical assets (real estate, plant,
equipment, etc.) is often higher that the value of the business as a
"going concern" thanks to all the regulations and red tape faced
by small businesses.

I could go through multiple business valuation models but in most small
(sole proprietorships, "S" corporations) businesses there is little if
any "profit" above the "owners wages" - therefore little "good will"
value.  Again, any accumulated profits are found in inventory, real
estate and receivables.  It is often as easy to liquidate than find a
buyer who can pony up the cash to purchase the business and then cover
both debt service and "owner's wages" just to break even.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV

On 7/7/2016 11:24 AM, Alan NV8A wrote:
> I have been surprised at the number of local businesses that are simply
> shut down when the owner decides to retire: they have a "going out of
> business sale," and that's it. I would have expected them to sell the
> business -- with its "good will" -- as a going concern.
>
> 73
>
> Alan NV8A
>
>
> On 07/07/2016 07:21 AM, Chuck Gooden wrote:
>>
>> I would of expected that, the company would be up for sale to someone
>> that would be interested in keeping ham radio alive.  So I am waiting
>> until I see an official notice.
>>
>> Chuck Gooden N9QBT
>>
>>
>> On 7/6/2016 4:57 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>>> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're
>>> closing the
>>> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be
>>> one
>>> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From wmfreddycurtis at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 13:07:16 2016
From: wmfreddycurtis at gmail.com (Freddy Curtis)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:07:16 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Optibeam or Force12
In-Reply-To: <CANXoCJdUUpKQw7uLoWFC+h_-EFo=QvwdAW_bvCcPP79dZ-uxSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANXoCJdUUpKQw7uLoWFC+h_-EFo=QvwdAW_bvCcPP79dZ-uxSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADmi85iU5NPVbpt0gd49Sg3DxVR=V=ogSed-oejWhGvU5L8wFQ@mail.gmail.com>

Matt,
Have you considered JK Antennas?  Check them out at Jkantennas.com. Ken'
Garg's antennas are top-quality and excellent value. I am assembling two of
his products (Navassa 5 & JK3040 currently. Just a friendly suggestion from
a fellow amateur radio operator.

73's,
Freddy Curtis - W4WFC


On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Matt Lovewell <lovewell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Simple question I think.
>
> I'll be going large from 10-40 across two beams and actually prefer some of
> Opti-beam's larger offerings to the force 12 offerings on the higher bands
> (more elements).  I have had nice discussions so far with the staff at
> force 12 but I've heard of tale of lead times being very long and
> incomplete order fulfillment - and with the Euro down in the dumps the
> Opti-beam is less expensive, even freighted from Germany.
>
> I'd like to know your take on their overall product quality/service.
>
> I know in this tight knit community that people may be afraid to speak out
> if they had a problem with a company so feel free to respond off list in
> absolute confidence that I would never breathe a word of your e-mail to
> anyone.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Matt Lovewell
> W0MLD
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>



-- 
*William Freddy Curtis*
*288 Dogwood Circle*
*Smithville, TN  37166-2712*
*Home: 615-597-9563  Cell: 615-691-1538*
*E-Mail = wmfreddycurtis at gmail.com <wmfreddycurtis at gmail.com>*

From john at kk9a.com  Thu Jul  7 13:22:11 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:22:11 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Optibeam or Force12
Message-ID: <10c78bcc5ab00f416b1084aea237e0bb.squirrel@www11.qth.com>

I have purchased two 40m beams from OptiBeam. DF2BO is extremely
responsive and helpful. Tom is a very knowledgeable designer and if you
follow his installation recommendations you will have little interaction
issues and the antennas will perform very well.  There are many models to
pick from including single beams that cover 10m-40m. The elements are
predrilled and assembly is pretty easy with no measuring needed. Optibeam
uses a check sheet to ensure that all of the parts are included.  I did
not experience any missing parts for assembly problems and I found DF2BO
to be most helpful.

John KK9A



To:	towertalk at contesting.com
Subject:	[TowerTalk] Optibeam or Force12
From:	Matt Lovewell <lovewell at gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Jul 2016 11:45:43 -0500


Simple question I think.

I'll be going large from 10-40 across two beams and actually prefer some of
Opti-beam's larger offerings to the force 12 offerings on the higher bands
(more elements).  I have had nice discussions so far with the staff at
force 12 but I've heard of tale of lead times being very long and
incomplete order fulfillment - and with the Euro down in the dumps the
Opti-beam is less expensive, even freighted from Germany.

I'd like to know your take on their overall product quality/service.

I know in this tight knit community that people may be afraid to speak out
if they had a problem with a company so feel free to respond off list in
absolute confidence that I would never breathe a word of your e-mail to
anyone.

Thank you,

Matt Lovewell
W0MLD


From lovewell at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 13:59:20 2016
From: lovewell at gmail.com (Matt Lovewell)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:59:20 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Optibeam or Force12
In-Reply-To: <10c78bcc5ab00f416b1084aea237e0bb.squirrel@www11.qth.com>
References: <10c78bcc5ab00f416b1084aea237e0bb.squirrel@www11.qth.com>
Message-ID: <C76EA7C2-01EA-49A9-BED1-ECD07A303707@gmail.com>

Thanks John.  That is the impression i have so far of optibeam.  Perfect fit, everything accounted for.

> On Jul 7, 2016, at 12:22 PM, "john at kk9a.com" <john at kk9a.com> wrote:
> 
> I have purchased two 40m beams from OptiBeam. DF2BO is extremely
> responsive and helpful. Tom is a very knowledgeable designer and if you
> follow his installation recommendations you will have little interaction
> issues and the antennas will perform very well.  There are many models to
> pick from including single beams that cover 10m-40m. The elements are
> predrilled and assembly is pretty easy with no measuring needed. Optibeam
> uses a check sheet to ensure that all of the parts are included.  I did
> not experience any missing parts for assembly problems and I found DF2BO
> to be most helpful.
> 
> John KK9A
> 
> 
> 
> To:    towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject:    [TowerTalk] Optibeam or Force12
> From:    Matt Lovewell <lovewell at gmail.com>
> Date:    Thu, 7 Jul 2016 11:45:43 -0500
> 
> 
> Simple question I think.
> 
> I'll be going large from 10-40 across two beams and actually prefer some of
> Opti-beam's larger offerings to the force 12 offerings on the higher bands
> (more elements).  I have had nice discussions so far with the staff at
> force 12 but I've heard of tale of lead times being very long and
> incomplete order fulfillment - and with the Euro down in the dumps the
> Opti-beam is less expensive, even freighted from Germany.
> 
> I'd like to know your take on their overall product quality/service.
> 
> I know in this tight knit community that people may be afraid to speak out
> if they had a problem with a company so feel free to respond off list in
> absolute confidence that I would never breathe a word of your e-mail to
> anyone.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Matt Lovewell
> W0MLD
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From w5prchuck at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 15:31:47 2016
From: w5prchuck at gmail.com (Chuck Dietz)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:31:47 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
References: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
Message-ID: <CAOk0j19ADiBv5UZ+x40W4SN4k3so6jkFN+AWi0EozmvYYM5XMw@mail.gmail.com>

Out of the *93.8 million* Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in
the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age.
Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and
over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)

Chuck W5PR

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:28 AM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <
towertalk at contesting.com> wrote:

> >    There are, after all, over 90 million Americans out  of work,
>
>     Whoa! Would you please cite where you got this  info? Methinks that
> would have to include infants and students to reach that  number.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve     K7LXC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From balmemo at sympatico.ca  Thu Jul  7 15:52:27 2016
From: balmemo at sympatico.ca (Bert Almemo)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:52:27 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <6e4f8b40-6fd9-0cfb-b50e-09b4dc588c2f@tm.net>
Message-ID: <20160707195225.FJFN28039.mtlspm02.bell.net@BertofficePC>

Hi guys,

I was surprised when I read Roger's statement about US unemployment but here
is the proof  http://www.wethepeopleoftheus.org/true-us-unemployment-rate/

I guess it depends how you look at it but politicians tend to skew the
figures a little or a lot depending on which side they're on. ;-)

73 Bert, VE3NR



-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Roger
(K8RI) on TT
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 10:48 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

I used AES quite a few times over the years, but mainly small ticket items.

The Internet didn't kill them as when properly used it can increase 
market share while decreasing handling costs as well as overhead., but 
it does require proper organization of shipping and advertising along 
with the mindset to use it..  It's "little different" than mail order 
business.

Even once large, major, prosperous chains with an Internet presence are 
slimming down.  Our town, which rode the economy well, losing few jobs 
has seen a number of large chain stores close with more major store 
closings on the way.  There are, after all, over 90 million Americans 
out of work, rather than the few percent the unemployment figures show.  
Recent mergers of major manufacturing companies WILL end up costing 
thousands of manufacturing and middle management jobs here and in the 
companies involved in the mergers as duplication of services and 
unprofitable ventures are spun off.

Methods for figuring cost of living and unemployment numbers have been 
adjusted many times over the past few decades to make the numbers look 
good.  Both are far higher than the actual numbers given would indicate.

People are finally starting to plan ahead, with the likelihood of the 
dollar losing its place as the international standard bringing the 
potential of greatly increased costs.  Easy credit allowing the young to 
run up huge debt they can't afford for college they don't need and 
aren't suited for, removes a whole generation (or two) from the customer 
chain.

The last couple of generations seem to have lacked any semblance of 
financial knowledge, or planning ability. Huge college loans that their 
chosen fields can never pay back. I was 47 before I figured I could 
afford college. Buying on credit can easily double the cost of items, 
removing a great deal of cash from discretionary spending.  Easy credit 
was "supposed to" increase spending and it did until the huge increase 
in costs due to interest came due.  How many would take out loans for 
18% (or more) when loans are available for a few %, but that's exactly 
what they do when carrying a balance on credit cards

Amateur Radio has always been a niche market that required effort to 
reach.  "In general" the last two generations want it now, instead of 
doing things that require both mental and physical effort.

The lack of desire, ambition, curiosity, and money have hurt Amateur 
Radio from the number of new Hams joining, to equipment available, while 
the cost of quality rigs is in an ever upward spiral.

Gone are the days of substantial inventories of high ticket Ham 
Equipment. Just-in-time supply chains work for some products and not 
others.  Once big name manufacturers  have closed their doors, or have 
been gobbled up, for pennies on the dollar for companies that want the names

I predict that antenna lines with long delivery times, days are 
numbered. People will settle for less instead of waiting.for quality, 
causing more companies to shut their doors.

Let's face it. "Most Hams are cheap"! Otherwise, why would so much 
"CHEAP" stuff sell at swaps? Only the major swaps and swaps near large 
cities draw full line vendors.  In the 70s a vendor could load up and 
sell nearly everything at a swap.   You could make good money at swaps!  
Times have changed!

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/7/2016 Thursday 6:16 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
> I used AES many, many times over the years but they never had a local
store
> where I lived.  I think that it's a case of the Internet killing a brick
and
> mortar store that didn't adapt well.
>
>   
>
> HRO and DX Engineering have a much better store and internet model.
>
>   
>
> I have an HRO store within a next day UPS Ground circle of my QTH and its
> free shipping over $100.  I just pool up my needs and place the order when
> its over $100.
>
>   
>
> I do remember going through the store in OH on a number of occasions that
I
> was in the area on business.  The used equipment shelves - pre internet -
> were second to none.  Now, most of that business is done on line between
> parties.
>
>   
>
> A piece of history that is respected in my opinion but I can't say that I
am
> surprised given the competition.
>
>   
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From w9ac at arrl.net  Thu Jul  7 15:56:30 2016
From: w9ac at arrl.net (Paul Christensen)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:56:30 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <CAOk0j19ADiBv5UZ+x40W4SN4k3so6jkFN+AWi0EozmvYYM5XMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
	<CAOk0j19ADiBv5UZ+x40W4SN4k3so6jkFN+AWi0EozmvYYM5XMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002201d1d889$a8159180$f840b480$@arrl.net>

>"Out of the *93.8 million* Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in
the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age.
Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and
over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)"

Assuming the above U.S. data are accurate, that means roughly 53 million
people out of 93.8 million are of traditional active employment age and not
working at will, lack of employable skills, some form of disability,
completing a degree or trade school (20-24) and a large portion of those
also included in the 53 million figure are in the 55-65 age group where
there's is a significant population of CSRS, FERS, military, state, and
municipal workers who are recipients of a government entitlement system.    

We can break up any data and mold it to fit most any agenda.

Paul, W9AC



     
 


From balmemo at sympatico.ca  Thu Jul  7 16:01:24 2016
From: balmemo at sympatico.ca (Bert Almemo)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:01:24 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <bb091d34-7a88-6329-9c78-0de9d9c44a69@subich.com>
Message-ID: <20160707200121.FHQS18197.mtlspm01.bell.net@BertofficePC>

Joe is absolutely right. I've been a business broker in Canada for a couple
of decades and have some experience.

The first and most important question to ask yourself considering investing
in an ongoing business is "what is the trend in the industry"? Most of you
now the trend in hamradio so the answer is obvious. There might be some
niche markets within hamradio but it's very difficult to make "big bucks" in
this relatively small market.

As always OMHO!

73 Bert, VE3NR



-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Subich, W4TV
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 1:07 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

On 7/7/2016 11:24 AM, Alan NV8A wrote:
> I would have expected them to sell the business -- with its "good
> will" -- as a going concern.

Unfortunately, there is little value in "good will" for small
businesses these days.  The truth is that the liquidation value of
inventory, receivables and physical assets (real estate, plant,
equipment, etc.) is often higher that the value of the business as a
"going concern" thanks to all the regulations and red tape faced
by small businesses.

I could go through multiple business valuation models but in most small
(sole proprietorships, "S" corporations) businesses there is little if
any "profit" above the "owners wages" - therefore little "good will"
value.  Again, any accumulated profits are found in inventory, real
estate and receivables.  It is often as easy to liquidate than find a
buyer who can pony up the cash to purchase the business and then cover
both debt service and "owner's wages" just to break even.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV

On 7/7/2016 11:24 AM, Alan NV8A wrote:
> I have been surprised at the number of local businesses that are simply
> shut down when the owner decides to retire: they have a "going out of
> business sale," and that's it. I would have expected them to sell the
> business -- with its "good will" -- as a going concern.
>
> 73
>
> Alan NV8A
>
>
> On 07/07/2016 07:21 AM, Chuck Gooden wrote:
>>
>> I would of expected that, the company would be up for sale to someone
>> that would be interested in keeping ham radio alive.  So I am waiting
>> until I see an official notice.
>>
>> Chuck Gooden N9QBT
>>
>>
>> On 7/6/2016 4:57 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>>> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're
>>> closing the
>>> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be
>>> one
>>> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From L at w0vt.us  Thu Jul  7 16:07:29 2016
From: L at w0vt.us (Lee)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:07:29 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <20160707200121.FHQS18197.mtlspm01.bell.net@BertofficePC>
References: <20160707200121.FHQS18197.mtlspm01.bell.net@BertofficePC>
Message-ID: <8b98d078-17ed-70cc-8838-e865da9724cf@w0vt.us>

I saw a very sad statement made yesterday on one of those Chinese 
vhf/uhf reflectors.  The ham was so excited as this was his first field 
Day.  (He was using a $35 Chinese vhf/uhf handi talkie!) This is what 
ham radio has become to many these days.  Anyone selling for the big 
three radio manufacturers  today needs his head examined.

Lee, w0vt


On 7/7/2016 3:01 PM, Bert Almemo wrote:
> Joe is absolutely right. I've been a business broker in Canada for a couple
> of decades and have some experience.
>
> The first and most important question to ask yourself considering investing
> in an ongoing business is "what is the trend in the industry"? Most of you
> now the trend in hamradio so the answer is obvious. There might be some
> niche markets within hamradio but it's very difficult to make "big bucks" in
> this relatively small market.
>
> As always OMHO!
>
> 73 Bert, VE3NR
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
> Subich, W4TV
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 1:07 PM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK
>
> On 7/7/2016 11:24 AM, Alan NV8A wrote:
>> I would have expected them to sell the business -- with its "good
>> will" -- as a going concern.
> Unfortunately, there is little value in "good will" for small
> businesses these days.  The truth is that the liquidation value of
> inventory, receivables and physical assets (real estate, plant,
> equipment, etc.) is often higher that the value of the business as a
> "going concern" thanks to all the regulations and red tape faced
> by small businesses.
>
> I could go through multiple business valuation models but in most small
> (sole proprietorships, "S" corporations) businesses there is little if
> any "profit" above the "owners wages" - therefore little "good will"
> value.  Again, any accumulated profits are found in inventory, real
> estate and receivables.  It is often as easy to liquidate than find a
> buyer who can pony up the cash to purchase the business and then cover
> both debt service and "owner's wages" just to break even.
>
> 73,
>
>      ... Joe, W4TV
>
> On 7/7/2016 11:24 AM, Alan NV8A wrote:
>> I have been surprised at the number of local businesses that are simply
>> shut down when the owner decides to retire: they have a "going out of
>> business sale," and that's it. I would have expected them to sell the
>> business -- with its "good will" -- as a going concern.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Alan NV8A
>>
>>
>> On 07/07/2016 07:21 AM, Chuck Gooden wrote:
>>> I would of expected that, the company would be up for sale to someone
>>> that would be interested in keeping ham radio alive.  So I am waiting
>>> until I see an official notice.
>>>
>>> Chuck Gooden N9QBT
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/6/2016 4:57 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>>>> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're
>>>> closing the
>>>> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be
>>>> one
>>>> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From jimlux at earthlink.net  Thu Jul  7 16:32:09 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:32:09 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <bb091d34-7a88-6329-9c78-0de9d9c44a69@subich.com>
References: <442c66.57724efc.44aed8cd@aol.com>
	<819fd449-d2a2-1fb4-317f-cc17d1cf681c@comcast.net>
	<39fbaa40-8c04-0bc1-3b02-c23bca94145c@charter.net>
	<bb091d34-7a88-6329-9c78-0de9d9c44a69@subich.com>
Message-ID: <b0fb9aa1-82ce-ec28-32ee-c07e7c1fcbb2@earthlink.net>

On 7/7/16 10:06 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> On 7/7/2016 11:24 AM, Alan NV8A wrote:
>> I would have expected them to sell the business -- with its "good
>> will" -- as a going concern.
>
> Unfortunately, there is little value in "good will" for small
> businesses these days.  The truth is that the liquidation value of
> inventory, receivables and physical assets (real estate, plant,
> equipment, etc.) is often higher that the value of the business as a
> "going concern" thanks to all the regulations and red tape faced
> by small businesses.
>
> I could go through multiple business valuation models but in most small
> (sole proprietorships, "S" corporations) businesses there is little if
> any "profit" above the "owners wages" - therefore little "good will"
> value.  Again, any accumulated profits are found in inventory, real
> estate and receivables.  It is often as easy to liquidate than find a
> buyer who can pony up the cash to purchase the business and then cover
> both debt service and "owner's wages" just to break even.
>


The same is true of the hundreds of small machine shops supporting a 
large government program, like Space Shuttle.
There's a ton of these 5-10 people, few million/year kind of businesses 
around.  They've tailored their shop to the specific customer and 
product, and if that goes away, there's a substantial challenge in 
shifting over.

Someone got a contract back in the 70s making some specialized parts, 
made them for 30 years, the shuttle program ends, and aside from the 
value of the machine tools in the shop, there's not much else.  So the 
owner retires and sells the assets, rather than trying to find someone 
to take on the "machine shop" business.

There's not a lot of electronics repair places - the tooling and 
specialized equipment required to do real repair is expensive, once you 
get beyond "swap boards and assemblies".  There is a very small market 
(if any) for places willing to do SMT rework on a $300 TV to replace a 
$20 part.

In the ham business, it's much the same: repairs are done by small niche 
suppliers who have a supply of obscure parts for specific models or 
maybe the manufacturer. The internet has made the niche supplier a 
viable business - you don't need a storefront, you don't need to depend 
on someone happening to know you do this.  You just have a web page that 
says, somewhere on the index page, "VFD displays on 1980s Yaesu radios 
repaired" and google will find them when the ham with the dying display 
goes "VFD display Yaesu FT-757"


From jimlux at earthlink.net  Thu Jul  7 16:35:56 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:35:56 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <8b98d078-17ed-70cc-8838-e865da9724cf@w0vt.us>
References: <20160707200121.FHQS18197.mtlspm01.bell.net@BertofficePC>
	<8b98d078-17ed-70cc-8838-e865da9724cf@w0vt.us>
Message-ID: <6ed51daf-dd75-7783-7676-0a877f23d9ba@earthlink.net>

On 7/7/16 1:07 PM, Lee wrote:
> I saw a very sad statement made yesterday on one of those Chinese
> vhf/uhf reflectors.  The ham was so excited as this was his first field
> Day.  (He was using a $35 Chinese vhf/uhf handi talkie!) This is what
> ham radio has become to many these days.  Anyone selling for the big
> three radio manufacturers  today needs his head examined.
>

and the fact that someone was excited about ham radio and field day is a 
*great* thing.

Bring on the Baofengs... Some will wind up in the junk drawer, but some 
others will wind up doing cool stuff with more sophisticated radios.

The big three probably do not survive on ham radio sales: land mobile, 
marine, etc. has got to be a bigger part of their business, and they're 
sold through a different channel.




From KH6LC at hotmail.com  Thu Jul  7 16:38:53 2016
From: KH6LC at hotmail.com (Lloyd Cabral)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:38:53 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] Our declining numbers...
Message-ID: <BL2PR14MB0913E3693BC91EF4F16BAB5FF53B0@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

First, let me apologize for this being a little off base.     The demise of AES has generated

a lot of discussion about our declining numbers.      Actually, what's declining are young

people entering the HF side of our hobby.       That behooves each and every one of us to

do all we can to expose young people to the HF side of our hobby.    Don't hesitate to invite

them in to sit down and operate.     Explain how it all works.     See if the same "spark" that

hooked each of us might be present in them.      If there's an inkling of interest, follow up

with an offer of more assistance.     If that's not possible, please refer them to a club or

individual who might guide them into HF radio.      The future of HF radio depends on it.


Lloyd, KH6LC



From hwardsil at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 16:49:53 2016
From: hwardsil at gmail.com (Ward Silver)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:49:53 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5064.1467923766.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
References: <mailman.5064.1467923766.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <9dd40fe1-8e2d-f1d4-48d7-d1d684f0de0d@gmail.com>

> and the fact that someone was excited about ham radio and field day is a
>*great*  thing.

Amen.

> Bring on the Baofengs... Some will wind up in the junk drawer, but some
> others will wind up doing cool stuff with more sophisticated radios.

This is exactly the same conversation that went on in the 1970s and 1980s complaining about the companies now dominating ham radio transceiver sales - Icom, Kenwood, and Yaesu.  We seem to have survived.

> The big three probably do not survive on ham radio sales: land mobile,
> marine, etc. has got to be a bigger part of their business, and they're
> sold through a different channel.

Exactly.  And the same is true Baofeng/Wouxon/etc. They have taken a radio designed for the Land Mobile Radio (Part 90) market and are reselling it (for better or worse) in the amateur market.

Icom seems to be responding to the challenge with redesigned HTs that capitalize on quality, easy programming, better usability, cleaner signals, etc.  They are making a good case for the owner of a cheap entry-level radio to move up to a better product.  Good for Icom!  Yaesu and Kenwood are probably responding similarly.

Grab these guys and gals and tutor them, get them on the air, and build on the excitement.  Don't crap all over them because of their radio!  Geez...

73, Ward N0AX


From coulter at bellsouth.net  Thu Jul  7 16:49:38 2016
From: coulter at bellsouth.net (coulter)
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 16:49:38 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Optibeam or Force12
Message-ID: <2blelkob96wxqcnyrh75vedx.1467924578549@email.android.com>

Matt,
Since I have never owned a Force 12, I can only speak to my experience with Optibeam. I have absolutely zero reservations in recommending that you purchase your antennas from Optibeam. I believe the quality, performence and customer service of Optibeam is unmatched. Good luck with whatever you purchase.
73,ToddN4JRZ



-------- Original message --------From: Matt Lovewell <lovewell at gmail.com> Date: 7/7/16  12:45 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: towertalk at contesting.com Subject: [TowerTalk] Optibeam or Force12 
Simple question I think.

I'll be going large from 10-40 across two beams and actually prefer some of
Opti-beam's larger offerings to the force 12 offerings on the higher bands
(more elements).? I have had nice discussions so far with the staff at
force 12 but I've heard of tale of lead times being very long and
incomplete order fulfillment - and with the Euro down in the dumps the
Opti-beam is less expensive, even freighted from Germany.

I'd like to know your take on their overall product quality/service.

I know in this tight knit community that people may be afraid to speak out
if they had a problem with a company so feel free to respond off list in
absolute confidence that I would never breathe a word of your e-mail to
anyone.

Thank you,

Matt Lovewell
W0MLD
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From doug at dougronald.com  Thu Jul  7 17:15:09 2016
From: doug at dougronald.com (Doug Ronald)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:15:09 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <9dd40fe1-8e2d-f1d4-48d7-d1d684f0de0d@gmail.com>
References: <mailman.5064.1467923766.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
	<9dd40fe1-8e2d-f1d4-48d7-d1d684f0de0d@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00a101d1d894$a53af940$efb0ebc0$@dougronald.com>

Here's another off-topic opinion piece - My equipment is homemade, some at
the component level, some at the board level, and some at the module level.
I have finished the receive side, and am working on the transmit side
currently, but I listen around on the bands, and am shocked to never have
heard another ham mention his equipment was his own development. Antennas?
Sure, but electronics, nope.

-Doug
W6DSR

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ward
Silver
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 01:50 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

> and the fact that someone was excited about ham radio and field day is 
>a
>*great*  thing.

Amen.




From cefarr at hughes.net  Thu Jul  7 17:33:20 2016
From: cefarr at hughes.net (Charles Farr)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:33:20 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <CAOk0j19ADiBv5UZ+x40W4SN4k3so6jkFN+AWi0EozmvYYM5XMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
	<CAOk0j19ADiBv5UZ+x40W4SN4k3so6jkFN+AWi0EozmvYYM5XMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3c7ce3f5-0a8f-7377-33c9-7a2f99753cc8@hughes.net>

A little off topic, but.....

Curious where exactly these stats came from. Anybody know how many are 
retired and how they're counted in these metrics?


On 07/07/2016 12:31 PM, Chuck Dietz wrote:
> Out of the *93.8 million* Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in
> the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age.
> Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and
> over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)
>
> Chuck W5PR
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:28 AM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <
> towertalk at contesting.com> wrote:
>
>>>     There are, after all, over 90 million Americans out  of work,
>>      Whoa! Would you please cite where you got this  info? Methinks that
>> would have to include infants and students to reach that  number.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Steve     K7LXC
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From hwardsil at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 17:39:52 2016
From: hwardsil at gmail.com (Ward Silver)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:39:52 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5066.1467927221.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
References: <mailman.5066.1467927221.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <71d28779-65b1-44ce-2d1c-bb2a179299bf@gmail.com>


> Here's another off-topic opinion piece - My equipment is homemade, some at
> the component level, some at the board level, and some at the module level.
> I have finished the receive side, and am working on the transmit side
> currently, but I listen around on the bands, and am shocked to never have
> heard another ham mention his equipment was his own development. Antennas?
> Sure, but electronics, nope.
>
> -Doug
> W6DSR

Sign up for the QRP-L email list - 
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qrp-l/

You'll meet lots of kindred spirits in this very active community of 
builders and designers and operators.

73, Ward N0AX

From el34guy at aol.com  Thu Jul  7 17:40:41 2016
From: el34guy at aol.com (el34guy at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:40:41 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <3c7ce3f5-0a8f-7377-33c9-7a2f99753cc8@hughes.net>
Message-ID: <155c74e3da0-5a82-18fef@webprd-m20.mail.aol.com>

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000








-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Farr <cefarr at hughes.net>
To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 7, 2016 4:34 pm
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

A little off topic, but.....

Curious where exactly these stats came from. Anybody know how many are 
retired and how they're counted in these metrics?


On 07/07/2016 12:31 PM, Chuck Dietz wrote:
> Out of the *93.8 million* Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in
> the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age.
> Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and
> over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)
>
> Chuck W5PR
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:28 AM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <
> towertalk at contesting.com> wrote:
>
>>>   There are, after all, over 90 million Americans out  of work,
>>      Whoa! Would you please cite where you got this  info? Methinks that
>> would have to include infants and students to reach that  number.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Steve    K7LXC
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From hanslg at aol.com  Thu Jul  7 17:53:09 2016
From: hanslg at aol.com (Hans Hammarquist)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:53:09 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] (no subject)
Message-ID: <155c759a647-6c32-1bdbd@webprd-a19.mail.aol.com>

I am planning to use the DL6WU by VK5DJ Yagi calculator to make me a 430 and a 144 MHz yagi. I intend to use the "elements bonded to the metallic bom" version. 


Any good suggestion how to feed a dipole shorted in the middle, gmma feed, isolate the middle, use the folded version or anything else?


73 de,


Hans - N2JFS

From TexasRF at aol.com  Thu Jul  7 18:06:34 2016
From: TexasRF at aol.com (TexasRF at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:06:34 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] (no subject)
Message-ID: <7b3eb.7080d2f6.44b02c6a@aol.com>

The traditional method is to use a Tee match and halfwave coax balun.  Many 
examples in the ARRL Handbooks.
 
73,
Gerald K5GW
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/7/2016 4:59:00 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
towertalk at contesting.com writes:

I am  planning to use the DL6WU by VK5DJ Yagi calculator to make me a 430 
and a 144  MHz yagi. I intend to use the "elements bonded to the metallic 
bom" version.  


Any good suggestion how to feed a dipole shorted in the middle,  gmma feed, 
isolate the middle, use the folded version or anything  else?


73 de,


Hans -  N2JFS
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk  mailing  list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From fishflorida at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 19:03:04 2016
From: fishflorida at gmail.com (Mickey Baker)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:03:04 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <3c7ce3f5-0a8f-7377-33c9-7a2f99753cc8@hughes.net>
References: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
	<CAOk0j19ADiBv5UZ+x40W4SN4k3so6jkFN+AWi0EozmvYYM5XMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3c7ce3f5-0a8f-7377-33c9-7a2f99753cc8@hughes.net>
Message-ID: <CAOB+T5b0wZcxD5VDws=GvWXqGUSC2Tnhj2OqSYr=Yt3YmoOr4w@mail.gmail.com>

The Bureau of Labor Statistics produces data that has been collected,
collated and produced the same way each year.
They track "participation in the labor force" as an independent variable -
the participation has dropped 4% over the last 10 years, primarily because
of aging baby boomers. This is not unexpected. Non participants aren't
counted, never have been. Here's their stats for participation - poke
around on the site, you can find out exactly where the data is originated
and mine it for anything you'd like to view.

Spend some time looking over the data and methodology and you'll see that
the conspiracy theories around employment statistics are unfounded and
originate in political agendas... a third of Americans DON'T participate in
the labor pool. That includes older people as well as business owners/self
employed and people in the military or incarcerated,

73,

Mickey N4MB

From fishflorida at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 19:03:42 2016
From: fishflorida at gmail.com (Mickey Baker)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:03:42 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <CAOB+T5b0wZcxD5VDws=GvWXqGUSC2Tnhj2OqSYr=Yt3YmoOr4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
	<CAOk0j19ADiBv5UZ+x40W4SN4k3so6jkFN+AWi0EozmvYYM5XMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3c7ce3f5-0a8f-7377-33c9-7a2f99753cc8@hughes.net>
	<CAOB+T5b0wZcxD5VDws=GvWXqGUSC2Tnhj2OqSYr=Yt3YmoOr4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOB+T5ZOO=iVVKzKduzQqSZGeppHaxwfpmN0DLT+AFE9qJZKVg@mail.gmail.com>

oops, didnt attach the BLS link: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Mickey Baker, N4MB
Palm Beach Gardens
*?Tell me, and I will listen. Show me, and I will understand. Involve me,
and I will learn.? *Teton Lakota, American Indian Saying.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Mickey Baker <fishflorida at gmail.com> wrote:

> The Bureau of Labor Statistics produces data that has been collected,
> collated and produced the same way each year.
> They track "participation in the labor force" as an independent variable -
> the participation has dropped 4% over the last 10 years, primarily because
> of aging baby boomers. This is not unexpected. Non participants aren't
> counted, never have been. Here's their stats for participation - poke
> around on the site, you can find out exactly where the data is originated
> and mine it for anything you'd like to view.
>
> Spend some time looking over the data and methodology and you'll see that
> the conspiracy theories around employment statistics are unfounded and
> originate in political agendas... a third of Americans DON'T participate in
> the labor pool. That includes older people as well as business owners/self
> employed and people in the military or incarcerated,
>
> 73,
>
> Mickey N4MB
>
>

From jimlux at earthlink.net  Thu Jul  7 19:09:05 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:09:05 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <00a101d1d894$a53af940$efb0ebc0$@dougronald.com>
References: <mailman.5064.1467923766.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
	<9dd40fe1-8e2d-f1d4-48d7-d1d684f0de0d@gmail.com>
	<00a101d1d894$a53af940$efb0ebc0$@dougronald.com>
Message-ID: <f6c8779b-292c-f5af-e43e-db8e6a36cbf7@earthlink.net>

On 7/7/16 2:15 PM, Doug Ronald wrote:
> Here's another off-topic opinion piece - My equipment is homemade, some at
> the component level, some at the board level, and some at the module level.
> I have finished the receive side, and am working on the transmit side
> currently, but I listen around on the bands, and am shocked to never have
> heard another ham mention his equipment was his own development. Antennas?
> Sure, but electronics, nope.
>

get on microwaves and just about everyone is building their own gear. Or 
modifying surplus.

There are no real "store bought" 10GHz rigs.



From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Thu Jul  7 20:35:15 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:35:15 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <CAOk0j19ADiBv5UZ+x40W4SN4k3so6jkFN+AWi0EozmvYYM5XMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
	<CAOk0j19ADiBv5UZ+x40W4SN4k3so6jkFN+AWi0EozmvYYM5XMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb0861b4-c3b7-5f14-7106-8c2688fc686f@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Thu,7/7/2016 12:31 PM, Chuck Dietz wrote:
> Out of the *93.8 million* Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in
> the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age.
> Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and
> over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)

And don't forget the women that choose to be stay-at-home moms.

While many jobs have been moved to low wage countries, this is NOT new 
-- during the middle of the last century, lots of good paying union jobs 
moved to low-wage parts of the US, and without the protection of unions. 
A huge part of the problem of unemployment in the developed world is the 
automation of work that used to be done by well-paid human labor. 
Hundreds of employees replaced by a few robots, machines that do the 
work tens of times faster than a human.

Many (most?) of the people who did those jobs for the first 20-40 years 
of their working lifetime have little if any education for today's jobs 
operating, building, and maintaining that equipment. At 74, I've been 
retired for about 7 years. My wife, 72, retired three years ago, 
primarily because of hand surgery. We've talked about working today, and 
agree that we would have a hard time getting hired at any decent job in 
today's world, not because the jobs aren't there, but because our fields 
have moved on, and we haven't. I have a BSEE, she's a PhD.

73, Jim K9YC


From jim.thom at telus.net  Thu Jul  7 20:40:28 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:40:28 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
Message-ID: <5E31ABD9B2B5485380D17EE7C51EA5F3@JimPC>

Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 18:25:05 -0400
From: "James Wolf" <jbwolf at comcast.net>
To: "'Kim Elmore'" <cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net>,
<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
 

Continuing the discussion on how to attach the coax to the ?hot? boom of a Tennadyne T8 antenna.

As I assembled this antenna, I became increasingly confused and concerned about the feed system.   With this log antenna, instead of running open feedline wires crossing over to the elements, it uses two boom pieces and each is insulated from the mast and each boom is ?hot?.  The instructions indicate and show how to attach the feedline to the bottom boom piece using a Collins type balun at the feed point which is at the forward end of the antenna.  

My concern is that of the coax shield separated only by the coax insulation alongside one of the ?hot? boom pieces would couple and cause radiation (phase shift) problems with the antenna or at the very least radiate as it goes vertical down the mast. 

Due to the element mounting method it is not possible to run the feedline inside the boom to the mast.    

Does anyone have any thoughts on why running the coax along the ?hot? boom would be an OK idea?

And if not, how else would one feed the antenna?

 

Jim ? KR9U

##  http://w8ji.com/baluns_on_log_perodic_antennas.htm    I forget how a collins balun is constructed,  but if its just a 1:1  balun, you may be better off using a quality CMC device at the feedpoint.    Then another  CMC on the coax..where it leaves the boom.... and  then forms the rotor loop.    If coax taped to hot boom,  it will induce RF  into the braid....hence the CMC .. right where the coax leaves the boom..and forms the rotor loop /splice  ..and heads down the tower. 

Jim   VE7RF



From lovewell at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 20:53:05 2016
From: lovewell at gmail.com (Matt Lovewell)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:53:05 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <cb0861b4-c3b7-5f14-7106-8c2688fc686f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
	<CAOk0j19ADiBv5UZ+x40W4SN4k3so6jkFN+AWi0EozmvYYM5XMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb0861b4-c3b7-5f14-7106-8c2688fc686f@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <E843BD50-8731-4B34-8F69-AD1D46A428B9@gmail.com>

Those unions "protected" themselves right to the unemployment line.

> On Jul 7, 2016, at 7:35 PM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu,7/7/2016 12:31 PM, Chuck Dietz wrote:
>> Out of the *93.8 million* Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in
>> the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age.
>> Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and
>> over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)
> 
> And don't forget the women that choose to be stay-at-home moms.
> 
> While many jobs have been moved to low wage countries, this is NOT new -- during the middle of the last century, lots of good paying union jobs moved to low-wage parts of the US, and without the protection of unions. A huge part of the problem of unemployment in the developed world is the automation of work that used to be done by well-paid human labor. Hundreds of employees replaced by a few robots, machines that do the work tens of times faster than a human.
> 
> Many (most?) of the people who did those jobs for the first 20-40 years of their working lifetime have little if any education for today's jobs operating, building, and maintaining that equipment. At 74, I've been retired for about 7 years. My wife, 72, retired three years ago, primarily because of hand surgery. We've talked about working today, and agree that we would have a hard time getting hired at any decent job in today's world, not because the jobs aren't there, but because our fields have moved on, and we haven't. I have a BSEE, she's a PhD.
> 
> 73, Jim K9YC
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From richard at karlquist.com  Thu Jul  7 21:00:35 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:00:35 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
In-Reply-To: <5E31ABD9B2B5485380D17EE7C51EA5F3@JimPC>
References: <5E31ABD9B2B5485380D17EE7C51EA5F3@JimPC>
Message-ID: <dd6e2d25-1cee-047d-c526-177336e37a83@karlquist.com>

Think of the dual boom as an open wire transmission
line having a characteristic impedance of something
like 300 ohms, and a spacing of several inches.
The feedline should drop down vertically from its
attachment point to the two booms and then turn
and run parallel to the two booms, but below them
by 6 to 12 inches, so there is minimal disruption
to the open wire line.  IMHO, taping it to either
boom makes no engineering sense at all.  It does
make marketing sense, in that the antenna might
sell better if they show a nice "clean" installation
vs the feedline hanging down.

Some TV antennas are designed this way, and you
never see the coax taped to the booms.  It just
hangs down.

Rick N6RK

From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Thu Jul  7 21:18:08 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 21:18:08 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <D3A3EDC9.3B605%scottw3tx@verizon.net>
References: <D3A3EDC9.3B605%scottw3tx@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <a2bd05cd-c3f0-14ac-d7df-d9fddf48d390@tm.net>

Brick and mortar stores may run on thin margins, but  such a store 
depends more on "walk in customers". Truly thin margins require a lot of 
sales and with mass competition, the family owned store pays more for 
product than the chain's selling price.  They used to make money off 
service calls, but the chains have that contracted out.

It's not that they don't have a valuable name, but there is little 
market for a business that can not compete on an equal footing with 
stores and chains that may purchase a thousand times more of a product, 
with potential purchases of equal, or greater magnitude down the pipe.

In "the old days" the big catalog stores were difficult to compete with, 
but a single internet business like Amazon, or NewEgg makes mass 
purchases to one location as well as serving as established outlets for 
numerous other large stores around the country.  This gives those well 
established brick and mortar stores additional outlets and advertising 
in a realm for which they have no experience.  The Internet supplier may 
make only a few percent on these purchases, but they quickly add up 
while giving the brick and mortar store a larger purchasing clout with 
lower prices.

In "the old days" it was not uncommon for 4 or 5 hams to get together 
and drive several hundred miles over to the Ham Store in Muskegon to 
look at and purchase equipment when AES was the new kid on the block. 
Since then, I've become accustomed to purchasing new Ham Gear sight 
unseen, based on reputation and have not been disappointed...yet!  
However there are several ratings sites that I avoid after reading 
glowing reports about highly over rated equipment. Good, well 
constructed antennas are expensive, big and heavy. We can all identify 
hams with a shack wallpapered with awards using relatively simple 
antennas and equipment. I avoid reports that go to extremes calling said 
rig the greatest thing since sliced bread, or a POS.

I would have thought AES might have gone for something like that, but 
apparently not.  It is a new business model, that will, or can benefit 
both ends of the chain although it requires the store to think about 
volume purchases and thinner margins.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/7/2016 Thursday 11:43 AM, ScottW3TX wrote:
> Most brick and mortar stores run on very thin profit margins that are
> getting squeezed smaller and smaller in this new economy shift. Costs
> (especially health insurance, regulatory, and base services to keep the
> doors open), are going up at 8 to 12% per year. Meanwhile competition does
> not allow for the final seller of products or service to raise prices.
> There are no longer excess profits in smaller businesses to fund owner and
> employee retirement plans. Therefore there is rarely any "goodwill" or
> "blue-sky" value in the sale. Just inventory (if it is sellable) and real
> estate.
>
> The bigger picture is what will happen to amateur radio sales companies?
> The trend is that the smaller, niche companies are either closing down or
> selling to the two dominant buyers.
>
> Is such consolidation good for the future of amateur radio?
>
> What happens when MFJ or DXE go up for sale?  Most likely the only
> potential buyers will be publicly traded companies that have less interest
> in the customer than the current stake-holders that are active amateur
> radio operators themselves.  And will there even be a buy when one factors
> in the demographics?
>
> When I took my 13 year old son to the DX Dinner at Dayton this year he was
> probably the youngest person there. I was probably the second youngest
> (49).
>
> Unless amateur radio quickly and effectively figures out how to connect
> itself into the STEM and Programming wave I fear that Nathan and I will be
> the only guys at the DX Dinner someday.
>
> At least he and I will have darn good antennas :)
>
> 73, Scott W3TX
>
>
>
> On 7/7/16 11:24 AM, "Alan NV8A" <nv8a at charter.net> wrote:
>
>> I have been surprised at the number of local businesses that are simply
>> shut down when the owner decides to retire: they have a "going out of
>> business sale," and that's it. I would have expected them to sell the
>> business -- with its "good will" -- as a going concern.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Alan NV8A
>>
>>
>> On 07/07/2016 07:21 AM, Chuck Gooden wrote:
>>> I would of expected that, the company would be up for sale to someone
>>> that would be interested in keeping ham radio alive.  So I am waiting
>>> until I see an official notice.
>>>
>>> Chuck Gooden N9QBT
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/6/2016 4:57 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>>>> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're
>>>> closing the
>>>> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be
>>>> one
>>>> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From lovewell at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 21:28:10 2016
From: lovewell at gmail.com (Matt Lovewell)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:28:10 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Optibeam or Force12
In-Reply-To: <2blelkob96wxqcnyrh75vedx.1467924578549@email.android.com>
References: <2blelkob96wxqcnyrh75vedx.1467924578549@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CANXoCJc7RgNWu-p07mzUk+hE9oaA0JUpWrWwqn4efdFhCNT0dQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Todd

Your optibeam recommendation has been echo'd on and off list more than
anyone else.  The turn out for JK was outstanding as well.  I definitely
feel comfortable with either one of those companies.

Matt Lovewell
W0MLD

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:49 PM, coulter <coulter at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Matt,
>
> Since I have never owned a Force 12, I can only speak to my experience
> with Optibeam. I have absolutely zero reservations in recommending that you
> purchase your antennas from Optibeam. I believe the quality, performence
> and customer service of Optibeam is unmatched. Good luck with whatever you
> purchase.
>
> 73,
> Todd
> N4JRZ
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Matt Lovewell <lovewell at gmail.com>
> Date: 7/7/16 12:45 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Optibeam or Force12
>
> Simple question I think.
>
> I'll be going large from 10-40 across two beams and actually prefer some of
> Opti-beam's larger offerings to the force 12 offerings on the higher bands
> (more elements).  I have had nice discussions so far with the staff at
> force 12 but I've heard of tale of lead times being very long and
> incomplete order fulfillment - and with the Euro down in the dumps the
> Opti-beam is less expensive, even freighted from Germany.
>
> I'd like to know your take on their overall product quality/service.
>
> I know in this tight knit community that people may be afraid to speak out
> if they had a problem with a company so feel free to respond off list in
> absolute confidence that I would never breathe a word of your e-mail to
> anyone.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Matt Lovewell
> W0MLD
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From wesattaway at bellsouth.net  Thu Jul  7 21:28:03 2016
From: wesattaway at bellsouth.net (Wes Attaway (N5WA))
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:28:03 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <002201d1d889$a8159180$f840b480$@arrl.net>
References: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com><CAOk0j19ADiBv5UZ+x40W4SN4k3so6jkFN+AWi0EozmvYYM5XMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<002201d1d889$a8159180$f840b480$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <9B9041681343496CBDC36DC09B4214C5@Office1>

Of course, this is way off the edge of Tower Talk topics (but maybe it does
have something to do with AES), however, whatever your belief is about
unemployment statistics is, the real proof that things are bad and getting
worse is totally explained by the bond market (incessantly lower interest
rates) and the frantic actions of the major central banks.

The underlying statistics show that the bulk of any new jobs in the USA
right now are in the so-called waiter and bartender category (minimum wage
or just a little above).   People with some money might be able to start a
business but they are not the predominant factor at this point.  This is
very different from where we were 30 or 40 years ago.

I am 77 and still working.  Not that I have to but because I like what I do
and am lucky enough to have some marketable skills.  And, it keeps my brain
cells active.

Bottom Line:  The job market is horrible because the overall economy is
changing in all kinds of ways that are not good.  Many people are simply
running out of real money.     

   -------------------
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
   -------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Christensen
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 2:57 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

>"Out of the *93.8 million* Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in
the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age.
Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and
over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)"

Assuming the above U.S. data are accurate, that means roughly 53 million
people out of 93.8 million are of traditional active employment age and not
working at will, lack of employable skills, some form of disability,
completing a degree or trade school (20-24) and a large portion of those
also included in the 53 million figure are in the 55-65 age group where
there's is a significant population of CSRS, FERS, military, state, and
municipal workers who are recipients of a government entitlement system.    

We can break up any data and mold it to fit most any agenda.

Paul, W9AC



     
 

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From lovewell at gmail.com  Thu Jul  7 21:45:07 2016
From: lovewell at gmail.com (Matt Lovewell)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:45:07 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Optibeam or Force12
In-Reply-To: <CANXoCJdUUpKQw7uLoWFC+h_-EFo=QvwdAW_bvCcPP79dZ-uxSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANXoCJdUUpKQw7uLoWFC+h_-EFo=QvwdAW_bvCcPP79dZ-uxSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANXoCJdz=jr6RYRiuS_VEMG-RqJd8P4kWchoLBvU2kH=PqsxsA@mail.gmail.com>

Lots of glowing recommendations for both Optibeam and JK.   I am really
liking the look of either Optibeam's OB4-40 or JK's 404c (Both are 4 coil
loaded elements on 40).

One of those would then be paired with an Optibeam 16-5 (4 on 20,17,15,12
and 8 on 10).

Anyone have any thoughts on that?  I like the looks of the flat SWR over
the entire 40m band provided by a 4/40 dual driven beam.

Hopefully it's becoming somewhat clear on what I'm going for here.  I'll
hopefully have a decent little pistol (cap gun?) contesting setup that can
effectively chase DX.

Thanks again,

Matt Lovewell
W0MLD

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Matt Lovewell <lovewell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Simple question I think.
>
> I'll be going large from 10-40 across two beams and actually prefer some
> of Opti-beam's larger offerings to the force 12 offerings on the higher
> bands (more elements).  I have had nice discussions so far with the staff
> at force 12 but I've heard of tale of lead times being very long and
> incomplete order fulfillment - and with the Euro down in the dumps the
> Opti-beam is less expensive, even freighted from Germany.
>
> I'd like to know your take on their overall product quality/service.
>
> I know in this tight knit community that people may be afraid to speak out
> if they had a problem with a company so feel free to respond off list in
> absolute confidence that I would never breathe a word of your e-mail to
> anyone.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Matt Lovewell
> W0MLD
>

From jonpearl at tampabay.rr.com  Thu Jul  7 23:49:22 2016
From: jonpearl at tampabay.rr.com (Jon Pearl - W4ABC)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 23:49:22 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] ORION 2300 Rotator Help
In-Reply-To: <196488540.386846.1467909122040.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <196488540.386846.1467909122040.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<196488540.386846.1467909122040.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <40d48ca5-16e6-d9a1-1e1e-edf46e1f4d88@tampabay.rr.com>

Hi Hector,


 From the .pdf manual located at 
http://www.m2inc.com/amateur/or2800px-azimuth-motor-only-no-control-unit/

*Positioner Wiring*

#1) DC Motor Black

#2) DC Motor Black

#5) Reed - Orange [2 Pulses Per Rotation]

#6) Reed - Blue [Gnd.]


*RESISTANCE TEST OF CABLE AND ROTATOR*
This test is done with the wires remove from the RC-2800PXAZ control
unit. Turn off unit before removing wires.
FROM
One motor lead to the other:?????.2.4 to 8 Ohms.

One reed switch lead to the other???.either low res. 1-10 Ohms or
a total open depending on the position of the magnet and reed switch.

Any lead to ground?????????..total open or >20 megOhms

Either motor lead to either reed lead??total open or >20 megOhmss

*VOLTAGE TEST OF THE RC2800 ONLY*
Note: these voltages only appear for a second or so when no rotator is
attached. You must also PROGRAM P5 TO 9 temporarily to get non pulsed
voltage.

Terminal #1 to #2 (Motor voltage)???.45 vdc + or ? when pushing the CW 
or CCW buttons.

Terminal #5 to #6 (reed sw. voltage??..11.3 vdc when pushing the CW or 
CCW buttons.

Terminal #1 or #2 to case ground???...45 vdc

*VOLTAGE TEST WHEN OR2800 IS RUNNING AT SPEED 9*

Terminal #1 to #2???????.30 to 35 vdc

Terminal #5 to #6???????.pulsed 11.3 volts (sq. wave)



73,


Jon Pearl - W4ABC

www.w4abc.com



On 7/7/2016 12:32 PM, Hector Garcia,XE2K wrote:
> Hi GuysI got a OR-2300 in very good shape and is running but  no control boxbut I will like to know the cable configuration  from the POTthere are 3 cables from the POT that I need to ID.
> A manual photo also can be great of this part. J.Hector Garcia  XE2K / AD6D
>   Mexicali B.C DM22fp / El Centro
> P.O.Box 73
> El Centro CA 92244-0073
> USA
> http://xe2k.net
> Tweeter @XE2K
>
> mailman/listinfo/towertalk


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Fri Jul  8 04:27:06 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 04:27:06 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
References: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
Message-ID: <8f1ea289-02eb-d24d-682f-922a82c6c28a@tm.net>

You're partially right Jim.
I had searched the net and repeatedly came up with the 90 million, so I 
went to Politifact.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/30/blog-posting/are-90-million-americans-not-working-or-looking-wo/
They list the number of working age, subtract the number employed and 
come up with 90 million BUT they point out this number with their 
calculations is closer to 20 million. OTOH,  they neglect those who are 
under employed, or stuck with part time work which could double the 
number to 40 million, or still  substantially less than the 90 million 
listed in many places on the internet.

I should have dug farther, but 8 or 10 links all showed the 90 million 
figure, the disturbing trend is fewer people are entering the 
workforce,  From 2009 to 2013 (last year the figures were available) the 
percent in the labor force participation rate dropped from 65.7% to 
63.5%  That number includes part timers and under employed as working.  
Looking up the pay scales, many of those liberal arts students will be 
unable to find a job capable of paying off their college loans by the 
time they retire.

I quit a job that paid better than most college grads earn, so I could 
go to college, but the CS degree paid much better still with more chance 
for advancement.
Many would have been better off with a two year degree and a great deal 
less debt..
20 to 40 million is still a very large number and that 90 million does 
includes all those of working age.  Many retirees are finding it 
necessary to reenter the workforce, but they aren't counted when out of 
work. When I went to the university, many of the students took their 
first two years at a local college and then worked to keep their debt down.

I should have worked a few more years.  It would have made a whale of a 
difference in my pension and SS

73

Roger (K8RI)



On 7/7/2016 Thursday 12:28 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>>     There are, after all, over 90 million Americans out  of work,
>   
>      Whoa! Would you please cite where you got this  info? Methinks that
> would have to include infants and students to reach that  number.
>   
> Cheers,
> Steve     K7LXC
>   
>   
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From jbwolf at comcast.net  Fri Jul  8 10:04:19 2016
From: jbwolf at comcast.net (James Wolf)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:04:19 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
Message-ID: <005801d1d921$9f0b2170$dd216450$@comcast.net>


>>>Think of the dual boom as an open wire transmission line having a
characteristic impedance of something like 300 ohms, and a spacing of
several inches.
The feedline should drop down vertically from its attachment point to the
two booms and then turn and run parallel to the two booms, but below them by
6 to 12 inches, so there is minimal disruption to the open wire line.  IMHO,
taping it to either boom makes no engineering sense at all.  It does make
marketing sense, in that the antenna might sell better if they show a nice
"clean" installation vs the feedline hanging down.

Some TV antennas are designed this way, and you never see the coax taped to
the booms.  It just hangs down.

Rick N6RK
_______________________

This is my current approach.  Unfortunately, there is not enough clearance
to run the coax through the boom to the back of the antenna due to the way
the elements connect to the boom.   However, what if I were to electrically
connect a piece of aluminum tubing to the bottom boom and run the coax
through it to the read of the antenna where the shorting stub is and then
drop down and bring it back to the boom.  That would likely require no choke
at all since it is the "cold" point of the antenna?

Jim - KR9U



From k0myw at sbcglobal.net  Fri Jul  8 11:22:31 2016
From: k0myw at sbcglobal.net (Michael OBrien)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:22:31 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
References: <803129529.4330295.1467991351486.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <803129529.4330295.1467991351486.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Those of us who are old enough and who lived close enough fondly remember the original Henry Radio store in Butler, Missouri.

A visit there gave hams a chance to visit with the knowledgeable staff and to twist the knobs on the several rigs in the demonstration room. They offered excellent repair services. And Bob's (W0ARA) trade-in policies, prices and generous payment plans were legendary.

It is interesting to note that, starting 'way back in the 1930s, Bob served hams throughout the country (and perhaps beyond) without benefit of the Internet or UPS or FedEx. His willingness to deal lured business far away from little Butler. Much of the shipping of heavy boatanchors was done by bus and sometimes by rail. If I remember correctly, when Henry Radio finally closed, it had been the longest continuous advertiser in QST. In some respects, Bob (and his brother, Ted, who eventually opened the branch in Los Angeles) were forerunners to what has become today's e-commerce.

I had satisfactory dealings with AES, but in more recent times have dealt mainly with DX Engineering, R&L Electronics and occasionally Universal Radio. However, my favorite method is to visit one of the few independent brick-and-mortar shops still in operation hereabouts, Associated Radio in Kansas City (Overland Park). 

The internet and the online shopping opportunities it has brought us are wonderful -- but it is sad to see personalized, face-to-face interactions over the counters of ham stores disappear due to competition with modern merchandising.

Mike, K0MYW

From richard at karlquist.com  Fri Jul  8 12:16:33 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 09:16:33 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
In-Reply-To: <005801d1d921$9f0b2170$dd216450$@comcast.net>
References: <005801d1d921$9f0b2170$dd216450$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <3c1931e3-d66e-e583-977c-eaa2a0ec5639@karlquist.com>



On 7/8/2016 7:04 AM, James Wolf wrote:

> This is my current approach.  Unfortunately, there is not enough clearance

Your current approach is to drop the feedline down and run it parallel
a foot below the booms back to the mast and then down to ground?
Is that right?  What is you don't like about doing that?

Do not connect anything to the booms (except at the feedpoint at
the front) and do not run any conductors near them.

> to run the coax through the boom to the back of the antenna due to the way
> the elements connect to the boom.   However, what if I were to electrically

No, I wouldn't recommend running the coax through a boom even if
it were mechanically possible.

Rick N6RK


From lclarks at nc.rr.com  Fri Jul  8 12:48:11 2016
From: lclarks at nc.rr.com (Larry)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:48:11 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 37
In-Reply-To: <mailman.11.1467993605.6656.towertalk@contesting.com>
References: <mailman.11.1467993605.6656.towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <004901d1d938$83731b90$8a5952b0$@nc.rr.com>

I have a Tennedyne T-8, its been up for 4 + years and I'm using the choke
from Tennedyne and the coax
Is taped to the boom. I've had no problems and it seems to work well. I
don't have a test range to see if 
the pattern is messed up.

73 Larry K1ZW

 



>>>Think of the dual boom as an open wire transmission line having a
characteristic impedance of something like 300 ohms, and a spacing of
several inches.
The feedline should drop down vertically from its attachment point to the
two booms and then turn and run parallel to the two booms, but below them by
6 to 12 inches, so there is minimal disruption to the open wire line.  IMHO,
taping it to either boom makes no engineering sense at all.  It does make
marketing sense, in that the antenna might sell better if they show a nice
"clean" installation vs the feedline hanging down.

Some TV antennas are designed this way, and you never see the coax taped to
the booms.  It just hangs down.

Rick N6RK
_______________________

This is my current approach.  Unfortunately, there is not enough clearance
to run the coax through the boom to the back of the antenna due to the way
the elements connect to the boom.   However, what if I were to electrically
connect a piece of aluminum tubing to the bottom boom and run the coax
through it to the read of the antenna where the shorting stub is and then
drop down and bring it back to the boom.  That would likely require no choke
at all since it is the "cold" point of the antenna?

Jim - KR9U






From kb0fhp at verizon.net  Fri Jul  8 13:06:59 2016
From: kb0fhp at verizon.net (D. Scott MacKenzie)
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 13:06:59 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <8f1ea289-02eb-d24d-682f-922a82c6c28a@tm.net>
References: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
	<8f1ea289-02eb-d24d-682f-922a82c6c28a@tm.net>
Message-ID: <00c701d1d93b$24458a10$6cd09e30$@verizon.net>

You are lucky you had a pension.  Most are taken away or simply not there.
This isn't a menial minimum wage job.  This is a position that pays well -
even by East Coast standards.

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Roger
(K8RI) on TT
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 4:27 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

You're partially right Jim.
I had searched the net and repeatedly came up with the 90 million, so I went
to Politifact.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/30/blog-posting/
are-90-million-americans-not-working-or-looking-wo/
They list the number of working age, subtract the number employed and come
up with 90 million BUT they point out this number with their calculations is
closer to 20 million. OTOH,  they neglect those who are under employed, or
stuck with part time work which could double the number to 40 million, or
still  substantially less than the 90 million listed in many places on the
internet.

I should have dug farther, but 8 or 10 links all showed the 90 million
figure, the disturbing trend is fewer people are entering the workforce,
>From 2009 to 2013 (last year the figures were available) the percent in the
labor force participation rate dropped from 65.7% to 63.5%  That number
includes part timers and under employed as working.  
Looking up the pay scales, many of those liberal arts students will be
unable to find a job capable of paying off their college loans by the time
they retire.

I quit a job that paid better than most college grads earn, so I could go to
college, but the CS degree paid much better still with more chance for
advancement.
Many would have been better off with a two year degree and a great deal less
debt..
20 to 40 million is still a very large number and that 90 million does
includes all those of working age.  Many retirees are finding it necessary
to reenter the workforce, but they aren't counted when out of work. When I
went to the university, many of the students took their first two years at a
local college and then worked to keep their debt down.

I should have worked a few more years.  It would have made a whale of a
difference in my pension and SS

73

Roger (K8RI)



On 7/7/2016 Thursday 12:28 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>>     There are, after all, over 90 million Americans out  of work,
>   
>      Whoa! Would you please cite where you got this  info? Methinks 
> that would have to include infants and students to reach that  number.
>   
> Cheers,
> Steve     K7LXC
>   
>   
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From Bill at theeisingers.com  Fri Jul  8 13:21:11 2016
From: Bill at theeisingers.com (Bill Eisinger)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 17:21:11 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <00c701d1d93b$24458a10$6cd09e30$@verizon.net>
References: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
	<8f1ea289-02eb-d24d-682f-922a82c6c28a@tm.net>,
	<00c701d1d93b$24458a10$6cd09e30$@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <E83D2F7F-EB11-4F04-A476-A705B21C666D@theeisingers.com>

Could somebody please explain what this thread has to do with anything remotely related to towers or antennas?

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 8, 2016, at 10:08 AM, D. Scott MacKenzie <kb0fhp at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> You are lucky you had a pension.  Most are taken away or simply not there.
> This isn't a menial minimum wage job.  This is a position that pays well -
> even by East Coast standards.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Roger
> (K8RI) on TT
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 4:27 AM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK
> 
> You're partially right Jim.
> I had searched the net and repeatedly came up with the 90 million, so I went
> to Politifact.
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/30/blog-posting/
> are-90-million-americans-not-working-or-looking-wo/
> They list the number of working age, subtract the number employed and come
> up with 90 million BUT they point out this number with their calculations is
> closer to 20 million. OTOH,  they neglect those who are under employed, or
> stuck with part time work which could double the number to 40 million, or
> still  substantially less than the 90 million listed in many places on the
> internet.
> 
> I should have dug farther, but 8 or 10 links all showed the 90 million
> figure, the disturbing trend is fewer people are entering the workforce,
> From 2009 to 2013 (last year the figures were available) the percent in the
> labor force participation rate dropped from 65.7% to 63.5%  That number
> includes part timers and under employed as working.  
> Looking up the pay scales, many of those liberal arts students will be
> unable to find a job capable of paying off their college loans by the time
> they retire.
> 
> I quit a job that paid better than most college grads earn, so I could go to
> college, but the CS degree paid much better still with more chance for
> advancement.
> Many would have been better off with a two year degree and a great deal less
> debt..
> 20 to 40 million is still a very large number and that 90 million does
> includes all those of working age.  Many retirees are finding it necessary
> to reenter the workforce, but they aren't counted when out of work. When I
> went to the university, many of the students took their first two years at a
> local college and then worked to keep their debt down.
> 
> I should have worked a few more years.  It would have made a whale of a
> difference in my pension and SS
> 
> 73
> 
> Roger (K8RI)
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/7/2016 Thursday 12:28 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>>>    There are, after all, over 90 million Americans out  of work,
>> 
>>     Whoa! Would you please cite where you got this  info? Methinks 
>> that would have to include infants and students to reach that  number.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Steve     K7LXC
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 73
> 
> Roger (K8RI)
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

From k6uj at pacbell.net  Fri Jul  8 13:47:36 2016
From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Bob K6UJ)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:47:36 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <E83D2F7F-EB11-4F04-A476-A705B21C666D@theeisingers.com>
References: <8645b9.72f115f8.44afdd32@aol.com>
	<8f1ea289-02eb-d24d-682f-922a82c6c28a@tm.net>
	<00c701d1d93b$24458a10$6cd09e30$@verizon.net>
	<E83D2F7F-EB11-4F04-A476-A705B21C666D@theeisingers.com>
Message-ID: <bc7d6e13-1acf-beef-259d-559880b234a0@pacbell.net>

Be patient Bill :-)

AES was one of our leading merchants of ham radio equipment, (including 
antennas)
It is sad to see them go.  We are studying the economics that may have 
led to their demise.
As hams we go over it over and over and over (that's what we do) :-)

Not to detract from our current economic analysis, but does any one 
think there might
be a possibility of another company buying AES ?  That would be great if 
the stores could
remain intact,  just owned be another company.
I guess I don't get out much, hihi, but I just discovered that MFJ owns 
Ameritron, Hy Gain,
Mirage, Vectronics, and Cushcraft.

Bob
K6UJ


On 7/8/16 10:21 AM, Bill Eisinger wrote:
> Could somebody please explain what this thread has to do with anything remotely related to towers or antennas?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 10:08 AM, D. Scott MacKenzie <kb0fhp at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> You are lucky you had a pension.  Most are taken away or simply not there.
>> This isn't a menial minimum wage job.  This is a position that pays well -
>> even by East Coast standards.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Roger
>> (K8RI) on TT
>> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 4:27 AM
>> To: towertalk at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK
>>
>> You're partially right Jim.
>> I had searched the net and repeatedly came up with the 90 million, so I went
>> to Politifact.
>> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/30/blog-posting/
>> are-90-million-americans-not-working-or-looking-wo/
>> They list the number of working age, subtract the number employed and come
>> up with 90 million BUT they point out this number with their calculations is
>> closer to 20 million. OTOH,  they neglect those who are under employed, or
>> stuck with part time work which could double the number to 40 million, or
>> still  substantially less than the 90 million listed in many places on the
>> internet.
>>
>> I should have dug farther, but 8 or 10 links all showed the 90 million
>> figure, the disturbing trend is fewer people are entering the workforce,
>>  From 2009 to 2013 (last year the figures were available) the percent in the
>> labor force participation rate dropped from 65.7% to 63.5%  That number
>> includes part timers and under employed as working.
>> Looking up the pay scales, many of those liberal arts students will be
>> unable to find a job capable of paying off their college loans by the time
>> they retire.
>>
>> I quit a job that paid better than most college grads earn, so I could go to
>> college, but the CS degree paid much better still with more chance for
>> advancement.
>> Many would have been better off with a two year degree and a great deal less
>> debt..
>> 20 to 40 million is still a very large number and that 90 million does
>> includes all those of working age.  Many retirees are finding it necessary
>> to reenter the workforce, but they aren't counted when out of work. When I
>> went to the university, many of the students took their first two years at a
>> local college and then worked to keep their debt down.
>>
>> I should have worked a few more years.  It would have made a whale of a
>> difference in my pension and SS
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/7/2016 Thursday 12:28 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>>>>     There are, after all, over 90 million Americans out  of work,
>>>      Whoa! Would you please cite where you got this  info? Methinks
>>> that would have to include infants and students to reach that  number.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Steve     K7LXC
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From choelzle at cox.net  Fri Jul  8 14:05:07 2016
From: choelzle at cox.net (Chris Hoelzle)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 11:05:07 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <a2bd05cd-c3f0-14ac-d7df-d9fddf48d390@tm.net>
References: <D3A3EDC9.3B605%scottw3tx@verizon.net>
	<a2bd05cd-c3f0-14ac-d7df-d9fddf48d390@tm.net>
Message-ID: <009e01d1d943$42e86de0$c8b949a0$@cox.net>

Ham radio stores going out of business or changing their model is not
something new.
My Father K6PMC owned Kitron Radio in Pomona, CA. Starting in 1957 he was a
proud retailer for Hammarlund and Hallicrafters radios. He was hard working
and kind to all the hams that would come in. 
He would spend three or four hours with a ham comparing and contrasting the
features of each radio. None of these radios were cheap. He sold a few of
them, but unfortunately, most of the hams would reward his help by driving
40 miles to a competitor where they could buy the radio for $20 or $30
cheaper.
In the later years, my dad would lament about the fact that so many hams
were just cheap. What a shame.

Moral of the story - If you get good customer service from a brick and
mortar shop - Please - reward them with a sale instead of using the internet
and trying to make finding the cheapest price into a blood sport.

I miss my local Radio Shack - I am sure there are a lot of hams that liked
AES.

It is up to us to reward retailers for their commitment to us.

NN6CH
Chris Hoelzle 
choelzle at cox.net 
Laguna Niguel, CA 


From K7LXC at aol.com  Fri Jul  8 14:43:33 2016
From: K7LXC at aol.com (K7LXC at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:43:33 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
Message-ID: <2ca4e9.484af628.44b14e55@aol.com>

>  Could somebody please explain what this thread has to do  with anything 
remotely related to towers or antennas?
 
    To be honest, most of the discussions on TT have to  do with buying 
something so the demise of a large long time retailer is of some  significance. 
Besides it also gives us a chance to wax nostalgic which is hard  to avoid 
in this context - hi. 
 
    But devolving into political and retail opinions is  about par for the 
course. Onward - and hopefully - upward!
 
Cheers,
Steve    K7LXC
TT ADMIN

From Bill at theeisingers.com  Fri Jul  8 14:52:08 2016
From: Bill at theeisingers.com (Bill Eisinger)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:52:08 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <2ca4e9.484af628.44b14e55@aol.com>
References: <2ca4e9.484af628.44b14e55@aol.com>
Message-ID: <B6923015-8CF8-4A6A-895B-4F457156EA4F@theeisingers.com>

Nothing wrong with waxing nostalgic about AES but endless politically slanted discussions of labor statistics, union bashing, salaries, etc have nothing to do with the matter of hand....about the only topic that hasn't been introduced is somehow linking anemic ham radio equipment sales to illegal immigration but that could be next!...I'll stay tuned....

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 8, 2016, at 11:43 AM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <towertalk at contesting.com> wrote:

>> Could somebody please explain what this thread has to do  with anything
> remotely related to towers or antennas?
> 
>    To be honest, most of the discussions on TT have to  do with buying 
> something so the demise of a large long time retailer is of some  significance. 
> Besides it also gives us a chance to wax nostalgic which is hard  to avoid 
> in this context - hi. 
> 
>    But devolving into political and retail opinions is  about par for the 
> course. Onward - and hopefully - upward!
> 
> Cheers,
> Steve    K7LXC
> TT ADMIN
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From fishflorida at gmail.com  Fri Jul  8 15:12:59 2016
From: fishflorida at gmail.com (Mickey Baker)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:12:59 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <B6923015-8CF8-4A6A-895B-4F457156EA4F@theeisingers.com>
References: <2ca4e9.484af628.44b14e55@aol.com>
	<B6923015-8CF8-4A6A-895B-4F457156EA4F@theeisingers.com>
Message-ID: <CAOB+T5ad+FGhPAXX6F3ZChCvSVjZuZuMKHCjMRCsZDP+CjK38A@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting conversations with a bunch of smart people sometimes evolve
into more than the subject at hand and I find this thread enjoyable. Thanks
to Steve letting this go on, he's one of those folks as well.

The demise of AES says a lot about amateur radio and the ability of
companies to survive the obvious shift from brick and mortar to click and
order. One of my observations is that many small businesses don't have any
plans to exit the business and have it continue. One small radio store
owner told me "I have no exit strategy. I'll die standing here," which is a
bit sad.

So, if you're one of these guys, keep good accurate books and and work on
keeping your business afloat. When you get older, good financials, loyal
customers and management succession will take care of the business that
you've built, and you will have the freedom to do what you wish. The
founder of HRO is gone, but his business lives on. He likely planned it
that way!

73

Mickey N4MB


Mickey Baker, N4MB
Palm Beach Gardens
*?Tell me, and I will listen. Show me, and I will understand. Involve me,
and I will learn.? *Teton Lakota, American Indian Saying.

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Bill Eisinger <Bill at theeisingers.com> wrote:

> Nothing wrong with waxing nostalgic about AES but endless politically
> slanted discussions of labor statistics, union bashing, salaries, etc have
> nothing to do with the matter of hand....about the only topic that hasn't
> been introduced is somehow linking anemic ham radio equipment sales to
> illegal immigration but that could be next!...I'll stay tuned....
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 8, 2016, at 11:43 AM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk <
> towertalk at contesting.com> wrote:
>
> >> Could somebody please explain what this thread has to do  with anything
> > remotely related to towers or antennas?
> >
> >    To be honest, most of the discussions on TT have to  do with buying
> > something so the demise of a large long time retailer is of some
> significance.
> > Besides it also gives us a chance to wax nostalgic which is hard  to
> avoid
> > in this context - hi.
> >
> >    But devolving into political and retail opinions is  about par for the
> > course. Onward - and hopefully - upward!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Steve    K7LXC
> > TT ADMIN
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

From jbwolf at comcast.net  Fri Jul  8 15:27:03 2016
From: jbwolf at comcast.net (James Wolf)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:27:03 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
Message-ID: <005801d1d94e$b5158d20$1f40a760$@comcast.net>


>> This is my current approach.  Unfortunately, there is not enough 
>> clearance

>Your current approach is to drop the feedline down and run it parallel a
foot below the booms back to the mast and then down to ground?
>Is that right?  What is you don't like about doing that? 

Rick,  yes.  Mechanically I'll need to figure out how to attach fiberglass
drop poles to the boom and coax that will last as the end of my tower
climbing days is in sight.

>Do not connect anything to the booms (except at the feedpoint at the front)
and do not run any conductors near them.

>> to run the coax through the boom to the back of the antenna due to the
way
>> the elements connect to the boom.   However, what if I were to
electrically

>No, I wouldn't recommend running the coax through a boom even if it were
mechanically possible.

Many military Logs are fed at the rear with the feed line either run through
one of the booms or turning one of the booms itself into a coaxial line to
the log-feedpoint in the front of the antenna.  My thought was that if I
could add another aluminum tube mechanically and electrically attached to
the bottom boom and run the coax through it, I could achieve a very
mechanical and electrically good antenna.  

>Rick N6RK

Jim - KR9U


From jd0 at broadsci.com  Fri Jul  8 15:50:38 2016
From: jd0 at broadsci.com (Jeff DePolo)
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:50:38 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
In-Reply-To: <005801d1d94e$b5158d20$1f40a760$@comcast.net>
References: <005801d1d94e$b5158d20$1f40a760$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <AB28ED485B3745B38FA613CF5DC5AD4F@OUTLAW>


> Many military Logs are fed at the rear with the feed line 
> either run through
> one of the booms or turning one of the booms itself into a 
> coaxial line to
> the log-feedpoint in the front of the antenna.  My thought 
> was that if I
> could add another aluminum tube mechanically and electrically 
> attached to
> the bottom boom and run the coax through it, I could achieve a very
> mechanical and electrically good antenna.  
> Jim - KR9U

If you're going to go that route, why not just bond the shield of the coax
to the lower boom at the rear and at a few intervals going forward to the
feedpoint?  If I were to attempt to do something like that, I'd probably use
a piece of 3/8" or 1/2" Heliax with the jacket stripped off for the length
of the boom, and some stainless P-clips or similar to provide the bond yet
keep the copper shield and aluminum boom from being in direct contact with
each other.

				--- Jeff WN3A


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From ec1ct at esbesaya.com  Fri Jul  8 16:54:19 2016
From: ec1ct at esbesaya.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fernando_Gonz=E1lez=2C_EC1CT?=)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 22:54:19 +0200
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <2ca4e9.484af628.44b14e55@aol.com>
References: <2ca4e9.484af628.44b14e55@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3FB621081FBD4557B9C15CD55FCD15ED@MSI>

I?m one of the ones who have been following this thread with interest. As an 
owner of a small brick and mortar bussiness (not related to radio sales but 
family owned) on the other side of the pond
I?m certainly identified with some of the opinions here.  It seems that the 
problem with small bussiness ( got 10 employees) are the same there in NA 
and Europe. It could be something related to what we call global economy. As 
some of you stated aint?got no plan for an exit but the profit (if some) is 
thinner year by year (some of my employees earn more money than me at 
times). Not only related to the economical situation but also to the fact 
that the cost (including insurances, energy, taxes, labour) increase 10 to 
18% a year and the market doesn?t allow me to increase my prices 
acordingly...73s
EC1CT - KD0IGJ Fernando


-----Mensaje original----- 
From: K7LXC--- via TowerTalk
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 8:43 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com ; kb0fhp at verizon.net
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

>  Could somebody please explain what this thread has to do  with anything
remotely related to towers or antennas?

    To be honest, most of the discussions on TT have to  do with buying
something so the demise of a large long time retailer is of some 
significance.
Besides it also gives us a chance to wax nostalgic which is hard  to avoid
in this context - hi.

    But devolving into political and retail opinions is  about par for the
course. Onward - and hopefully - upward!

Cheers,
Steve    K7LXC
TT ADMIN
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-----
No se encontraron virus en este mensaje.
Comprobado por AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Base de datos de virus: 4613/12579 - Fecha de 
publicacion: 07/08/16 


From jim.thom at telus.net  Fri Jul  8 18:12:12 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:12:12 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
Message-ID: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>

Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:35:15 -0700
From: Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

A huge part of the problem of unemployment in the developed world is the 
automation of work that used to be done by well-paid human labor. 
Hundreds of employees replaced by a few robots, machines that do the 
work tens of times faster than a human.

Many (most?) of the people who did those jobs for the first 20-40 years 
of their working lifetime have little if any education for today's jobs 
operating, building, and maintaining that equipment. At 74, I've been 
retired for about 7 years. My wife, 72, retired three years ago, 
primarily because of hand surgery. We've talked about working today, and 
agree that we would have a hard time getting hired at any decent job in 
today's world, not because the jobs aren't there, but because our fields 
have moved on, and we haven't. I have a BSEE, she's a PhD.

73, Jim K9YC

##  Well  you could work for Fair rite as a type 31 sales manager.  Or better yet,
visit their new plant in China, where they make all these products, and figure out
why they have such extremes and variations in their  type 31 cores  since the chinese
plant opened.   N3RR  bought over  700 of em, 2.4  inch od cores, and found they
are all over the map, and even sent samples to Fair rite.   Bill ended up devising  a
simple 1 turn test, then graded all  700 of em into various sub groups.   No wonder the 
initial CMC results  were not repeatable. 

Jim  VE7RF




From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Fri Jul  8 19:22:40 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 16:22:40 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>
References: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>
Message-ID: <ce099b42-3c8b-0841-b05b-0cf29dab0dec@audiosystemsgroup.com>

It's good that you raised this, Jim. Fair-Rite is yet another example of 
a great small business that was owned and run by engineers who happened 
to be married. He was the Chem E, she was the EE. I met them in their 
booth at an IEEE EMC engineering conference in Chicago in 2005. Not long 
after that they sold the business and retired. That's probably when mfg 
moved off shore. Several years ago, I heard from a local EE working mfg 
that his company was having serious QC issues with their #61 cores of 
the same sort you described.

My measurements of coax chokes were mostly done in 2007, the bifilar 
chokes in 2009-10. Measurements that produced the families of data for 
1-14 turns of the five different materials were done in a well known lab 
in 2002-3 by my collaborator who has chosen to remain anonymous to avoid 
"issues" at work.

I would NOT, however, solely blame QC for the problem with getting 
consistent measurements on chokes, simply because the circuit Q of 
practical chokes is quite low, typically around 0.5. Rather, I think 
much of it is a measurement problem. It is VERY well known that 
reflection-based impedance measurements have increasingly poor accuracy 
for values of Z that vary by more than about 5:1 from the system 
impedance of the measurement system (usually 50 ohms). This is because 
the equation for Z involves the sum and difference of S11 and 1, so very 
small errors in S11 result in large errors in Z.

This error is in addition to the stray C of the measurement fixture, 
which can cause significant errors in the resonance of the choke. This 
is significant with #31 and #43 chokes that are resonant above about 10 
MHz, and huge errors in higher Q materials like #61. In both cases, the 
actual resonance of the choke is higher than the measured value.

73, Jim K9YC

On Fri,7/8/2016 3:12 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> Well  you could work for Fair rite as a type 31 sales manager.  Or better yet,
> visit their new plant in China, where they make all these products, and figure out
> why they have such extremes and variations in their  type 31 cores  since the chinese
> plant opened.   N3RR  bought over  700 of em, 2.4  inch od cores, and found they
> are all over the map, and even sent samples to Fair rite.   Bill ended up devising  a
> simple 1 turn test, then graded all  700 of em into various sub groups.   No wonder the
> initial CMC results  were not repeatable.



From ersmar at verizon.net  Fri Jul  8 19:42:26 2016
From: ersmar at verizon.net (Gene Smar)
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 19:42:26 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>
References: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>
Message-ID: <000401d1d972$6295f930$27c1eb90$@verizon.net>

TT:

     The comment about work being done today by machines that used to be
done (mostly) by men reminds me of my trips to Haiti when we were building
its first wireless network in 1999-2000.  I saw several two- and three-story
buildings being built with poured concrete floors.  The concrete was being
carried up homemade ladders by a fire brigade of men, a bucket at a time,
one man to the next.  I asked my Haitian host why they didn't use machinery
as we did in the US.  My host visited the US often and was familiar with the
concrete pumps we would use for the purpose.  He said if they used the
machines, thirty families would have no income.  To me the better good won
out in that case.


73 de
Gene Smar  AD3F
P.S.  BTW - When the concrete work was done, the carpenters on the site took
apart the ladders and straightened out the nails by hammering them against a
straight piece of wood.  Recycling to the nth degree.  

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Thomson
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 6:12 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK

Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:35:15 -0700
From: Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

A huge part of the problem of unemployment in the developed world is the
automation of work that used to be done by well-paid human labor. 
Hundreds of employees replaced by a few robots, machines that do the work
tens of times faster than a human.

Many (most?) of the people who did those jobs for the first 20-40 years of
their working lifetime have little if any education for today's jobs
operating, building, and maintaining that equipment. At 74, I've been
retired for about 7 years. My wife, 72, retired three years ago, primarily
because of hand surgery. We've talked about working today, and agree that we
would have a hard time getting hired at any decent job in today's world, not
because the jobs aren't there, but because our fields have moved on, and we
haven't. I have a BSEE, she's a PhD.

73, Jim K9YC

##  Well  you could work for Fair rite as a type 31 sales manager.  Or
better yet, visit their new plant in China, where they make all these
products, and figure out why they have such extremes and variations in their
type 31 cores  since the chinese
plant opened.   N3RR  bought over  700 of em, 2.4  inch od cores, and found
they
are all over the map, and even sent samples to Fair rite.   Bill ended up
devising  a
simple 1 turn test, then graded all  700 of em into various sub groups.   No
wonder the 
initial CMC results  were not repeatable. 

Jim  VE7RF



_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From kstover at ac0h.net  Fri Jul  8 20:34:44 2016
From: kstover at ac0h.net (Kevin)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:34:44 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
In-Reply-To: <005801d1d921$9f0b2170$dd216450$@comcast.net>
References: <005801d1d921$9f0b2170$dd216450$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1f831260-d718-5518-4a96-0f3f1d2c5c93@ac0h.net>

Exactly!

In the case of Tennadyne, the booms are spaced to give a 50 Ohm feed point.

To do the drooping coax get yourself the Home Depot/Lowe's and buy a 12" 
x 24" sheet of UV protected Lexan.

Cut it into eight 3" strips a foot long, drill to clear #8 hardware. Get 
some 1.5 inch stainless fender washers with a number 8 hole, and some SS 
hardware. Drill the bottom boom through to clear the #8 hardware equally 
along the boom. Drill the bottom of the Lexan to clear the cable P-Clips 
hardware. I'd alternate sides with the support strips. I'd also use a 
stout Common Mode Choke where the coax comes back to the mast and heads 
down the tower.

Go ahead and use the Collins choke at the feed if $$$ is an issue. 
Otherwise the Tennadyne Yahoo group files sections has a file by a Ham 
who rebuilt his T10. Instead of the coax coil at the feed he had some 
fancy machining done to support a Balun Designs 1:1 choke at the feed. 
Much better isolation of the coax than the Collins choke. Alas, he taped 
the coax to the boom. Ignore that part.:-)


On 7/8/2016 9:04 AM, James Wolf wrote:
>>>> Think of the dual boom as an open wire transmission line having a
> characteristic impedance of something like 300 ohms, and a spacing of
> several inches.
> The feedline should drop down vertically from its attachment point to the
> two booms and then turn and run parallel to the two booms, but below them by
> 6 to 12 inches, so there is minimal disruption to the open wire line.  IMHO,
> taping it to either boom makes no engineering sense at all.  It does make
> marketing sense, in that the antenna might sell better if they show a nice
> "clean" installation vs the feedline hanging down.
>
> Some TV antennas are designed this way, and you never see the coax taped to
> the booms.  It just hangs down.
>
> Rick N6RK
> _______________________
>
> This is my current approach.  Unfortunately, there is not enough clearance
> to run the coax through the boom to the back of the antenna due to the way
> the elements connect to the boom.   However, what if I were to electrically
> connect a piece of aluminum tubing to the bottom boom and run the coax
> through it to the read of the antenna where the shorting stub is and then
> drop down and bring it back to the boom.  That would likely require no choke
> at all since it is the "cold" point of the antenna?
>
> Jim - KR9U
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Fri Jul  8 21:37:24 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:37:24 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
In-Reply-To: <1f831260-d718-5518-4a96-0f3f1d2c5c93@ac0h.net>
References: <005801d1d921$9f0b2170$dd216450$@comcast.net>
	<1f831260-d718-5518-4a96-0f3f1d2c5c93@ac0h.net>
Message-ID: <885c8a9f-2ac7-b241-2193-9b22d676253b@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Fri,7/8/2016 5:34 PM, Kevin wrote:
> Instead of the coax coil at the feed he had some fancy machining done 
> to support a Balun Designs 1:1 choke at the feed. 

Better yet, wind the coax through multiple cores following my Choke 
Cookbook. Now, from the choke down, you can dress the coax any way you 
like, and the choke prevents signal picked up on the coax from filling 
in the nulls of the beam.

k9yc.com/RFI-Ham.pdf

I continue to marvel at folks who will spend money on some magic box 
that someone else builds rather than something they can do themselves 
for a fraction of the cost.

73, Jim K9YC


From john at kk9a.com  Fri Jul  8 22:28:10 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 22:28:10 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
Message-ID: <006b01d1d989$899deb70$9cd9c250$@com>

I used a small Tennadyne log periodic at a Virgin Island home that I rented
three months ago.  I did not recall any hanging coax so a few minutes ago O
looked at my photos and discovered that the coax was taped to the live boom.
At the time I never gave this much thought, perhaps visiting the rum factory
was a higher priority:) This is a very interesting subject and I will
definitely make the station owner aware of the towertalk posts.

73,
John KK9A  WP2AA


To:	<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject:	Re: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
From:	"James Wolf" <jbwolf at comcast.net>
Reply-to:	jbwolf at comcast.net
Date:	Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:04:19 -0400

The feedline should drop down vertically from its attachment point to the
two booms and then turn and run parallel to the two booms, but below them by
6 to 12 inches, so there is minimal disruption to the open wire line.  IMHO,
taping it to either boom makes no engineering sense at all.  It does make
marketing sense, in that the antenna might sell better if they show a nice
"clean" installation vs the feedline hanging down.

Some TV antennas are designed this way, and you never see the coax taped to
the booms.  It just hangs down.

Rick N6RK


From EZRhino at fastmovers.biz  Fri Jul  8 23:07:17 2016
From: EZRhino at fastmovers.biz (EZ Rhino)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 21:07:17 -0600
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
In-Reply-To: <006b01d1d989$899deb70$9cd9c250$@com>
References: <006b01d1d989$899deb70$9cd9c250$@com>
Message-ID: <EC408048-4129-48DF-B29D-97C45579925D@fastmovers.biz>

This was posted before, but I doubt it has been looked by many of us, so I'm reposting it.
http://www.w8ji.com/baluns_on_log_perodic_antennas.htm

This will tell you pretty much everything you need to know.  I'm using method #2, using one of Jim's awesome chokes at the boom/mast junction.  Seems to work fine, but without a test range and/or extensive work, it's pretty tough to verify.

Chris
KF7P



On Jul 8, 2016, at 20:28 , <john at kk9a.com> <john at kk9a.com> wrote:

I used a small Tennadyne log periodic at a Virgin Island home that I rented
three months ago.  I did not recall any hanging coax so a few minutes ago O
looked at my photos and discovered that the coax was taped to the live boom.
At the time I never gave this much thought, perhaps visiting the rum factory
was a higher priority:) This is a very interesting subject and I will
definitely make the station owner aware of the towertalk posts.

73,
John KK9A  WP2AA


To:	<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject:	Re: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
From:	"James Wolf" <jbwolf at comcast.net>
Reply-to:	jbwolf at comcast.net
Date:	Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:04:19 -0400

The feedline should drop down vertically from its attachment point to the
two booms and then turn and run parallel to the two booms, but below them by
6 to 12 inches, so there is minimal disruption to the open wire line.  IMHO,
taping it to either boom makes no engineering sense at all.  It does make
marketing sense, in that the antenna might sell better if they show a nice
"clean" installation vs the feedline hanging down.

Some TV antennas are designed this way, and you never see the coax taped to
the booms.  It just hangs down.

Rick N6RK

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



From n7rt at brighthouse.com  Thu Jul  7 10:13:05 2016
From: n7rt at brighthouse.com (Hardy Landskov)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:13:05 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
Message-ID: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>

I would like to get something portable for checking antenna VSWR. I was
looking at the Rig Expert units. Anyone have an opinion? I don't want to
hook it up to a computer when on the tower.

Hardy N7RT/4


From ve4xt at mymts.net  Thu Jul  7 11:56:57 2016
From: ve4xt at mymts.net (Kelly Taylor)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:56:57 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <D3A3EDC9.3B605%scottw3tx@verizon.net>
References: <D3A3EDC9.3B605%scottw3tx@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <EF35C5E4-216D-4D11-99D9-C239FEFEEE73@mymts.net>

A funny, though harrowing, tale of everything that?s wrong with the two dominant North American first-world economies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKv6RcXa2UI <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKv6RcXa2UI>

?Oh Big Box Mart, what have you sold to me? We used to be your customers, now we?re your employees.?

The pigeons of off-shore labour have come home to roost, and we?re seeing increasing examples of the folly every day.

73, kelly, ve4xt,





> On Jul 7, 2016, at 10:43 AM, ScottW3TX <scottw3tx at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> Most brick and mortar stores run on very thin profit margins that are
> getting squeezed smaller and smaller in this new economy shift. Costs
> (especially health insurance, regulatory, and base services to keep the
> doors open), are going up at 8 to 12% per year. Meanwhile competition does
> not allow for the final seller of products or service to raise prices.
> There are no longer excess profits in smaller businesses to fund owner and
> employee retirement plans. Therefore there is rarely any "goodwill" or
> "blue-sky" value in the sale. Just inventory (if it is sellable) and real
> estate.
> 
> The bigger picture is what will happen to amateur radio sales companies?
> The trend is that the smaller, niche companies are either closing down or
> selling to the two dominant buyers.
> 
> Is such consolidation good for the future of amateur radio?
> 
> What happens when MFJ or DXE go up for sale?  Most likely the only
> potential buyers will be publicly traded companies that have less interest
> in the customer than the current stake-holders that are active amateur
> radio operators themselves.  And will there even be a buy when one factors
> in the demographics?
> 
> When I took my 13 year old son to the DX Dinner at Dayton this year he was
> probably the youngest person there. I was probably the second youngest
> (49).  
> 
> Unless amateur radio quickly and effectively figures out how to connect
> itself into the STEM and Programming wave I fear that Nathan and I will be
> the only guys at the DX Dinner someday.
> 
> At least he and I will have darn good antennas :)
> 
> 73, Scott W3TX
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/7/16 11:24 AM, "Alan NV8A" <nv8a at charter.net> wrote:
> 
>> I have been surprised at the number of local businesses that are simply
>> shut down when the owner decides to retire: they have a "going out of
>> business sale," and that's it. I would have expected them to sell the
>> business -- with its "good will" -- as a going concern.
>> 
>> 73
>> 
>> Alan NV8A
>> 
>> 
>> On 07/07/2016 07:21 AM, Chuck Gooden wrote:
>>> 
>>> I would of expected that, the company would be up for sale to someone
>>> that would be interested in keeping ham radio alive.  So I am waiting
>>> until I see an official notice.
>>> 
>>> Chuck Gooden N9QBT
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/6/2016 4:57 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>>>> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're
>>>> closing the
>>>> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be
>>>> one
>>>> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From aa6dx at arrl.net  Thu Jul  7 14:58:40 2016
From: aa6dx at arrl.net (AA6DX - Mark)
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 11:58:40 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES go Bye-Bye
Message-ID: <DA7E6A6E04C64945BEDFEFF939772B9A@WA6MJB>


Just in case you did not hear.. Amateur Electronic Supply, around since 1957, is closing its doors. In 1965 I bought my first beam ? a Hy-Gain TH-6 (no DX) from them, on their time payment plan,, and it was delivered by Railway Express!  73  Mark  AA6DX

From ve4xt at mymts.net  Fri Jul  8 21:48:09 2016
From: ve4xt at mymts.net (Kelly Taylor)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 20:48:09 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
In-Reply-To: <885c8a9f-2ac7-b241-2193-9b22d676253b@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <005801d1d921$9f0b2170$dd216450$@comcast.net>
	<1f831260-d718-5518-4a96-0f3f1d2c5c93@ac0h.net>
	<885c8a9f-2ac7-b241-2193-9b22d676253b@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <3528C1E3-36C5-484A-B6B2-0ACCE1B7448C@mymts.net>

And, which your data show, works better!


> On Jul 8, 2016, at 8:37 PM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri,7/8/2016 5:34 PM, Kevin wrote:
>> Instead of the coax coil at the feed he had some fancy machining done to support a Balun Designs 1:1 choke at the feed. 
> 
> Better yet, wind the coax through multiple cores following my Choke Cookbook. Now, from the choke down, you can dress the coax any way you like, and the choke prevents signal picked up on the coax from filling in the nulls of the beam.
> 
> k9yc.com/RFI-Ham.pdf
> 
> I continue to marvel at folks who will spend money on some magic box that someone else builds rather than something they can do themselves for a fraction of the cost.
> 
> 73, Jim K9YC
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From braimanbiz at charter.net  Sat Jul  9 01:30:11 2016
From: braimanbiz at charter.net (Paul Braiman)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 22:30:11 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
In-Reply-To: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
References: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
Message-ID: <DCDF8C8F-A8C5-4097-A5E5-18ADF56AB98F@charter.net>

I've been using the AA-600 for 2+ years now. Very capable analyzer. Screen is easy to read, the controls easy to use. The only drawbacks are the use of a type n connector, and the slow time it takes to do TDR on a feedline. But then, a real TDR costs waaaay more money.

Paul, W2PIR

"Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. The fearful are caught as often as the bold."
-Helen Keller

> On Jul 7, 2016, at 07:13, Hardy Landskov <n7rt at brighthouse.com> wrote:
> 
> I would like to get something portable for checking antenna VSWR. I was
> looking at the Rig Expert units. Anyone have an opinion? I don't want to
> hook it up to a computer when on the tower.
> 
> Hardy N7RT/4
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From jim.thom at telus.net  Sat Jul  9 02:22:22 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 23:22:22 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
Message-ID: <E7727C9B8D6F4583B6EFE74024853FA4@JimPC>

Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:37:24 -0700
From: Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed

On Fri,7/8/2016 5:34 PM, Kevin wrote:
> Instead of the coax coil at the feed he had some fancy machining done 
> to support a Balun Designs 1:1 choke at the feed. 

Better yet, wind the coax through multiple cores following my Choke 
Cookbook. Now, from the choke down, you can dress the coax any way you 
like, and the choke prevents signal picked up on the coax from filling 
in the nulls of the beam.

k9yc.com/RFI-Ham.pdf

I continue to marvel at folks who will spend money on some magic box 
that someone else builds rather than something they can do themselves 
for a fraction of the cost.

73, Jim K9YC


##  he needs to use method #2  as shown at http://www.w8ji.com/baluns_on_log_perodic_antennas.htm
IE:   TWO  CMCs required.... one at feed point.... and a second one where the  coax leaves the boom..and  forms into
the rotor loop.   Coax is taped to one of the booms.   problem solved.

Jim   VE7RF

From gm3sek at ifwtech.co.uk  Sat Jul  9 04:21:16 2016
From: gm3sek at ifwtech.co.uk (Ian White)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:21:16 +0100
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <ce099b42-3c8b-0841-b05b-0cf29dab0dec@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>
	<ce099b42-3c8b-0841-b05b-0cf29dab0dec@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <003401d1d9ba$e234ca70$a69e5f50$@co.uk>

Several good points there, about the variability of ferrite cores.

Ferrites are, quite literally, "bakery products". Just like bread and
cakes, the properties of ferrites depend on the correct ingredients
measured out in precise quantities, on the precise manner in which those
ingredients are mixed, and also - most critically - on the
temperature/time profile of the baking and cooling. 

Just like baking, the manufacture of ferrite materials is a complex
blend of science and know-how. Once a specific product has been
developed, consistency can only be achieved by repeating exactly the
same processes for every batch.

It is very easy to see how QC problems could appear from outsourcing
those critical processes to an offshore company that lacks the original
manufacturer's in-house know-how, with a language barrier that prevents
that information being accurately transferred.


73 from Ian GM3SEK


>-----Original Message-----
>From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>Jim Brown
>Sent: 09 July 2016 00:23
>To: towertalk at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK
>
>It's good that you raised this, Jim. Fair-Rite is yet another example
of
>a great small business that was owned and run by engineers who happened
>to be married. He was the Chem E, she was the EE. I met them in their
>booth at an IEEE EMC engineering conference in Chicago in 2005. Not
long
>after that they sold the business and retired. That's probably when mfg
>moved off shore. Several years ago, I heard from a local EE working mfg
>that his company was having serious QC issues with their #61 cores of
>the same sort you described.
>
>My measurements of coax chokes were mostly done in 2007, the bifilar
>chokes in 2009-10. Measurements that produced the families of data for
>1-14 turns of the five different materials were done in a well known
lab
>in 2002-3 by my collaborator who has chosen to remain anonymous to
>avoid
>"issues" at work.
>
>I would NOT, however, solely blame QC for the problem with getting
>consistent measurements on chokes, simply because the circuit Q of
>practical chokes is quite low, typically around 0.5. Rather, I think
>much of it is a measurement problem. It is VERY well known that
>reflection-based impedance measurements have increasingly poor accuracy
>for values of Z that vary by more than about 5:1 from the system
>impedance of the measurement system (usually 50 ohms). This is because
>the equation for Z involves the sum and difference of S11 and 1, so
very
>small errors in S11 result in large errors in Z.
>
>This error is in addition to the stray C of the measurement fixture,
>which can cause significant errors in the resonance of the choke. This
>is significant with #31 and #43 chokes that are resonant above about 10
>MHz, and huge errors in higher Q materials like #61. In both cases, the
>actual resonance of the choke is higher than the measured value.
>
>73, Jim K9YC
>
>On Fri,7/8/2016 3:12 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>> Well  you could work for Fair rite as a type 31 sales manager.  Or
better
>yet,
>> visit their new plant in China, where they make all these products,
and
>figure out
>> why they have such extremes and variations in their  type 31 cores
since
>the chinese
>> plant opened.   N3RR  bought over  700 of em, 2.4  inch od cores, and
>found they
>> are all over the map, and even sent samples to Fair rite.   Bill
ended up
>devising  a
>> simple 1 turn test, then graded all  700 of em into various sub
groups.   No
>wonder the
>> initial CMC results  were not repeatable.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From w3frg1 at gmail.com  Sat Jul  9 06:47:22 2016
From: w3frg1 at gmail.com (Tom-W3FRG)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 06:47:22 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
Message-ID: <CAOW=JmkTzhoejSO9b76zV-0u0RDH-YEzhj19sL+ajrJv6nwQgw@mail.gmail.com>

Placing those big ugly baluns or big cores should be reserved for wire
LPDA's, not on a LPDA made of structural aluminum, IE: tubing.
An "Infinite Balun" is widely used on these as its a clean and efficient
method to fed an LPDA.
All Military Planar and Pyramidal LPDA's use this simple feed method.

Run coax, IE: UT-141, RG-141, inside the tubing and connect the outer
shield to one boom and the center conductor to the opposite boom.
This can be done by solder lugs, or plugs, in each tube end.
The spacing of the twin booms can also be used to adjust the VSWR if need.
Keep the twin booms isolated from each other and the mast,

Tom W3FRG

From w3frg1 at gmail.com  Sat Jul  9 07:39:07 2016
From: w3frg1 at gmail.com (Tom-W3FRG)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 07:39:07 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Log Periodic Feed
Message-ID: <CAOW=JmkvFf_y5K8cyh4anjpWf4t3X3Uub+_SptD6UKYQvJdWiA@mail.gmail.com>

To answer Jim's question, Yes, you can run the feed line on the, what you
refer to as the HOT boom. But, unfortunately, it must be bonded to it.

With an Aluminum boom, placing the coaxial silver plated braid, or solid Cu
shield, makes for a difficult electrical "Bond".

You could use RG-141 or UT-141 inside the boom as an alternate method,
bringing it out at the feed point forming an "Infinite Balun".

Tom W3FRG



Continuing the discussion on how to attach the coax to the ?hot? boom of a
Tennadyne T8 antenna.

As I assembled this antenna, I became increasingly confused and concerned
about the feed system.   With this log antenna, instead of running open
feedline wires crossing over to the elements, it uses two boom pieces and
each is insulated from the mast and each boom is ?hot?.  The instructions
indicate and show how to attach the feedline to the bottom boom piece using
a Collins type balun at the feed point which is at the forward end of the
antenna.

My concern is that of the coax shield separated only by the coax insulation
alongside one of the ?hot? boom pieces would couple and cause radiation
(phase shift) problems with the antenna or at the very least radiate as it
goes vertical down the mast.

Due to the element mounting method it is not possible to run the feedline
inside the boom to the mast.

Does anyone have any thoughts on why running the coax along the ?hot? boom
would be an OK idea?

And if not, how else would one feed the antenna?

Jim ? KR9U

From w2lk at bk-lk.com  Sat Jul  9 08:14:06 2016
From: w2lk at bk-lk.com (Les Kalmus)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 08:14:06 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
In-Reply-To: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
References: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
Message-ID: <ca5d57c9-27b6-4770-8421-8d21c118e566@bk-lk.com>

Hardy,

I have an AA-30. It's been with me up and down the tower, in the field 
and on two big DXpeditions in the far Pacific. Easy to use and adjust 
and very convenient to carry.

Normally I use it for readings. On occasion, I do connect it to a laptop 
to record readings for baseline comparison at a later date. I now use 
this as my go to SWR meter and have gotten rid of everything else except 
an AIM 4170 which offers more detail but requires a PC.

I won this one at Dayton about 5 years ago. If I were buying one now, I 
might get a higher end model but the AA-30 works fine for me.

Les W2LK


On 7/7/2016 10:13 AM, Hardy Landskov wrote:
> I would like to get something portable for checking antenna VSWR. I was
> looking at the Rig Expert units. Anyone have an opinion? I don't want to
> hook it up to a computer when on the tower.
>
> Hardy N7RT/4
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From w3frg1 at gmail.com  Sat Jul  9 08:32:23 2016
From: w3frg1 at gmail.com (Tom-W3FRG)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 08:32:23 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable Analyzer
Message-ID: <CAOW=JmnZTS4h0dSmR+E9PwyOsobif=njq0Lsj9jn5=g4TqTMZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hardy,

You can have both wishes in one device, and you can stay on the ground.
The miniVNA analyzer uses Blue tooth to relay data to your PC from the unit
located at the antenna feed up on the tower.

http://miniradiosolutions.com/minivna-pro/

I have used it and it does work.
Tom W3FRG


I would like to get something portable for checking antenna VSWR. I was
looking at the Rig Expert units. Anyone have an opinion? I don't want to
hook it up to a computer when on the tower.

Hardy N7RT/4

From n4lg at qx.net  Sat Jul  9 07:52:18 2016
From: n4lg at qx.net (Bill Cotter)
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2016 07:52:18 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
In-Reply-To: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
References: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
Message-ID: <20160709115236.E3369AC8021@mx.contesting.com>

Hardy,

Attached is a marketing analysis of several handheld analyzers I 
did for our ham club. It has links to the technical details.

73 Bill N4lG




At 10:13 AM 7/7/2016, Hardy Landskov wrote:
>I would like to get something portable for checking antenna VSWR. 
>I was
>looking at the Rig Expert units. Anyone have an opinion? I don't 
>want to
>hook it up to a computer when on the tower.
>
>Hardy N7RT/4
>
>____________

From ea1ddo at hotmail.com  Sat Jul  9 09:30:05 2016
From: ea1ddo at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E1ximo_EA1DDO=5FHK1H?=)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 13:30:05 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable Analyzer
In-Reply-To: <CAOW=JmnZTS4h0dSmR+E9PwyOsobif=njq0Lsj9jn5=g4TqTMZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOW=JmnZTS4h0dSmR+E9PwyOsobif=njq0Lsj9jn5=g4TqTMZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <VI1PR01MB1549C0FDF2E8918C031AECE4953D0@VI1PR01MB1549.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>

Hi Hardy,


Please, have a look at this one;


http://www.steppir.com/steppir-sark-110

[http://www.steppir.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/SARK-110_graph_sm.jpg]<http://www.steppir.com/steppir-sark-110>

SteppIR SARK-110 | SteppIR, Inc - Antennas for Amateur ...<http://www.steppir.com/steppir-sark-110>
www.steppir.com
Order your SARK-110 today. The SARK-110 is a completely new design concept for an Antenna Analyzer. This is a truly pocket size device, so you can take it anywhere.

73, Maximo


________________________________



I would like to get something portable for checking antenna VSWR. I was
looking at the Rig Expert units. Anyone have an opinion? I don't want to
hook it up to a computer when on the tower.

Hardy N7RT/4
_______________________________________________

<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>

From jimlux at earthlink.net  Sat Jul  9 10:29:42 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 07:29:42 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
In-Reply-To: <DCDF8C8F-A8C5-4097-A5E5-18ADF56AB98F@charter.net>
References: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
	<DCDF8C8F-A8C5-4097-A5E5-18ADF56AB98F@charter.net>
Message-ID: <6b650f2f-97c4-b690-7f78-a66d140ae759@earthlink.net>

On 7/8/16 10:30 PM, Paul Braiman wrote:
> I've been using the AA-600 for 2+ years now. Very capable analyzer.
> Screen is easy to read, the controls easy to use. The only drawbacks
> are the use of a type n connector, and the slow time it takes to do
> TDR on a feedline. But then, a real TDR costs waaaay more money.
>


Can you change the number of frequency points it uses to do the time 
domain plot? I assume it's measuring at a series of frequency steps and 
then doing a transform to time domain.

If you don't need as many points of resolution, it can go faster.  If 
you keep the step spacing the same, and use fewer points, the time 
resolution will be worse, but the maximum unambiguous distance will be 
the same.  If you keep the total frequency span the same, the resolution 
stays fine, but you bring the unambiguous distance in.

From jimlux at earthlink.net  Sat Jul  9 10:41:49 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 07:41:49 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] 31 mix variability Re:  AES SK
In-Reply-To: <003401d1d9ba$e234ca70$a69e5f50$@co.uk>
References: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>
	<ce099b42-3c8b-0841-b05b-0cf29dab0dec@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<003401d1d9ba$e234ca70$a69e5f50$@co.uk>
Message-ID: <bfbbb91a-3ab8-a4e8-2d38-f1c8d5236f92@earthlink.net>

On 7/9/16 1:21 AM, Ian White wrote:
> Several good points there, about the variability of ferrite cores.
>
> Ferrites are, quite literally, "bakery products". Just like bread and
> cakes, the properties of ferrites depend on the correct ingredients
> measured out in precise quantities, on the precise manner in which those
> ingredients are mixed, and also - most critically - on the
> temperature/time profile of the baking and cooling.
>
> Just like baking, the manufacture of ferrite materials is a complex
> blend of science and know-how. Once a specific product has been
> developed, consistency can only be achieved by repeating exactly the
> same processes for every batch.
>
> It is very easy to see how QC problems could appear from outsourcing
> those critical processes to an offshore company that lacks the original
> manufacturer's in-house know-how, with a language barrier that prevents
> that information being accurately transferred.
>
>

It doesn't even have to be offshore. Not all ovens are the same either 
in temperature profile or internal distribution, and there's a lot of 
other aspects.

There's more than one instance of a company "losing the recipe" even in 
the same plant, but also when moving manufacturing operations.  When 
Microsemi bought Symmetricom, they moved the Chip Scale Atomic Clock 
(CSAC) manufacturing (entirely within US and carrying over some of the 
same people), and lost the recipe somewhere, adversely affecting the 
operating temperature range.


From patrick_g at windstream.net  Sat Jul  9 11:16:54 2016
From: patrick_g at windstream.net (Patrick Greenlee)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:16:54 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable Analyzer
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR01MB1549C0FDF2E8918C031AECE4953D0@VI1PR01MB1549.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
References: <CAOW=JmnZTS4h0dSmR+E9PwyOsobif=njq0Lsj9jn5=g4TqTMZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<VI1PR01MB1549C0FDF2E8918C031AECE4953D0@VI1PR01MB1549.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Message-ID: <f415a5f6-861e-1ebf-f76a-ff21f7d2cc92@windstream.net>

I have the Sark and it is OK but even with near 20-20 vision AND with 
reading glasses on  it is still a challenge to read the small print. An 
excellent accessory to accompany the unit would be a Fresnel lens 
magnifier or a large "conventional" magnifying glass.

Patrick        NJ5G


On 7/9/2016 8:30 AM, M?ximo EA1DDO_HK1H wrote:
> Hi Hardy,
>
>
> Please, have a look at this one;
>
>
> http://www.steppir.com/steppir-sark-110
>
> [http://www.steppir.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/SARK-110_graph_sm.jpg]<http://www.steppir.com/steppir-sark-110>
>
> SteppIR SARK-110 | SteppIR, Inc - Antennas for Amateur ...<http://www.steppir.com/steppir-sark-110>
> www.steppir.com
> Order your SARK-110 today. The SARK-110 is a completely new design concept for an Antenna Analyzer. This is a truly pocket size device, so you can take it anywhere.
>
> 73, Maximo
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> I would like to get something portable for checking antenna VSWR. I was
> looking at the Rig Expert units. Anyone have an opinion? I don't want to
> hook it up to a computer when on the tower.
>
> Hardy N7RT/4
> _______________________________________________
>
> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From kdutson at sbcglobal.net  Sat Jul  9 11:26:20 2016
From: kdutson at sbcglobal.net (Keith Dutson)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:26:20 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Routing Coax and Control Lines
Message-ID: <000001d1d9f6$3f2f9440$bd8ebcc0$@sbcglobal.net>

My tower is located 17 feet from the shack entrance panel (from KF7P).  I am
replacing all coax with Andrew Heliax.  I have flexible Heliax jumpers to
run from the tower to the shack.

 

All lines are now running underground through 2.5 inch plastic electric
conduit.  I am thinking of running everything from the tower through
elevated 3 inch plastic electric conduit mounted to the tower and shack
roof, with clearance for the mower to cut the lawn.

 

I would like feedback on the pros and cons of running cables elevated versus
underground.  Thanks in advance.

 

73, Keith NM5G


From braimanbiz at charter.net  Sat Jul  9 11:28:31 2016
From: braimanbiz at charter.net (Paul Braiman)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 08:28:31 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
In-Reply-To: <6b650f2f-97c4-b690-7f78-a66d140ae759@earthlink.net>
References: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
	<DCDF8C8F-A8C5-4097-A5E5-18ADF56AB98F@charter.net>
	<6b650f2f-97c4-b690-7f78-a66d140ae759@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <AD525A83-EFD7-4A5A-9863-1BBF2A83A2F2@charter.net>

According to manual, the TDR function is accomplished by measuring R and X over the entire frequency range (in my case 600 MHz).Then an IFFT is applied to the data and ?impulse and step response are calculated?. The manual calls it Frequency Domain Reflectometry.
Regrettably, there seems to be no way to change the number of frequency points. A typical measurement can take about 60s to return a result.  

> On Jul 9, 2016, at 07:29, jimlux <jimlux at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> On 7/8/16 10:30 PM, Paul Braiman wrote:
>> I've been using the AA-600 for 2+ years now. Very capable analyzer.
>> Screen is easy to read, the controls easy to use. The only drawbacks
>> are the use of a type n connector, and the slow time it takes to do
>> TDR on a feedline. But then, a real TDR costs waaaay more money.
>> 
> 
> 
> Can you change the number of frequency points it uses to do the time domain plot? I assume it's measuring at a series of frequency steps and then doing a transform to time domain.
> 
> If you don't need as many points of resolution, it can go faster.  If you keep the step spacing the same, and use fewer points, the time resolution will be worse, but the maximum unambiguous distance will be the same.  If you keep the total frequency span the same, the resolution stays fine, but you bring the unambiguous distance in.
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From chuck at dxham.net  Sat Jul  9 12:08:55 2016
From: chuck at dxham.net (Chuck Sudds)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:08:55 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Routing Coax and Control Lines
In-Reply-To: <000001d1d9f6$3f2f9440$bd8ebcc0$@sbcglobal.net>
References: <000001d1d9f6$3f2f9440$bd8ebcc0$@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <6abac9c5-59af-6501-10a7-d9997cf3c71d@dxham.net>

On 7/9/2016 10:26 AM, Keith Dutson wrote:

I have been using elevated cable for about 20 years now with NO ill 
effects.  Mine has about a 50ft run between supports so I use guy wire 
as a leader-line to support the 3 cables (2 coax & 1 rotor).  The 
leader-line is grounded at both ends of the run. Good luck!

Chuck  K?TVD
> <SNIP>
> I would like feedback on the pros and cons of running cables elevated versus
> underground.  Thanks in advance.
> 73, Keith NM5G


From lists at subich.com  Sat Jul  9 12:33:13 2016
From: lists at subich.com (Joe Subich, W4TV)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:33:13 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Routing Coax and Control Lines
In-Reply-To: <000001d1d9f6$3f2f9440$bd8ebcc0$@sbcglobal.net>
References: <000001d1d9f6$3f2f9440$bd8ebcc0$@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <8729edc7-7647-0224-b13a-8d5073d6ca5a@subich.com>


> I would like feedback on the pros and cons of running cables
> elevated versus underground. Thanks in advance.

The only time I would consider elevated cables is if they were
covered by a metallic "ice bridge" (and lightning shield) that
was bonded to lightning ground on both ends of the run (like a
broadcast FM/TV installation).

If a tower takes a direct strike, the voltage will divide as the
ratio of the tower above/below the place the cable exits the tower.
By failing to take the cable completely to ground and bond the
shield to the tower at ground, one can put several KV on the shield
of the cable ... I would not want that even on the shack entrance
panel.

I've seen the damage lightning can do even to well bonded FM/TV
rigid cables where they enter/exit a tower (and once had to replace
branch lines, power divider and a couple hundred feet of 6" line
due to lightning damage) ... the relatively minor effort to bring
amateur lines all the way to the ground is cheap insurance!

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV

On 7/9/2016 11:26 AM, Keith Dutson wrote:
> My tower is located 17 feet from the shack entrance panel (from KF7P).  I am
> replacing all coax with Andrew Heliax.  I have flexible Heliax jumpers to
> run from the tower to the shack.
>
>
>
> All lines are now running underground through 2.5 inch plastic electric
> conduit.  I am thinking of running everything from the tower through
> elevated 3 inch plastic electric conduit mounted to the tower and shack
> roof, with clearance for the mower to cut the lawn.
>
>
>
> I would like feedback on the pros and cons of running cables elevated versus
> underground.  Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> 73, Keith NM5G
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From eseeliger at earthlink.net  Sat Jul  9 12:41:21 2016
From: eseeliger at earthlink.net (Edward Seeliger)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:41:21 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Vectronics VEC-584B antenna analyzer
Message-ID: <23134623.1468082482184.JavaMail.wam@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Does anyone know who designed the Vectronics VEC-584B HF/VHF SWR analyzer?
Is it the same as or the predecessor to the MFJ-259 series of analyzers?
Thanks for any replies. 
Edd

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Sat Jul  9 12:43:08 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:43:08 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] 31 mix variability Re: AES SK
In-Reply-To: <bfbbb91a-3ab8-a4e8-2d38-f1c8d5236f92@earthlink.net>
References: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>
	<ce099b42-3c8b-0841-b05b-0cf29dab0dec@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<003401d1d9ba$e234ca70$a69e5f50$@co.uk>
	<bfbbb91a-3ab8-a4e8-2d38-f1c8d5236f92@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <2a5424be-3827-9c4d-6194-db31d84d6cf8@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Sat,7/9/2016 7:41 AM, jimlux wrote:
> There's more than one instance of a company "losing the recipe" even 
> in the same plant, but also when moving manufacturing operations. 

Several decades ago, Altec, then a major pro audio company was purchased 
by a bunch of money-freaks who knew precious little about the biz, but 
boy did they know how to play with money. In their infinite wisdom, they 
moved the company, including its loudspeaker manufacturing, from Anaheim 
to Oklahoma City so that they could sell the company's facilities for 
their real estate value. Never mind that they were abandoning both their 
employees and one of the world's largest anechoic chambers, a pretty 
expensive thing to build.

Unfortunately for those wheeler-dealers, few of their employees were 
willing to move from CA to OK, so once they got the OK factory going, it 
was a year before they could build loudspeakers good enough to ship. 
That move was the beginning of the end of Altec, and not long after, the 
company NAME was sold to investors, one set of which used it to label 
cheap junk consumer products built offshore. Another group made an 
attempt at the pro audio world, but failed because those wheeler-dealers 
had so badly soiled the company name.

73, Jim K9YC


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Sat Jul  9 12:59:00 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:59:00 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
In-Reply-To: <20160709115236.E3369AC8021@mx.contesting.com>
References: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
	<20160709115236.E3369AC8021@mx.contesting.com>
Message-ID: <1a6243ad-8759-e2b2-db67-8af0a49fd7dd@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Sat,7/9/2016 4:52 AM, Bill Cotter wrote:
>
> Attached is a marketing analysis of several handheld analyzers I did 
> for our ham club. It has links to the technical details.

The Tower Talk list does not support attachments.

Hardy,

You said you wanted something to drag to the top of a tower, but with 
this analyzer, you can easily get good data from anywhere on the 
feedline, including the shack.

http://sdr-kits.net/VNWA3_Description.html

I no longer climb anything higher than a stepladder, so I do all my 
measurements from the shack. It needs no power supply, getting its power 
from the USB port that connects it to the computer that processes the 
data. As an engineer, you will really appreciate it.

It does TDR by computing the inverse FFT of a sweep, which can be set 
for any range that you choose for the level of detail you need. There's 
some math built into the control software, and it exports data in 
several formats, including s1p Touchstone files, which can be imported 
by SimSmith and ZPlots, among others.  It's a full vector network 
analyzer, so it also measures S21.

I paid $740 three years ago, shipped to my W6 QTH, with calibration 
loads and a case that I wouldn't order again. With the Pound in free 
fall, my guess is that you could buy it for about $650 today. It's a 
real winner. Well supported by the mfr (some hams in the UK) and the 
designer, DG8SAQ, a university EE prof who also wrote the software.

73, Jim K9YC

From k7nj at awinets.com  Sat Jul  9 13:08:51 2016
From: k7nj at awinets.com (Riki, K7NJ)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:08:51 -0600
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable Analyzer
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAGN/0iXWEkZAvgLa8atb8rDCgAAAEAAAADx12wkqx89DjUyBWRh5P5IBAAAAAA==@awinets.com>

I would like to replace my MFJ 259B with an analyzer that works properly in
a high RF environment. I'm located near an AM broadcast transmitter which
precludes making reliable measurements.  MFJ sells an add-on adjustable
filter, but they don't work properly.  The most recent one (which was
returned) was purchased at the 2016 Dayton Hamvention. Its inspection
sticker indicated that it was manufactured in 2016. Any suggestions for a
good portable analyzer that works well in a high RF environment would be
appreciated.

73 - Riki, K7NJ



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

From n6sj at earthlink.net  Sat Jul  9 13:46:37 2016
From: n6sj at earthlink.net (Steve Jones)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:46:37 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Routing Coax and Control Lines
In-Reply-To: <000001d1d9f6$3f2f9440$bd8ebcc0$@sbcglobal.net>
References: <000001d1d9f6$3f2f9440$bd8ebcc0$@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <000601d1da09$d8364090$88a2c1b0$@earthlink.net>

I put my 3" conduits 18" below grade, to avoid critters running into them
above ground.  Probably not a problem if your conduits will be as high as
your roof.

73,
Steve
N6SJ


-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Keith
Dutson
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 8:26 AM
To: Tower Talk
Subject: [TowerTalk] Routing Coax and Control Lines

My tower is located 17 feet from the shack entrance panel (from KF7P).  I am
replacing all coax with Andrew Heliax.  I have flexible Heliax jumpers to
run from the tower to the shack.

 

All lines are now running underground through 2.5 inch plastic electric
conduit.  I am thinking of running everything from the tower through
elevated 3 inch plastic electric conduit mounted to the tower and shack
roof, with clearance for the mower to cut the lawn.

 

I would like feedback on the pros and cons of running cables elevated versus
underground.  Thanks in advance.

 

73, Keith NM5G

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From dickw1ksz at gmail.com  Sat Jul  9 13:48:52 2016
From: dickw1ksz at gmail.com (Richard Solomon)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:48:52 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
In-Reply-To: <1a6243ad-8759-e2b2-db67-8af0a49fd7dd@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
	<20160709115236.E3369AC8021@mx.contesting.com>
	<1a6243ad-8759-e2b2-db67-8af0a49fd7dd@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <CAC5FBO9nnGcB033PzBaanw3qhGPvqNqx4u9CH+HMfb30DLnMQQ@mail.gmail.com>

You guys can laugh all you want to,
but my MFJ-259, which is quite old,
maybe 15 years ?? Still works like
a charm.

73, Dick, W1KSZ

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:

> On Sat,7/9/2016 4:52 AM, Bill Cotter wrote:
>
>>
>> Attached is a marketing analysis of several handheld analyzers I did for
>> our ham club. It has links to the technical details.
>>
>
> The Tower Talk list does not support attachments.
>
> Hardy,
>
> You said you wanted something to drag to the top of a tower, but with this
> analyzer, you can easily get good data from anywhere on the feedline,
> including the shack.
>
> http://sdr-kits.net/VNWA3_Description.html
>
> I no longer climb anything higher than a stepladder, so I do all my
> measurements from the shack. It needs no power supply, getting its power
> from the USB port that connects it to the computer that processes the data.
> As an engineer, you will really appreciate it.
>
> It does TDR by computing the inverse FFT of a sweep, which can be set for
> any range that you choose for the level of detail you need. There's some
> math built into the control software, and it exports data in several
> formats, including s1p Touchstone files, which can be imported by SimSmith
> and ZPlots, among others.  It's a full vector network analyzer, so it also
> measures S21.
>
> I paid $740 three years ago, shipped to my W6 QTH, with calibration loads
> and a case that I wouldn't order again. With the Pound in free fall, my
> guess is that you could buy it for about $650 today. It's a real winner.
> Well supported by the mfr (some hams in the UK) and the designer, DG8SAQ, a
> university EE prof who also wrote the software.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From w3frg1 at gmail.com  Sat Jul  9 14:37:33 2016
From: w3frg1 at gmail.com (Tom-W3FRG)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 14:37:33 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Routing Coax and Control Lines
Message-ID: <CAOW=Jm=djnXFmyfFqhuxM2YEca1ABjXLauaw88h5v=dsc9cvMg@mail.gmail.com>

I did a slit trench, an inch or two below the grass roots with the garden
tractor and put the Heliax directly into it and just drove over it to close
up the opening.
Heliax is a direct burial cable.
I have three runs done this way with a 4 port, remote wireless switch,
controlling the line back to the station some 130' away.
Each run goes to approx. the center location of a wire antenna above and
then back to the RF switch.

Tom W3FRG

From w7wll at arrl.net  Sat Jul  9 14:48:51 2016
From: w7wll at arrl.net (Don W7WLL)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:48:51 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
Message-ID: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>

Was looking for a source for some SS 8-32 and 10-24 coupling nuts. Searched the internet and  ran across a place back east (from me) which I?d not heard of, Albany County Fasterners. They had an very interesting selection of SS fasteners among other types of materials. Also have a line of brass and silicon bronze and a line of security fasteners which are hard to find out here.

Compared the cost of the items and the shipping cost and found them to be better than I could find at other well known fastener houses.

Placed the order, they shipped same day.

This is a new fastener source I will keep at the top of my list. Difficult to drive to a hardware or marine supply store who carries SS fasteners for less than what the Albany shipping cost was.

Just another source you might want to look into. Had not seen it pop up on this site before.

Don W7WLL

From xdavid at cis-broadband.com  Sat Jul  9 15:09:34 2016
From: xdavid at cis-broadband.com (David Gilbert)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:09:34 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] 31 mix variability ... lost processes
In-Reply-To: <bfbbb91a-3ab8-a4e8-2d38-f1c8d5236f92@earthlink.net>
References: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>
	<ce099b42-3c8b-0841-b05b-0cf29dab0dec@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<003401d1d9ba$e234ca70$a69e5f50$@co.uk>
	<bfbbb91a-3ab8-a4e8-2d38-f1c8d5236f92@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <310e63a6-5662-6ebd-256e-ef0817f88e6c@cis-broadband.com>


It doesn't even have to be the fault of the receiving entity, whether 
that be a new location or new owners.  I worked in the semiconductor 
industry for over 30 years and saw several examples of "lost recipes" 
simply because the original process was never properly investigated, 
characterized, and documented in the first place.  Processes that had 
produced excellent product for years might suddenly shift because some 
influence that had never been understood at all changed.

We actually had one product that shifted dramatically for the worse 
because a piece of equipment was upgraded to a cleaner version, and it 
took a lot of engineering work to understand the favorable impact that 
the carrier lifetime killing effect from the older, dirtier equipment 
had on the product.

I think most people would be appalled to learn how poorly many 
manufacturing processes are characterized in many industries, but it's 
probably understandable given the extreme difficulty of defining all 
possible influences in the first place, and then rigorously testing (or 
even modeling) all possible interactions of them.

73,
Dave AB7E



On 7/9/2016 7:41 AM, jimlux wrote:
> On 7/9/16 1:21 AM, Ian White wrote:
>> Several good points there, about the variability of ferrite cores.
>>
>> Ferrites are, quite literally, "bakery products". Just like bread and
>> cakes, the properties of ferrites depend on the correct ingredients
>> measured out in precise quantities, on the precise manner in which those
>> ingredients are mixed, and also - most critically - on the
>> temperature/time profile of the baking and cooling.
>>
>> Just like baking, the manufacture of ferrite materials is a complex
>> blend of science and know-how. Once a specific product has been
>> developed, consistency can only be achieved by repeating exactly the
>> same processes for every batch.
>>
>> It is very easy to see how QC problems could appear from outsourcing
>> those critical processes to an offshore company that lacks the original
>> manufacturer's in-house know-how, with a language barrier that prevents
>> that information being accurately transferred.
>>
>>
>
> It doesn't even have to be offshore. Not all ovens are the same either 
> in temperature profile or internal distribution, and there's a lot of 
> other aspects.
>
> There's more than one instance of a company "losing the recipe" even 
> in the same plant, but also when moving manufacturing operations.  
> When Microsemi bought Symmetricom, they moved the Chip Scale Atomic 
> Clock (CSAC) manufacturing (entirely within US and carrying over some 
> of the same people), and lost the recipe somewhere, adversely 
> affecting the operating temperature range.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From jimlux at earthlink.net  Sat Jul  9 15:30:31 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:30:31 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] 31 mix variability ... lost processes
In-Reply-To: <310e63a6-5662-6ebd-256e-ef0817f88e6c@cis-broadband.com>
References: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>
	<ce099b42-3c8b-0841-b05b-0cf29dab0dec@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<003401d1d9ba$e234ca70$a69e5f50$@co.uk>
	<bfbbb91a-3ab8-a4e8-2d38-f1c8d5236f92@earthlink.net>
	<310e63a6-5662-6ebd-256e-ef0817f88e6c@cis-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <25b3b9ea-530a-e7ee-ffdb-a14af2f10a41@earthlink.net>

On 7/9/16 12:09 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>
> It doesn't even have to be the fault of the receiving entity, whether
> that be a new location or new owners.  I worked in the semiconductor
> industry for over 30 years and saw several examples of "lost recipes"
> simply because the original process was never properly investigated,
> characterized, and documented in the first place.  Processes that had
> produced excellent product for years might suddenly shift because some
> influence that had never been understood at all changed.
>
> We actually had one product that shifted dramatically for the worse
> because a piece of equipment was upgraded to a cleaner version, and it
> took a lot of engineering work to understand the favorable impact that
> the carrier lifetime killing effect from the older, dirtier equipment
> had on the product.
>


You hear a lot of stories about trace contaminants making electron gun 
cathodes "work" or not.  Someone gives up smoking, and all of a sudden, 
things don't work the same as they used to.


From cefarr at hughes.net  Sat Jul  9 15:31:32 2016
From: cefarr at hughes.net (Charles Farr)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:31:32 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] 31 mix variability ... lost processes
In-Reply-To: <310e63a6-5662-6ebd-256e-ef0817f88e6c@cis-broadband.com>
References: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>
	<ce099b42-3c8b-0841-b05b-0cf29dab0dec@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<003401d1d9ba$e234ca70$a69e5f50$@co.uk>
	<bfbbb91a-3ab8-a4e8-2d38-f1c8d5236f92@earthlink.net>
	<310e63a6-5662-6ebd-256e-ef0817f88e6c@cis-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <09960ea0-c3ee-540f-93cc-fa6f03f20dc2@hughes.net>

When dealing with potting compounds, glues, binders and such, often the 
providers, will make chemical changes, or mixes without informing the 
user. Talk about screwing up the mix since there is usually nothing that 
distinguishes the original product from the 'new' one. Same part number, 
etc.

Chuck, W6AJW



On 07/09/2016 12:09 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>
> It doesn't even have to be the fault of the receiving entity, whether 
> that be a new location or new owners.  I worked in the semiconductor 
> industry for over 30 years and saw several examples of "lost recipes" 
> simply because the original process was never properly investigated, 
> characterized, and documented in the first place.  Processes that had 
> produced excellent product for years might suddenly shift because some 
> influence that had never been understood at all changed.
>
> We actually had one product that shifted dramatically for the worse 
> because a piece of equipment was upgraded to a cleaner version, and it 
> took a lot of engineering work to understand the favorable impact that 
> the carrier lifetime killing effect from the older, dirtier equipment 
> had on the product.
>
> I think most people would be appalled to learn how poorly many 
> manufacturing processes are characterized in many industries, but it's 
> probably understandable given the extreme difficulty of defining all 
> possible influences in the first place, and then rigorously testing 
> (or even modeling) all possible interactions of them.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> On 7/9/2016 7:41 AM, jimlux wrote:
>> On 7/9/16 1:21 AM, Ian White wrote:
>>> Several good points there, about the variability of ferrite cores.
>>>
>>> Ferrites are, quite literally, "bakery products". Just like bread and
>>> cakes, the properties of ferrites depend on the correct ingredients
>>> measured out in precise quantities, on the precise manner in which 
>>> those
>>> ingredients are mixed, and also - most critically - on the
>>> temperature/time profile of the baking and cooling.
>>>
>>> Just like baking, the manufacture of ferrite materials is a complex
>>> blend of science and know-how. Once a specific product has been
>>> developed, consistency can only be achieved by repeating exactly the
>>> same processes for every batch.
>>>
>>> It is very easy to see how QC problems could appear from outsourcing
>>> those critical processes to an offshore company that lacks the original
>>> manufacturer's in-house know-how, with a language barrier that prevents
>>> that information being accurately transferred.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't even have to be offshore. Not all ovens are the same 
>> either in temperature profile or internal distribution, and there's a 
>> lot of other aspects.
>>
>> There's more than one instance of a company "losing the recipe" even 
>> in the same plant, but also when moving manufacturing operations.  
>> When Microsemi bought Symmetricom, they moved the Chip Scale Atomic 
>> Clock (CSAC) manufacturing (entirely within US and carrying over some 
>> of the same people), and lost the recipe somewhere, adversely 
>> affecting the operating temperature range.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From w7wll at arrl.net  Sat Jul  9 15:38:24 2016
From: w7wll at arrl.net (Don W7WLL)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:38:24 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
In-Reply-To: <CACYeN9y4-ADnxFKU+_eiwzRpMF6u=Zz9xOYYMORhkM6xg=4WAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>
	<CACYeN9y4-ADnxFKU+_eiwzRpMF6u=Zz9xOYYMORhkM6xg=4WAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A838C3FDD66D43B3A17B4B5314DAEB17@DonPC>

MSCdirect for the 10-24 (303 or 18-8) coupling nut was $5.52 ea vs $1.02 for Albany (304). Shipping cost was not determined since I had to register and I didn?t desire to do that, but a 4 bucks a unit higher cost (I needed 4) that was some $17.20 difference!!!!.

McMaster for the 10-24 (316) coupling nut was $7.72 ea vs $1.02 for Albany (304). Shipping was $2 more than Albany. Part savings alone for 4 ea would be $26.40!!!!!

THOSE are significant differences for SS (where type is not important for the project at hand).

I would guess the costs are higher at the two big houses because of the massive inventories of other types of items they carry which must be covered as well.

But, they are reliable and known sources, along with Bolt Depot (3 bucks per unit higher) and other good sources.

Pays to shop albeit I admit one needs to consider all the facts and that the cheapest price does not always mean the best deal.

Don W7WLL

From: Jim Miller 
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 12:09 PM
To: Don W7WLL 
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners

other good sources in general:


MSCdirect.com

mcmaster.com

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Don W7WLL <w7wll at arrl.net> wrote:

  Was looking for a source for some SS 8-32 and 10-24 coupling nuts. Searched the internet and  ran across a place back east (from me) which I?d not heard of, Albany County Fasterners. They had an very interesting selection of SS fasteners among other types of materials. Also have a line of brass and silicon bronze and a line of security fasteners which are hard to find out here.

  Compared the cost of the items and the shipping cost and found them to be better than I could find at other well known fastener houses.

  Placed the order, they shipped same day.

  This is a new fastener source I will keep at the top of my list. Difficult to drive to a hardware or marine supply store who carries SS fasteners for less than what the Albany shipping cost was.

  Just another source you might want to look into. Had not seen it pop up on this site before.

  Don W7WLL
  _______________________________________________



  _______________________________________________
  TowerTalk mailing list
  TowerTalk at contesting.com
  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Sat Jul  9 15:39:39 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 15:39:39 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
In-Reply-To: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>
References: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>
Message-ID: <206FF10E54B044C5AD1D98C0D93E0932@RXDesignDell>

how do they compare to McMaster Carr? An order placed today is here 
tomorrow - even if at 5:00 PM! And pricing is mostly reasonable... but it 
depends on what you're looking for. Very good pricing on machine screws and 
fastener hardware though.

Gary  K9RX



-----Original Message----- 
From: Don W7WLL
Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2016 2:48 PM
To: Towertalk
Subject: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners

Was looking for a source for some SS 8-32 and 10-24 coupling nuts. Searched 
the internet and  ran across a place back east (from me) which I?d not heard 
of, Albany County Fasterners. They had an very interesting selection of SS 
fasteners among other types of materials. Also have a line of brass and 
silicon bronze and a line of security fasteners which are hard to find out 
here.

Compared the cost of the items and the shipping cost and found them to be 
better than I could find at other well known fastener houses.

Placed the order, they shipped same day.

This is a new fastener source I will keep at the top of my list. Difficult 
to drive to a hardware or marine supply store who carries SS fasteners for 
less than what the Albany shipping cost was.

Just another source you might want to look into. Had not seen it pop up on 
this site before.

Don W7WLL 


From k1xx at k1xx.com  Sat Jul  9 15:52:01 2016
From: k1xx at k1xx.com (charlie carroll)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 15:52:01 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
In-Reply-To: <A838C3FDD66D43B3A17B4B5314DAEB17@DonPC>
References: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>
	<CACYeN9y4-ADnxFKU+_eiwzRpMF6u=Zz9xOYYMORhkM6xg=4WAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<A838C3FDD66D43B3A17B4B5314DAEB17@DonPC>
Message-ID: <3954019e-6691-e345-74cc-85b450e89c5c@k1xx.com>

For small and large quantities, check out boltdepot.com in Boston area. 
I've used them in the past for small quantities.

73 charlie, k1xx

On 7/9/2016 3:38 PM, Don W7WLL wrote:
> MSCdirect for the 10-24 (303 or 18-8) coupling nut was $5.52 ea vs $1.02 for Albany (304). Shipping cost was not determined since I had to register and I didn?t desire to do that, but a 4 bucks a unit higher cost (I needed 4) that was some $17.20 difference!!!!.
>
> McMaster for the 10-24 (316) coupling nut was $7.72 ea vs $1.02 for Albany (304). Shipping was $2 more than Albany. Part savings alone for 4 ea would be $26.40!!!!!
>
> THOSE are significant differences for SS (where type is not important for the project at hand).
>
> I would guess the costs are higher at the two big houses because of the massive inventories of other types of items they carry which must be covered as well.
>
> But, they are reliable and known sources, along with Bolt Depot (3 bucks per unit higher) and other good sources.
>
> Pays to shop albeit I admit one needs to consider all the facts and that the cheapest price does not always mean the best deal.
>
> Don W7WLL
>
> From: Jim Miller 
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 12:09 PM
> To: Don W7WLL 
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
>
> other good sources in general:
>
>
> MSCdirect.com
>
> mcmaster.com
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Don W7WLL <w7wll at arrl.net> wrote:
>
>   Was looking for a source for some SS 8-32 and 10-24 coupling nuts. Searched the internet and  ran across a place back east (from me) which I?d not heard of, Albany County Fasterners. They had an very interesting selection of SS fasteners among other types of materials. Also have a line of brass and silicon bronze and a line of security fasteners which are hard to find out here.
>
>   Compared the cost of the items and the shipping cost and found them to be better than I could find at other well known fastener houses.
>
>   Placed the order, they shipped same day.
>
>   This is a new fastener source I will keep at the top of my list. Difficult to drive to a hardware or marine supply store who carries SS fasteners for less than what the Albany shipping cost was.
>
>   Just another source you might want to look into. Had not seen it pop up on this site before.
>
>   Don W7WLL
>   _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   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


From xdavid at cis-broadband.com  Sat Jul  9 15:55:34 2016
From: xdavid at cis-broadband.com (David Gilbert)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:55:34 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <EF35C5E4-216D-4D11-99D9-C239FEFEEE73@mymts.net>
References: <D3A3EDC9.3B605%scottw3tx@verizon.net>
	<EF35C5E4-216D-4D11-99D9-C239FEFEEE73@mymts.net>
Message-ID: <72ac2f3e-64c5-9762-7c1d-b8f3c55c63f4@cis-broadband.com>


That's a bit simplistic.  I spent over 30 years working for a huge North 
American based semiconductor company, and there were a variety of 
reasons we ended up moving most manufacturing elsewhere.  Labor cost was 
certainly one of them, but rarely the deciding factor.  Others included:

1.  Availability of trained engineers.  Places like China and India have 
a far greater pool of highly skilled and dedicated engineers, and 
engineers in the U.S. tended to think of manufacturing as being 
"unglamorous."

2.  Proximity to local markets.  As the world economy became more 
global, being able to be closer to your customer had tremendous 
advantages in terms of customer relationships and cycle time reductions, 
not to mention trade (many countries lower tax rates for local content) 
and currency issues.

3.  Bureaucracy and overhead issues.  At one point we wanted to 
significantly expand a wafer fab locally, but were told by the city that 
it would take at least 18 months simply to get the approvals for it ... 
in spite of the fact that we had already proposed every safety and 
environmental upgrade imaginable for it.  Markets don't wait for that 
kind of crap, and we ended up having to build the fab offshore where 
some other entity actually wanted it.

Other industries faced different issues ... tax burdens in the U.S., 
ridiculous union requirements (much less of an issue now, of course, at 
least in most places), availability of raw materials, etc.  The problem 
as many of us recognized even back then was that once such manufacturing 
migrations begin they are very difficult to curb.  How many colleges and 
universities in North America offer engineering courses specifically 
geared toward manufacturing?  Damn few, if any.  In Asia they are 
everywhere. Compare tax rates.  Compare transportation costs to major 
markets (North America is no longer the only one).

The list of reasons why such "big box" products are built elsewhere is 
almost endless, and while it may be convenient to blame the 
manufacturers for that it is simply scapegoating. Consumers who tend to 
buy the cheapest available product regardless of quality (and they are 
still the majority, to which I can attest having worked for a while at a 
big box store) share the blame, as do most other elements of the 
economic system that ignored cost and efficiency in favor of other 
factors.   I'd even bet that your own investment funds lie with 
companies that make as much profit as possible, as opposed to some 
company that tried to fight the system by paying higher wages, paying 
higher taxes, training it's own engineers, paying higher transportation 
costs ... etc, etc, etc.

Manufacturers mostly follow ... they don't really lead the parade.  I 
can say with great experience that moving manufacturing offshore is one 
of the riskiest, most traumatic actions a manufacturer can take.  It 
doesn't happen without significant outside pressure from one place or 
another.

73,

Dave  AB7E



On 7/7/2016 8:56 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> A funny, though harrowing, tale of everything that?s wrong with the two dominant North American first-world economies:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKv6RcXa2UI <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKv6RcXa2UI>
>
> ?Oh Big Box Mart, what have you sold to me? We used to be your customers, now we?re your employees.?
>
> The pigeons of off-shore labour have come home to roost, and we?re seeing increasing examples of the folly every day.
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt,
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 7, 2016, at 10:43 AM, ScottW3TX <scottw3tx at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Most brick and mortar stores run on very thin profit margins that are
>> getting squeezed smaller and smaller in this new economy shift. Costs
>> (especially health insurance, regulatory, and base services to keep the
>> doors open), are going up at 8 to 12% per year. Meanwhile competition does
>> not allow for the final seller of products or service to raise prices.
>> There are no longer excess profits in smaller businesses to fund owner and
>> employee retirement plans. Therefore there is rarely any "goodwill" or
>> "blue-sky" value in the sale. Just inventory (if it is sellable) and real
>> estate.
>>
>> The bigger picture is what will happen to amateur radio sales companies?
>> The trend is that the smaller, niche companies are either closing down or
>> selling to the two dominant buyers.
>>
>> Is such consolidation good for the future of amateur radio?
>>
>> What happens when MFJ or DXE go up for sale?  Most likely the only
>> potential buyers will be publicly traded companies that have less interest
>> in the customer than the current stake-holders that are active amateur
>> radio operators themselves.  And will there even be a buy when one factors
>> in the demographics?
>>
>> When I took my 13 year old son to the DX Dinner at Dayton this year he was
>> probably the youngest person there. I was probably the second youngest
>> (49).
>>
>> Unless amateur radio quickly and effectively figures out how to connect
>> itself into the STEM and Programming wave I fear that Nathan and I will be
>> the only guys at the DX Dinner someday.
>>
>> At least he and I will have darn good antennas :)
>>
>> 73, Scott W3TX
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/7/16 11:24 AM, "Alan NV8A" <nv8a at charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I have been surprised at the number of local businesses that are simply
>>> shut down when the owner decides to retire: they have a "going out of
>>> business sale," and that's it. I would have expected them to sell the
>>> business -- with its "good will" -- as a going concern.
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> Alan NV8A
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/07/2016 07:21 AM, Chuck Gooden wrote:
>>>> I would of expected that, the company would be up for sale to someone
>>>> that would be interested in keeping ham radio alive.  So I am waiting
>>>> until I see an official notice.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Gooden N9QBT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/6/2016 4:57 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>>>>> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're
>>>>> closing the
>>>>> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be
>>>>> one
>>>>> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From KK4CPS at gmail.com  Sat Jul  9 16:12:29 2016
From: KK4CPS at gmail.com (Matthew King - KK4CPS)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:12:29 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
In-Reply-To: <A838C3FDD66D43B3A17B4B5314DAEB17@DonPC>
References: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>
	<CACYeN9y4-ADnxFKU+_eiwzRpMF6u=Zz9xOYYMORhkM6xg=4WAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<A838C3FDD66D43B3A17B4B5314DAEB17@DonPC>
Message-ID: <CAKs+UsnhhPo7HpWzHuA_CxTa-Jo9K6m1kmR=JE8+AfCpjChHBQ@mail.gmail.com>

I've ordered many stainless fasteners through Albany Fasteners for my
transmission line devices.

Their service is second to none, and they ship quickly and reasonably.

I tried very hard to beat their prices and could not do so on the items
that I needed. They had all but one item that I needed, but that is all
that was missing on a list of 30 different fastener types.

Definitely a thumbs' up from me!

73

Matt
KW4VY



On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Don W7WLL <w7wll at arrl.net> wrote:

> MSCdirect for the 10-24 (303 or 18-8) coupling nut was $5.52 ea vs $1.02
> for Albany (304). Shipping cost was not determined since I had to register
> and I didn?t desire to do that, but a 4 bucks a unit higher cost (I needed
> 4) that was some $17.20 difference!!!!.
>
> McMaster for the 10-24 (316) coupling nut was $7.72 ea vs $1.02 for Albany
> (304). Shipping was $2 more than Albany. Part savings alone for 4 ea would
> be $26.40!!!!!
>
> THOSE are significant differences for SS (where type is not important for
> the project at hand).
>
> I would guess the costs are higher at the two big houses because of the
> massive inventories of other types of items they carry which must be
> covered as well.
>
> But, they are reliable and known sources, along with Bolt Depot (3 bucks
> per unit higher) and other good sources.
>
> Pays to shop albeit I admit one needs to consider all the facts and that
> the cheapest price does not always mean the best deal.
>
> Don W7WLL
>
> From: Jim Miller
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 12:09 PM
> To: Don W7WLL
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
>
> other good sources in general:
>
>
> MSCdirect.com
>
> mcmaster.com
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Don W7WLL <w7wll at arrl.net> wrote:
>
>   Was looking for a source for some SS 8-32 and 10-24 coupling nuts.
> Searched the internet and  ran across a place back east (from me) which I?d
> not heard of, Albany County Fasterners. They had an very interesting
> selection of SS fasteners among other types of materials. Also have a line
> of brass and silicon bronze and a line of security fasteners which are hard
> to find out here.
>
>   Compared the cost of the items and the shipping cost and found them to
> be better than I could find at other well known fastener houses.
>
>   Placed the order, they shipped same day.
>
>   This is a new fastener source I will keep at the top of my list.
> Difficult to drive to a hardware or marine supply store who carries SS
> fasteners for less than what the Albany shipping cost was.
>
>   Just another source you might want to look into. Had not seen it pop up
> on this site before.
>
>   Don W7WLL
>   _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   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
>

From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sat Jul  9 16:20:32 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:20:32 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
In-Reply-To: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>
References: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>
Message-ID: <3ecd8943-69be-2649-a611-ddf0a4e12723@tm.net>

Most any bolt supplier carries SS nuts, bolts, and screws.
Our local, "Prime Fastener," carries SS from 4-40 to over 1" in a wide 
variety of lengths at very reasonable. Over the counter they will sell 
just one or by the box. I assume most suppliers will do the same.  It's 
likely, most towns or cities of much size will have suppliers and there 
are many on the Internet. As always, YMMV

73

Roger (K8RI)



On 7/9/2016 Saturday 2:48 PM, Don W7WLL wrote:
> Was looking for a source for some SS 8-32 and 10-24 coupling nuts. Searched the internet and  ran across a place back east (from me) which I?d not heard of, Albany County Fasterners. They had an very interesting selection of SS fasteners among other types of materials. Also have a line of brass and silicon bronze and a line of security fasteners which are hard to find out here.
>
> Compared the cost of the items and the shipping cost and found them to be better than I could find at other well known fastener houses.
>
> Placed the order, they shipped same day.
>
> This is a new fastener source I will keep at the top of my list. Difficult to drive to a hardware or marine supply store who carries SS fasteners for less than what the Albany shipping cost was.
>
> Just another source you might want to look into. Had not seen it pop up on this site before.
>
> Don W7WLL
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From KK4CPS at gmail.com  Sat Jul  9 16:22:50 2016
From: KK4CPS at gmail.com (Matthew King - KK4CPS)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:22:50 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
In-Reply-To: <CAC5FBO9nnGcB033PzBaanw3qhGPvqNqx4u9CH+HMfb30DLnMQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
	<20160709115236.E3369AC8021@mx.contesting.com>
	<1a6243ad-8759-e2b2-db67-8af0a49fd7dd@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<CAC5FBO9nnGcB033PzBaanw3qhGPvqNqx4u9CH+HMfb30DLnMQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKs+UskFFV_+KWv0EWDQQcfcXJTckQHutN9n0rcYihEPiw00QA@mail.gmail.com>

My AA-600 has been used on countless antenna projects, for many TDR sweeps,
for return loss measurements of connectors, etc...

Wouldn't swap it for the world!

THe MFJ-259 CANNOT work well in a high RF environment, and can be
physically damaged by it, in fact. The manual details this very carefully.

There's nothing wrong with the 259/269 series, per se, but I certainly
wouldn't go back to one after using my AA-600 as long as I have. Having the
sign of impedance and all of the other variables right in front of you is
spoiling!

73

Matt
KW4VY

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz at gmail.com> wrote:

> You guys can laugh all you want to,
> but my MFJ-259, which is quite old,
> maybe 15 years ?? Still works like
> a charm.
>
> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat,7/9/2016 4:52 AM, Bill Cotter wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Attached is a marketing analysis of several handheld analyzers I did for
> >> our ham club. It has links to the technical details.
> >>
> >
> > The Tower Talk list does not support attachments.
> >
> > Hardy,
> >
> > You said you wanted something to drag to the top of a tower, but with
> this
> > analyzer, you can easily get good data from anywhere on the feedline,
> > including the shack.
> >
> > http://sdr-kits.net/VNWA3_Description.html
> >
> > I no longer climb anything higher than a stepladder, so I do all my
> > measurements from the shack. It needs no power supply, getting its power
> > from the USB port that connects it to the computer that processes the
> data.
> > As an engineer, you will really appreciate it.
> >
> > It does TDR by computing the inverse FFT of a sweep, which can be set for
> > any range that you choose for the level of detail you need. There's some
> > math built into the control software, and it exports data in several
> > formats, including s1p Touchstone files, which can be imported by
> SimSmith
> > and ZPlots, among others.  It's a full vector network analyzer, so it
> also
> > measures S21.
> >
> > I paid $740 three years ago, shipped to my W6 QTH, with calibration loads
> > and a case that I wouldn't order again. With the Pound in free fall, my
> > guess is that you could buy it for about $650 today. It's a real winner.
> > Well supported by the mfr (some hams in the UK) and the designer,
> DG8SAQ, a
> > university EE prof who also wrote the software.
> >
> > 73, Jim K9YC
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sat Jul  9 16:27:37 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:27:37 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 31 mix variability ... lost processes
In-Reply-To: <25b3b9ea-530a-e7ee-ffdb-a14af2f10a41@earthlink.net>
References: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>
	<ce099b42-3c8b-0841-b05b-0cf29dab0dec@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<003401d1d9ba$e234ca70$a69e5f50$@co.uk>
	<bfbbb91a-3ab8-a4e8-2d38-f1c8d5236f92@earthlink.net>
	<310e63a6-5662-6ebd-256e-ef0817f88e6c@cis-broadband.com>
	<25b3b9ea-530a-e7ee-ffdb-a14af2f10a41@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <62b23114-a881-79a2-b2bc-c41ca8e1dc15@tm.net>

One company I worked for, increased the purity for one of their 
products.  The immediately received complaints from a major customer. It 
seem as if that customer depended on the characteristics of one trace 
impurity.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/9/2016 Saturday 3:30 PM, jimlux wrote:
> On 7/9/16 12:09 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> It doesn't even have to be the fault of the receiving entity, whether
>> that be a new location or new owners.  I worked in the semiconductor
>> industry for over 30 years and saw several examples of "lost recipes"
>> simply because the original process was never properly investigated,
>> characterized, and documented in the first place.  Processes that had
>> produced excellent product for years might suddenly shift because some
>> influence that had never been understood at all changed.
>>
>> We actually had one product that shifted dramatically for the worse
>> because a piece of equipment was upgraded to a cleaner version, and it
>> took a lot of engineering work to understand the favorable impact that
>> the carrier lifetime killing effect from the older, dirtier equipment
>> had on the product.
>>
>
>
> You hear a lot of stories about trace contaminants making electron gun 
> cathodes "work" or not.  Someone gives up smoking, and all of a 
> sudden, things don't work the same as they used to.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sat Jul  9 16:29:51 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:29:51 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
In-Reply-To: <206FF10E54B044C5AD1D98C0D93E0932@RXDesignDell>
References: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>
	<206FF10E54B044C5AD1D98C0D93E0932@RXDesignDell>
Message-ID: <0d4fa488-82c0-176b-aff4-2b747baf9583@tm.net>

Depends on where you live.  2 or 3 days to central MI.

73

Roger (K8RI)

On 7/9/2016 Saturday 3:39 PM, StellarCAT wrote:
> how do they compare to McMaster Carr? An order placed today is here 
> tomorrow - even if at 5:00 PM! And pricing is mostly reasonable... but 
> it depends on what you're looking for. Very good pricing on machine 
> screws and fastener hardware though.
>
> Gary  K9RX
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Don W7WLL
> Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2016 2:48 PM
> To: Towertalk
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
>
> Was looking for a source for some SS 8-32 and 10-24 coupling nuts. 
> Searched the internet and  ran across a place back east (from me) 
> which I?d not heard of, Albany County Fasterners. They had an very 
> interesting selection of SS fasteners among other types of materials. 
> Also have a line of brass and silicon bronze and a line of security 
> fasteners which are hard to find out here.
>
> Compared the cost of the items and the shipping cost and found them to 
> be better than I could find at other well known fastener houses.
>
> Placed the order, they shipped same day.
>
> This is a new fastener source I will keep at the top of my list. 
> Difficult to drive to a hardware or marine supply store who carries SS 
> fasteners for less than what the Albany shipping cost was.
>
> Just another source you might want to look into. Had not seen it pop 
> up on this site before.
>
> Don W7WLL
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From paul at n1bug.com  Sat Jul  9 16:30:42 2016
From: paul at n1bug.com (N1BUG)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:30:42 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
In-Reply-To: <CAKs+UsnhhPo7HpWzHuA_CxTa-Jo9K6m1kmR=JE8+AfCpjChHBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>
	<CACYeN9y4-ADnxFKU+_eiwzRpMF6u=Zz9xOYYMORhkM6xg=4WAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<A838C3FDD66D43B3A17B4B5314DAEB17@DonPC>
	<CAKs+UsnhhPo7HpWzHuA_CxTa-Jo9K6m1kmR=JE8+AfCpjChHBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57815EF2.4050209@n1bug.com>

This thread came along at a great time! I've been buying my SS 
fasteners from Bolt Depot. I have been very satisfied with their 
service but shipping can be costly and they don't have everything I 
need for a current project. Albany County Fasteners does have what I 
need and at good prices with reasonable shipping. I will be placing 
an order.

73,
Paul N1BUG

From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sat Jul  9 16:37:01 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:37:01 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
In-Reply-To: <CAKs+UskFFV_+KWv0EWDQQcfcXJTckQHutN9n0rcYihEPiw00QA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
	<20160709115236.E3369AC8021@mx.contesting.com>
	<1a6243ad-8759-e2b2-db67-8af0a49fd7dd@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<CAC5FBO9nnGcB033PzBaanw3qhGPvqNqx4u9CH+HMfb30DLnMQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKs+UskFFV_+KWv0EWDQQcfcXJTckQHutN9n0rcYihEPiw00QA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0119646d-018b-dea1-1452-bcf7e15ce2f4@tm.net>

I don't even bother with the portable ones any more as an AIM will give 
me all the numbers at each ens and along the coax, unless working at the 
antenna.  As I can't climb any more, that's not very often. With the 
AIM, I can see how little loss there is with as many as 10 UHF 
connectors in one HF run.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/9/2016 Saturday 4:22 PM, Matthew King - KK4CPS wrote:
> My AA-600 has been used on countless antenna projects, for many TDR sweeps,
> for return loss measurements of connectors, etc...
>
> Wouldn't swap it for the world!
>
> THe MFJ-259 CANNOT work well in a high RF environment, and can be
> physically damaged by it, in fact. The manual details this very carefully.
>
> There's nothing wrong with the 259/269 series, per se, but I certainly
> wouldn't go back to one after using my AA-600 as long as I have. Having the
> sign of impedance and all of the other variables right in front of you is
> spoiling!
>
> 73
>
> Matt
> KW4VY


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From grants2 at pacbell.net  Sat Jul  9 17:27:07 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 14:27:07 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Routing Coax and Control Lines
In-Reply-To: <CAOW=Jm=djnXFmyfFqhuxM2YEca1ABjXLauaw88h5v=dsc9cvMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOW=Jm=djnXFmyfFqhuxM2YEca1ABjXLauaw88h5v=dsc9cvMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57816C2B.1090802@pacbell.net>

I'd caution that "new" generation Heliax is very fragile.  LDF4, FSJ4, 
LDF5 all had much heavier copper shields.  I had to buy some AVA5 after 
my LDF5 ran out and it is an entirely different animal. It is very easy 
to kink and flatten and it is tough to clean the foam without damage to 
the shield.  It was mentioned here that one cell installer won't even 
accept an AVA reel on its side because damage is very likely.

Also, for aerial suspension, falling branches or ice from antennas or 
tower will likely put a significant dent in AVA.  The commercial design 
is an "ice bridge" cover above the suspended Heliax which could be solid 
or perforated/woven/expanded galvanized steel.

Grant KZ1W



On 7/9/2016 11:37 AM, Tom-W3FRG wrote:
> I did a slit trench, an inch or two below the grass roots with the garden
> tractor and put the Heliax directly into it and just drove over it to close
> up the opening.
> Heliax is a direct burial cable.
> I have three runs done this way with a 4 port, remote wireless switch,
> controlling the line back to the station some 130' away.
> Each run goes to approx. the center location of a wire antenna above and
> then back to the RF switch.
>
> Tom W3FRG
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From w7wll at arrl.net  Sat Jul  9 17:30:07 2016
From: w7wll at arrl.net (Don W7WLL)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 14:30:07 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
In-Reply-To: <3ecd8943-69be-2649-a611-ddf0a4e12723@tm.net>
References: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>
	<3ecd8943-69be-2649-a611-ddf0a4e12723@tm.net>
Message-ID: <BA325BD55AA24E49815F14526B6F9820@DonPC>

True Roger, BUT . . .

My location (and I suspect this is true for many on this reflector) isn't 
where a wide range suppliers is available. One just doesn't run to the local 
store for anything, it is a trip to a large town or city taking a whole day 
or more!!!!! There is an Ace Hardware up in a small coast town 6 miles 
north, but while having some SS and other hardware it is very limited in 
scope, mostly really common stuff.  The next nearest hardware is a Tru-Valu 
south some 30 miles in another small coastal town, same limited selection 
but a little better. Some 30 miles to the north in Newport is a Fastenal, 
again little in stock, most has to be ordered out of a warehouse someplace 
so it is a wait. Next stop are larger towns in the Willamette Valley like 
Albany, Corvallis and Eugene (some 2 hours plus driving time) or larger ones 
like Salem and Portland (3 hours driving time). While there are some bigger 
fastener shops most again have a relatively limited 'in stock' inventory and 
one has to rely a lot on their ordering for you, again wait. Lots of driving 
and lots of fuel cost let alone time and wear and tear, and I still have to 
bear shipping and handling costs (the latter 'handling' bugs me as so many 
I;ve run across are outrageous).

Where prices are similar, landed at my place, I try to spread my purchases 
around. But I sure do the comparisons, not just unit cost but 
shipping/handling cost, return policies, responsiveness and other 
attributes.

For all it's problems, those company's who have learned how to sell via the 
internet and do it with integrity, have capitalized and done well in what 
today is a very competitive cost driven market. Who ever I purchase from, if 
the service is good, I am willing to pay a little more to get what I need. 
And, I make sure that those I buy from know whether I am satisfied or not. 
If not, I tell them why vs grumble just to the XYL about it.

The US small business area from what I've seen is changing quickly in terms 
of the market dynamics but most who have adopted quickly to a huge internet 
marketplace seem to be thriving and growing more there than in across the 
counter sales. Good to see people like DXE, Metalwerks and many other small 
businesses who just feed the amateur radio operator heeding to and filling 
in market needs. More important is most I;ve dealt with appear to be 
listening to user inputs. I trust all will do well and that I will be able 
to continue keeping my meager station running whilst being able to shop from 
home at costs at least no more than what I'd have to bear if I lived in a 
big metropolis where there is a lot of competition and the product selection 
is extensive.

Support your local business, but don't shoot yourself in the foot doing it. 
I chose to live here so know I have to live with the cons.

IMHO,

Don W7WLL



-----Original Message----- 
From: Roger (K8RI) on TT
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 1:20 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners

Most any bolt supplier carries SS nuts, bolts, and screws.
Our local, "Prime Fastener," carries SS from 4-40 to over 1" in a wide
variety of lengths at very reasonable. Over the counter they will sell
just one or by the box. I assume most suppliers will do the same.  It's
likely, most towns or cities of much size will have suppliers and there
are many on the Internet. As always, YMMV

73

Roger (K8RI)



On 7/9/2016 Saturday 2:48 PM, Don W7WLL wrote:
> Was looking for a source for some SS 8-32 and 10-24 coupling nuts. 
> Searched the internet and  ran across a place back east (from me) which I?d 
> not heard of, Albany County Fasterners. They had an very interesting 
> selection of SS fasteners among other types of materials. Also have a line 
> of brass and silicon bronze and a line of security fasteners which are 
> hard to find out here.
>
> Compared the cost of the items and the shipping cost and found them to be 
> better than I could find at other well known fastener houses.
>
> Placed the order, they shipped same day.
>
> This is a new fastener source I will keep at the top of my list. Difficult 
> to drive to a hardware or marine supply store who carries SS fasteners for 
> less than what the Albany shipping cost was.
>
> Just another source you might want to look into. Had not seen it pop up on 
> this site before.
>
> Don W7WLL
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 



From charlie at thegallos.com  Sat Jul  9 18:18:52 2016
From: charlie at thegallos.com (Charles Gallo)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 18:18:52 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
In-Reply-To: <BA325BD55AA24E49815F14526B6F9820@DonPC>
References: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>
	<3ecd8943-69be-2649-a611-ddf0a4e12723@tm.net>
	<BA325BD55AA24E49815F14526B6F9820@DonPC>
Message-ID: <7D2DE052-2B64-4CDC-BC4F-D32567784529@thegallos.com>

The one that bugs me re Fastenal is that if you ship it to the store, in stock, same as if you have it shipped direct. What, they can't put it in one of their deliveries

--  
73 de KG2V
Charlie

> 


From kd2kw at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  9 19:44:01 2016
From: kd2kw at yahoo.com (Ken Mitchell)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 23:44:01 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Routing Coax and Control Lines
References: <2064883953.1394270.1468107841617.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2064883953.1394270.1468107841617.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Keith,
Here's a paragraph from the Times Microwave systems article/brochure on "Grounding and Lightning Protection for Wireless Networks", pg 10.
"Most of the lightning energy goes down the tower to earth with current divided between the entry
panel ground system and the earth ground connection. If coaxial cables on the tower were turned
towards the entry panel at a lower point on the tower and shields were bonded to the tower there, less
potential and current flow would be applied to the entry panel and master ground bar. Always
direct cables to the entry panel at the lowest practical location on the tower." There's a drawing of the potential curve along the height of the tower for illustration.

I plan to bury my cable in conduit, metal is better than plastic, and have poly phasers at the entrance using a copper panel like you have. A buried metal sheath conduit for the coax run may act like a distributed capacitance that can offer some shunting to the high frequency lightning impulse on the coax shield. Reading the article indicates the lightning pulse is higher on the shield, velocity factor difference, therefore "grounding kits" should be placed on each coax run at the top and bottom of the tower (for 100 foot tower), recommended tower/shield grounding is on page 8 of that article.
Page 7 seems to warn against placing coax feeds above the tower base here: 

"If the bottom coaxial cable ground kit (where the coaxial cable leaves the tower) is at any elevation
above the earth, the overall inductance to earth of the tower below the ground kit, the series
inductance of coaxial cables to the building, and the paralleled entry panel ground conductors, is
sufficient to cause a substantial peak voltage. The resulting voltage on the coax shield will drive current
to the equipment where the electrical safety ground provides a path to ground through the
equipment chassis.", page 7.
My plan, in mid execution now, is to have an 8 foot ground rod for each leg of the tower, these ground rods are tied together with #4 copper and tied to a UFER ground built inside the tower foundation when the base was poured and three extended 8 foot ground rods off each base ground rod, at least 16 feet away from the base ground rod. These outside ground rods are tied together in a star/ring configuration. All coax will be grounded at the top of the tower and to this grounding system at the base before it enters the conduit to the entrance panel, ~100 feet away. By burying the cable and it, in my case, being 100 feet away from the tower the lightning impulse should be diminished some by the time the wave has traveled to the entrance panel.

Here's a link to the article/brochure:
http://www.timesmicrowave.com/documents/resources/protectbrochure.pdf

There's also an article by the author here with some of the same data and more discussion.
http://www.timesmicrowave.com/products/protect/downloads/aglarticle.pdf

HTHs,
73,KenKD2KW_____All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson 

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. Ben Franklin

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it."[28]
George Washington

?But those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.? Isaiah 40:31 (NIV)

C. S. Lewis: "If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair."? Jesus promised that "the Spirit of truth" will "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).? Have you sought his guidance yet today?

"Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for God
opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." 1 Peter 5:5

"O Lord, thou art my God; I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name; for thou hast done wonderful things; thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth.? Isaiah 25:1


From jlangdon1 at austin.rr.com  Sat Jul  9 21:21:04 2016
From: jlangdon1 at austin.rr.com (John Langdon)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 20:21:04 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <72ac2f3e-64c5-9762-7c1d-b8f3c55c63f4@cis-broadband.com>
References: <D3A3EDC9.3B605%scottw3tx@verizon.net>	<EF35C5E4-216D-4D11-99D9-C239FEFEEE73@mymts.net>
	<72ac2f3e-64c5-9762-7c1d-b8f3c55c63f4@cis-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <011e01d1da49$543aea30$fcb0be90$@austin.rr.com>

I concur. I have been involved in several big money 'where to build it' decision trees and the big two overarching factors were usually (1) how much uncertainty (time and chance of success) about getting the site plans approved and built, and (2) the cost and availability of reliable electrical service.  Bureaucracy and 'green politics' often had a major and deleterious effect on our estimates of both factors.  The other two issues were usually the engineering and skilled labor pools and transportation costs to market. 

At one place we looked it, it would have been illegal to just run the municipal tap water down the municipal drains - it had to be cleaned up first, and site plan approval plus environmental reviews took years longer than the other alternatives.  Those regional master plans for 100% green power makes any industrial user very nervous about price and reliability - when energy is 40% of COGS and one power outage might cause you to dispose of millions of $ of work in process, and require several days to restart the line. 

Our psychological comfort level was always greater in the US or EU, but the hard numbers usually forced us to look elsewhere.  

I also worked at a ham store while in junior high and high school, and many hams were even bigger chiselers than most consumers, plus they often apply a fictitious mental discount to things 'I could build myself' when they really have no chance of doing it well if at all.  

73 John N5CQ


-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2016 2:56 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK


That's a bit simplistic.  I spent over 30 years working for a huge North American based semiconductor company, and there were a variety of reasons we ended up moving most manufacturing elsewhere.  Labor cost was certainly one of them, but rarely the deciding factor.  Others included:

1.  Availability of trained engineers.  Places like China and India have a far greater pool of highly skilled and dedicated engineers, and engineers in the U.S. tended to think of manufacturing as being "unglamorous."

2.  Proximity to local markets.  As the world economy became more global, being able to be closer to your customer had tremendous advantages in terms of customer relationships and cycle time reductions, not to mention trade (many countries lower tax rates for local content) and currency issues.

3.  Bureaucracy and overhead issues.  At one point we wanted to significantly expand a wafer fab locally, but were told by the city that it would take at least 18 months simply to get the approvals for it ... 
in spite of the fact that we had already proposed every safety and environmental upgrade imaginable for it.  Markets don't wait for that kind of crap, and we ended up having to build the fab offshore where some other entity actually wanted it.

Other industries faced different issues ... tax burdens in the U.S., ridiculous union requirements (much less of an issue now, of course, at least in most places), availability of raw materials, etc.  The problem as many of us recognized even back then was that once such manufacturing migrations begin they are very difficult to curb.  How many colleges and universities in North America offer engineering courses specifically geared toward manufacturing?  Damn few, if any.  In Asia they are everywhere. Compare tax rates.  Compare transportation costs to major markets (North America is no longer the only one).

The list of reasons why such "big box" products are built elsewhere is almost endless, and while it may be convenient to blame the manufacturers for that it is simply scapegoating. Consumers who tend to buy the cheapest available product regardless of quality (and they are still the majority, to which I can attest having worked for a while at a big box store) share the blame, as do most other elements of the economic system that ignored cost and efficiency in favor of other 
factors.   I'd even bet that your own investment funds lie with 
companies that make as much profit as possible, as opposed to some company that tried to fight the system by paying higher wages, paying higher taxes, training it's own engineers, paying higher transportation costs ... etc, etc, etc.

Manufacturers mostly follow ... they don't really lead the parade.  I can say with great experience that moving manufacturing offshore is one of the riskiest, most traumatic actions a manufacturer can take.  It doesn't happen without significant outside pressure from one place or another.

73,

Dave  AB7E



On 7/7/2016 8:56 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> A funny, though harrowing, tale of everything that?s wrong with the two dominant North American first-world economies:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKv6RcXa2UI <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKv6RcXa2UI>
>
> ?Oh Big Box Mart, what have you sold to me? We used to be your customers, now we?re your employees.?
>
> The pigeons of off-shore labour have come home to roost, and we?re seeing increasing examples of the folly every day.
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt,
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 7, 2016, at 10:43 AM, ScottW3TX <scottw3tx at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Most brick and mortar stores run on very thin profit margins that are
>> getting squeezed smaller and smaller in this new economy shift. Costs
>> (especially health insurance, regulatory, and base services to keep the
>> doors open), are going up at 8 to 12% per year. Meanwhile competition does
>> not allow for the final seller of products or service to raise prices.
>> There are no longer excess profits in smaller businesses to fund owner and
>> employee retirement plans. Therefore there is rarely any "goodwill" or
>> "blue-sky" value in the sale. Just inventory (if it is sellable) and real
>> estate.
>>
>> The bigger picture is what will happen to amateur radio sales companies?
>> The trend is that the smaller, niche companies are either closing down or
>> selling to the two dominant buyers.
>>
>> Is such consolidation good for the future of amateur radio?
>>
>> What happens when MFJ or DXE go up for sale?  Most likely the only
>> potential buyers will be publicly traded companies that have less interest
>> in the customer than the current stake-holders that are active amateur
>> radio operators themselves.  And will there even be a buy when one factors
>> in the demographics?
>>
>> When I took my 13 year old son to the DX Dinner at Dayton this year he was
>> probably the youngest person there. I was probably the second youngest
>> (49).
>>
>> Unless amateur radio quickly and effectively figures out how to connect
>> itself into the STEM and Programming wave I fear that Nathan and I will be
>> the only guys at the DX Dinner someday.
>>
>> At least he and I will have darn good antennas :)
>>
>> 73, Scott W3TX
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/7/16 11:24 AM, "Alan NV8A" <nv8a at charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I have been surprised at the number of local businesses that are simply
>>> shut down when the owner decides to retire: they have a "going out of
>>> business sale," and that's it. I would have expected them to sell the
>>> business -- with its "good will" -- as a going concern.
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> Alan NV8A
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/07/2016 07:21 AM, Chuck Gooden wrote:
>>>> I would of expected that, the company would be up for sale to someone
>>>> that would be interested in keeping ham radio alive.  So I am waiting
>>>> until I see an official notice.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Gooden N9QBT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/6/2016 4:57 PM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>>>>> I just got an email from the sales manager of AES  that they're
>>>>> closing the
>>>>> doors at the end of the month. Hard to believe since  they used to be
>>>>> one
>>>>> of two 800 pound gorillas in the ham market. Apparently  stuff happens.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From lstoskopf at cox.net  Sat Jul  9 22:03:35 2016
From: lstoskopf at cox.net (lstoskopf at cox.net)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 22:03:35 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] lost processes......way OT
Message-ID: <20160709220335.QPLH8.53509.imail@eastrmwml301>

A Chem E relative of mine who worked in the Pacific NW in a plant where they made Vanillin out of some tree byproduct related that they cooked the stuff in big vats before processing.  Had for a long time.  One day an old guy that worked there took a prolonged vacation and soon the brew started developing more and more foam that ran over everything, so much so that they had to start  using smaller batches.  He came back and was quickly surrounded by quality control to see what he did.  The batch started to foam so he reached up on the wooden wall, pulled off a little tar paper and threw into the mix.  Foam stopped.  When asked why he did that he commented that years ago he saw a bit of the stuff fall into the batch which stopped the foaming so he just always did it that way.  Undocumented, luckily!

Sorry for the OT bit.  Such would never happen in a science based hobby like ours.

N0UU

From grants2 at pacbell.net  Sat Jul  9 22:26:56 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 19:26:56 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <003401d1d9ba$e234ca70$a69e5f50$@co.uk>
References: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>
	<ce099b42-3c8b-0841-b05b-0cf29dab0dec@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<003401d1d9ba$e234ca70$a69e5f50$@co.uk>
Message-ID: <5781B270.8090909@pacbell.net>

More OT & re at least a related technology:  Long ago, I was involved 
with the DEC core memory design and core making.  Core making was an 
"interesting" operation since the only the "bakers" knew the magic for 
getting good cores.  Actually only about 30% of every batch was any 
good.  The good news was the bad cores got ball milled with the next 
batch of raw materials, then isostatically pressed, fired, ground up 
again, pressed again, fired, and finally ground into press-able powder, 
pressed in carbide dies, fired, and 100% tested.  We made billions all 
for DEC systems and were the last systems supplier to offer core memory, 
since real time systems customers loved never having to wait and wait 
for a reboot after a power failure.  The last generation cores were 
0.012" OUTside diameter and the all women core stringers in Taiwan put 
three wires through each of those tiny donuts.  And our core memory was 
cheaper to make than DRAMs until after the MOSTEK 64k chip hit its 
volume pricing valley.   Our ferrite "bakers" were really world class.  
DEC bought (cheap) the RCA core memory operation when RCA exited the 
computer business in 1971.

When one considers ferrite core memory technology it is a wonder it 
worked at all - half select noise, temperature sensitivity, aging, 
stress effects, magnetostriction, etc were large engineering and process 
control challenges.    At least cosmic rays didn't bother it and it 
didn't forget and it was the technology that made computers as we know 
them possible.

Grant KZ1W

On 7/9/2016 1:21 AM, Ian White wrote:
> Several good points there, about the variability of ferrite cores.
>
> Ferrites are, quite literally, "bakery products". Just like bread and
> cakes, the properties of ferrites depend on the correct ingredients
> measured out in precise quantities, on the precise manner in which those
> ingredients are mixed, and also - most critically - on the
> temperature/time profile of the baking and cooling.
>
> Just like baking, the manufacture of ferrite materials is a complex
> blend of science and know-how. Once a specific product has been
> developed, consistency can only be achieved by repeating exactly the
> same processes for every batch.
>
> It is very easy to see how QC problems could appear from outsourcing
> those critical processes to an offshore company that lacks the original
> manufacturer's in-house know-how, with a language barrier that prevents
> that information being accurately transferred.
>
>
> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Jim Brown
>> Sent: 09 July 2016 00:23
>> To:towertalk at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK
>>
>> It's good that you raised this, Jim. Fair-Rite is yet another example
> of
>> a great small business that was owned and run by engineers who happened
>> to be married. He was the Chem E, she was the EE. I met them in their
>> booth at an IEEE EMC engineering conference in Chicago in 2005. Not
> long
>> after that they sold the business and retired. That's probably when mfg
>> moved off shore. Several years ago, I heard from a local EE working mfg
>> that his company was having serious QC issues with their #61 cores of
>> the same sort you described.
>>
>> My measurements of coax chokes were mostly done in 2007, the bifilar
>> chokes in 2009-10. Measurements that produced the families of data for
>> 1-14 turns of the five different materials were done in a well known
> lab
>> in 2002-3 by my collaborator who has chosen to remain anonymous to
>> avoid
>> "issues" at work.
>>
>> I would NOT, however, solely blame QC for the problem with getting
>> consistent measurements on chokes, simply because the circuit Q of
>> practical chokes is quite low, typically around 0.5. Rather, I think
>> much of it is a measurement problem. It is VERY well known that
>> reflection-based impedance measurements have increasingly poor accuracy
>> for values of Z that vary by more than about 5:1 from the system
>> impedance of the measurement system (usually 50 ohms). This is because
>> the equation for Z involves the sum and difference of S11 and 1, so
> very
>> small errors in S11 result in large errors in Z.
>>
>> This error is in addition to the stray C of the measurement fixture,
>> which can cause significant errors in the resonance of the choke. This
>> is significant with #31 and #43 chokes that are resonant above about 10
>> MHz, and huge errors in higher Q materials like #61. In both cases, the
>> actual resonance of the choke is higher than the measured value.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>> On Fri,7/8/2016 3:12 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>>> Well  you could work for Fair rite as a type 31 sales manager.  Or
> better
>> yet,
>>> visit their new plant in China, where they make all these products,
> and
>> figure out
>>> why they have such extremes and variations in their  type 31 cores
> since
>> the chinese
>>> plant opened.   N3RR  bought over  700 of em, 2.4  inch od cores, and
>> found they
>>> are all over the map, and even sent samples to Fair rite.   Bill
> ended up
>> devising  a
>>> simple 1 turn test, then graded all  700 of em into various sub
> groups.   No
>> wonder the
>>> initial CMC results  were not repeatable.
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


From aa6yq at ambersoft.com  Sat Jul  9 22:46:21 2016
From: aa6yq at ambersoft.com ( Dave AA6YQ)
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 22:46:21 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <5781B270.8090909@pacbell.net>
References: <BA602919B73C403CBE7FB2AFF153836E@JimPC>	<ce099b42-3c8b-0841-b05b-0cf29dab0dec@audiosystemsgroup.com>	<003401d1d9ba$e234ca70$a69e5f50$@co.uk>
	<5781B270.8090909@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <0cea01d1da55$3eb17e70$bc147b50$@ambersoft.com>

>>>>AA6YQ comments below

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Grant Saviers
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 10:27 PM
To: Ian White; jim at audiosystemsgroup.com; towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

More OT & re at least a related technology:  Long ago, I was involved with the DEC core memory design and core making.  Core making
was an "interesting" operation since the only the "bakers" knew the magic for getting good cores.  Actually only about 30% of every
batch was any good.  The good news was the bad cores got ball milled with the next batch of raw materials, then isostatically
pressed, fired, ground up again, pressed again, fired, and finally ground into press-able powder, pressed in carbide dies, fired,
and 100% tested.  We made billions all for DEC systems and were the last systems supplier to offer core memory, since real time
systems customers loved never having to wait and wait for a reboot after a power failure.  The last generation cores were 0.012"
OUTside diameter and the all women core stringers in Taiwan put three wires through each of those tiny donuts.  And our core memory
was cheaper to make than DRAMs until after the MOSTEK 64k chip hit its 
volume pricing valley.   Our ferrite "bakers" were really world class.  
DEC bought (cheap) the RCA core memory operation when RCA exited the computer business in 1971.

When one considers ferrite core memory technology it is a wonder it worked at all - half select noise, temperature sensitivity,
aging, stress effects, magnetostriction, etc were large engineering and process 
control challenges.    At least cosmic rays didn't bother it and it 
didn't forget and it was the technology that made computers as we know them possible.

>>>And because DEC made its own core memory, Data General had to make it too. I designed the Nova 3 to work with up to eight 64
Kbyte core memory circuit boards, each of which sold for what nice cars went for back in those days. 

       73,

              Dave, AA6YQ


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sun Jul 10 13:02:14 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 13:02:14 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Stainless Steel and Other Hard To Find Fasteners
In-Reply-To: <BA325BD55AA24E49815F14526B6F9820@DonPC>
References: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>
	<3ecd8943-69be-2649-a611-ddf0a4e12723@tm.net>
	<BA325BD55AA24E49815F14526B6F9820@DonPC>
Message-ID: <46167bde-b40c-bd58-b6ba-14522579282e@tm.net>

I once lived in a similar location, with a 60 mile drive to work. (I'm 
not a morning person either). My drive took me near a town...small city 
that had suppliers for three or four large companies and many smaller 
ones with some of those specialty machine shops. I gained a lot of 
contacts through work. Metal suppliers 25 mile away will deliver to my 
door.

Parts procurement for ham projects can be difficult in most places. 
First, you need to locate them and then find the ones that will deal 
with the individual.
We moved down here in 84 which drastically shortened my drive. My wife 
ended up with about the same distance she had before. We are now retired 
and live in a small, rural subdivision, but fortunately no HOAs.  
Unfortunately the large trucks can't make it down our street so larger, 
longer,  heavy deliveries have to be via smaller trucks. We should have 
chosen a better location, but with an acre lot I at least have room for 
modest antennas.

No way would I drive 30 miles for parts, EXCEPT when I need them now!. 
Big stuff?  Probably.  Ace and Tru-Valu are nearby which I do use.  But 
for most nuts, bolts, and screws, I go to the suppliers and purchase 
them by the box. My fasteners shelving is better equipped than the local 
hardware stores. I can get boxes of many sizes for what 4 or 6 bolts 
cost me at the "Big Box" and hardware stores.  Many of the local stores 
do supply through the Internet.

It also helps that we are close to, or in, hunting, fishing, and water 
sports areas.

Still, it's getting much more difficult to support the local, brick and 
mortar stores.

There are no local, or even not so local, Ham stores.  The closest is 
well over a 100 miles.

73

Roger (K8RI)

On 7/9/2016 Saturday 5:30 PM, Don W7WLL wrote:
> True Roger, BUT . . .
>
> My location (and I suspect this is true for many on this reflector) 
> isn't where a wide range suppliers is available. One just doesn't run 
> to the local store for anything, it is a trip to a large town or city 
> taking a whole day or more!!!!! There is an Ace Hardware up in a small 
> coast town 6 miles north, but while having some SS and other hardware 
> it is very limited in scope, mostly really common stuff.  The next 
> nearest hardware is a Tru-Valu south some 30 miles in another small 
> coastal town, same limited selection but a little better. Some 30 
> miles to the north in Newport is a Fastenal, again little in stock, 
> most has to be ordered out of a warehouse someplace so it is a wait. 
> Next stop are larger towns in the Willamette Valley like Albany, 
> Corvallis and Eugene (some 2 hours plus driving time) or larger ones 
> like Salem and Portland (3 hours driving time). While there are some 
> bigger fastener shops most again have a relatively limited 'in stock' 
> inventory and one has to rely a lot on their ordering for you, again 
> wait. Lots of driving and lots of fuel cost let alone time and wear 
> and tear, and I still have to bear shipping and handling costs (the 
> latter 'handling' bugs me as so many I;ve run across are outrageous).
>
> Where prices are similar, landed at my place, I try to spread my 
> purchases around. But I sure do the comparisons, not just unit cost 
> but shipping/handling cost, return policies, responsiveness and other 
> attributes.
>
> For all it's problems, those company's who have learned how to sell 
> via the internet and do it with integrity, have capitalized and done 
> well in what today is a very competitive cost driven market. Who ever 
> I purchase from, if the service is good, I am willing to pay a little 
> more to get what I need. And, I make sure that those I buy from know 
> whether I am satisfied or not. If not, I tell them why vs grumble just 
> to the XYL about it.
>
> The US small business area from what I've seen is changing quickly in 
> terms of the market dynamics but most who have adopted quickly to a 
> huge internet marketplace seem to be thriving and growing more there 
> than in across the counter sales. Good to see people like DXE, 
> Metalwerks and many other small businesses who just feed the amateur 
> radio operator heeding to and filling in market needs. More important 
> is most I;ve dealt with appear to be listening to user inputs. I trust 
> all will do well and that I will be able to continue keeping my meager 
> station running whilst being able to shop from home at costs at least 
> no more than what I'd have to bear if I lived in a big metropolis 
> where there is a lot of competition and the product selection is 
> extensive.
>
> Support your local business, but don't shoot yourself in the foot 
> doing it. I chose to live here so know I have to live with the cons.
>
> IMHO,
>
> Don W7WLL 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From richard at karlquist.com  Sun Jul 10 14:03:57 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 11:03:57 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable Analyzer
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAGN/0iXWEkZAvgLa8atb8rDCgAAAEAAAADx12wkqx89DjUyBWRh5P5IBAAAAAA==@awinets.com>
References: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAGN/0iXWEkZAvgLa8atb8rDCgAAAEAAAADx12wkqx89DjUyBWRh5P5IBAAAAAA==@awinets.com>
Message-ID: <810c40d1-55e3-9d84-5dee-7195a48d7c2d@karlquist.com>

On 7/9/2016 10:08 AM, Riki, K7NJ wrote:

> sticker indicated that it was manufactured in 2016. Any suggestions for a
> good portable analyzer that works well in a high RF environment would be
> appreciated.
>
> 73 - Riki, K7NJ
>

The news isn't good.  I have an AIM-4170 and an SDR-kits VNWA.
They work fine in a lab environment.
Unfortunately, they operate at low excitation levels using small signal
Gilbert cell mixers that limit their ability to handle
large signals.  BCB reject filters may help, but are not a panacea.
(There are some high dynamic range Gilbert cell mixers
available, but they chose not to use them).
The pocket size battery operated meters are unlikely to be
any better, due to the constraints of designing within that
configuration.  Ask the manufacturers how much RF goes to the
antenna and use that as a crude figure of merit.

The manufacturer of the AIM-4170 also offers a "professional"
model that claims to be able to handle high ambient RF levels.
It is only "portable" if you don't mind bringing along a laptop.
I haven't been able to justify spending the money on this
for my limited needs.

Another thing I have is an N8LP vector wattmeter.  This tells
me the complex impedance of the antenna no matter how much
QRM there is, because I excite it with my rig set on 5 watts.
It is kind of portable, using a gel cell and an IC-706 to
go along with it.  If you measure the antenna through a
feedline of any significant length, you have to correct the
reading yourself with Smith chart software.

Rick N6RK

From nv8a at charter.net  Sun Jul 10 14:32:06 2016
From: nv8a at charter.net (Alan NV8A)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 14:32:06 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] lost processes......way OT
In-Reply-To: <20160709220335.QPLH8.53509.imail@eastrmwml301>
References: <20160709220335.QPLH8.53509.imail@eastrmwml301>
Message-ID: <d00d3a0e-8cf7-6b14-33d3-d9f718d1e244@charter.net>

On 07/09/2016 10:03 PM, lstoskopf at cox.net wrote:
> A Chem E relative of mine who worked in the Pacific NW in a plant where they made Vanillin out of some tree byproduct related that they cooked the stuff in big vats before processing.  Had for a long time.  One day an old guy that worked there took a prolonged vacation and soon the brew started developing more and more foam that ran over everything, so much so that they had to start  using smaller batches.  He came back and was quickly surrounded by quality control to see what he did.  The batch started to foam so he reached up on the wooden wall, pulled off a little tar paper and threw into the mix.  Foam stopped.  When asked why he did that he commented that years ago he saw a bit of the stuff fall into the batch which stopped the foaming so he just always did it that way.  Undocumented, luckily!

Many decades ago I heard about a plating works where the long-time 
operator retired, and under the new guy things just didn't work right. 
They called the old guy back in to see what they might be doing wrong, 
and he said, "I always spat in the tank." I think the result of the 
investigation was that the old guy was a tobacco chewer, and something 
in his saliva acted as a catalyst -- or something like that: it's been a 
long time.

73

Alan NV8A


From gm4plm at hotmail.com  Sun Jul 10 16:18:33 2016
From: gm4plm at hotmail.com (Simon Lewis)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 20:18:33 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] 3/16 element retainers M2 style ??
In-Reply-To: <46167bde-b40c-bd58-b6ba-14522579282e@tm.net>
References: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>,
	<3ecd8943-69be-2649-a611-ddf0a4e12723@tm.net>,
	<BA325BD55AA24E49815F14526B6F9820@DonPC>,
	<46167bde-b40c-bd58-b6ba-14522579282e@tm.net>
Message-ID: <DUB119-W453EBC62EEC22AB7F93A4B803E0@phx.gbl>

speaking of hardware ...
does anyone know a source of the 3/16 element holders - need a couple hundred of them 
I think M2 sell them in bags of 50 for a large price!
These things...
http://www.m2inc.com/amateur/3-16-retainer-clip-bag-of-50/
Are they available in say 200-300's at any better price
not even sure what you call these things in the USA!
Cheers
Simon ZL4PLM



Check out more information on the world 50 MHz and Up : www.zl4plm.com

Find out the latest news from ZL4PLM on my blog at: http://zl4plm.blogspot.co.nz/

 		 	   		  

From w7wll at arrl.net  Sun Jul 10 19:24:40 2016
From: w7wll at arrl.net (Don W7WLL)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 16:24:40 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] 3/16 element retainers M2 style ??
In-Reply-To: <DUB119-W453EBC62EEC22AB7F93A4B803E0@phx.gbl>
References: <11B9BDF5654C44C2809E663D51727423@DonPC>,
	<3ecd8943-69be-2649-a611-ddf0a4e12723@tm.net>,
	<BA325BD55AA24E49815F14526B6F9820@DonPC>,
	<46167bde-b40c-bd58-b6ba-14522579282e@tm.net>
	<DUB119-W453EBC62EEC22AB7F93A4B803E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1C546016D1D94C94B9655CC9EE09C9C9@DonPC>

Those are fairly common and referred to as 'internal tooth retaining ring'. 
I would think any place who does motor repair for example would know a local 
supplier . We used to use them where I worked.

This is one place, available in plain and SS, inch and metric. There are 
several other who carry these, including Fastenal.

https://www.rotorclip.com/prod_self_lock_retaining_rings.php

Don W7WLL


-----Original Message----- 
From: Simon Lewis
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 1:18 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] 3/16 element retainers M2 style ??

speaking of hardware ...
does anyone know a source of the 3/16 element holders - need a couple 
hundred of them
I think M2 sell them in bags of 50 for a large price!
These things...
http://www.m2inc.com/amateur/3-16-retainer-clip-bag-of-50/
Are they available in say 200-300's at any better price
not even sure what you call these things in the USA!
Cheers
Simon ZL4PLM



Check out more information on the world 50 MHz and Up : www.zl4plm.com

Find out the latest news from ZL4PLM on my blog at: 
http://zl4plm.blogspot.co.nz/


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sun Jul 10 22:19:01 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 22:19:01 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Routing Coax and Control Lines
In-Reply-To: <2064883953.1394270.1468107841617.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <2064883953.1394270.1468107841617.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<2064883953.1394270.1468107841617.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c4f24ffd-ea0c-87d9-54d3-af66ddb1f513@tm.net>

You didn't state the mass and construction of the UFER ground.
Typically, more than one ground rod per leg is used unless the UFER is 
quite large.
It's quite difficult to get the bottom coax grounding, at, or below 
grade.  Moisture, soil, water, and/or, snow may dictate the necessity of 
mounting said grounding somewhat above grade.  My bottom grounds are 
about 6" above grade which often puts them as much as 2' below the 
surface of the snow.

Because there is so little loss at HF, I prefer to use thoroughly 
weatherproofed bulkhead connectors for grounding the shields. Each one 
adds up, but even with as many as 10 connectors, the loss is still 
minuscule.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/9/2016 Saturday 7:44 PM, Ken Mitchell via TowerTalk wrote:



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sun Jul 10 23:27:58 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 23:27:58 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <72ac2f3e-64c5-9762-7c1d-b8f3c55c63f4@cis-broadband.com>
References: <D3A3EDC9.3B605%scottw3tx@verizon.net>
	<EF35C5E4-216D-4D11-99D9-C239FEFEEE73@mymts.net>
	<72ac2f3e-64c5-9762-7c1d-b8f3c55c63f4@cis-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <2c35195d-bab4-d17f-810e-b055836dbf84@tm.net>

Overly simplistic with the reasons for ham gear as well as many products 
off shore include all the things someone said were unrelated. Unions, 
politics, skilled and unskilled labor, work ethics, unrealistic 
expectations and attitudes taught all the way through the school 
system.  Add to that the global market system.

The company I worked for had numerous plants around the US.  There are 
many states that welcome new industries with minimal regulations and 
taxes. Unfortunately the Feds regulations can make starting a new 
business anywhere, more than a little difficult.

We had plants on nearly every continent to take advantage of those 
"local markets"

"Ham Radio" is no where near a large enough market to support that kind 
of business model.

"Off Shore" does not mean junk, but as long as most hams are cheap, 
someone, here or there will build and sell "cheap stuff". Let's face it. 
If WE didn't purchase enough cheap stuff to support the making of cheap 
stuff, then they'd stop making cheap stuff.

You don't need to be very old to remember when Japan was synonymous with 
cheap stuff.
Those producing cheap stuff soon learn there is a lot more money in 
building "good stuff"

"Cheap labor" has a way of becoming expensive labor.
Japan was replaced by Korea and Mexico. Now why would Japanese companies 
start building cars in the US?  It doesn't take long for an open mind to 
find those answers.

Korean cheap labor is being replaced by Chinese and Indian labor.

A thought:
I read that in another generation or two, India will have more people 
with 4 year college degrees than the total US population. Can China be 
far behind?  They have highly qualified people who WANT to work, while 
we have many college grads who want to tell their employers what they 
will do.  I've seen a drastic change in new hire attitudes in my 50 plus 
years in industry

Whoever remarked about the falling # of Hams needs to read 
http://www.arrl.org/news/amateur-radio-showing-steady-growth-in-the-us
True, fewer build their own HF and VHF rigs, but LF and SHF are now the 
domain of the home builders. OTOH many of the new hams with store bought 
equipment understand the programming and protocols for some very 
sophisticated communications that leave old time CW and SSB hams 
scratching their heads?

All of these things/topics affect Ham Radio, one way or another.!

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/9/2016 Saturday 3:55 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>
> That's a bit simplistic.  I spent over 30 years working for a huge 
> North American based semiconductor company, and there were a variety 
> of reasons we ended up moving most manufacturing elsewhere.  Labor 
> cost was certainly one of them, but rarely the deciding factor.  
> Others included:
>
> 1.  Availability of trained engineers.  Places like China and India 
> have a far greater pool of highly skilled and dedicated engineers, and 
> engineers in the U.S. tended to think of manufacturing as being 
> "unglamorous."
>
> 2.  Proximity to local markets.  As the world economy became more 
> global, being able to be closer to your customer had tremendous 
> advantages in terms of customer relationships and cycle time 
> reductions, not to mention trade (many countries lower tax rates for 
> local content) and currency issues.
>
> 3.  Bureaucracy and overhead issues.  At one point we wanted to 
> significantly expand a wafer fab locally, but were told by the city 
> that it would take at least 18 months simply to get the approvals for 
> it ... in spite of the fact that we had already proposed every safety 
> and environmental upgrade imaginable for it.  Markets don't wait for 
> that kind of crap, and we ended up having to build the fab offshore 
> where some other entity actually wanted it.
>
> Other industries faced different issues ... tax burdens in the U.S., 
> ridiculous union requirements (much less of an issue now, of course, 
> at least in most places), availability of raw materials, etc.  The 
> problem as many of us recognized even back then was that once such 
> manufacturing migrations begin they are very difficult to curb.  How 
> many colleges and universities in North America offer engineering 
> courses specifically geared toward manufacturing?  Damn few, if any.  
> In Asia they are everywhere. Compare tax rates.  Compare 
> transportation costs to major markets (North America is no longer the 
> only one).
>
> The list of reasons why such "big box" products are built elsewhere is 
> almost endless, and while it may be convenient to blame the 
> manufacturers for that it is simply scapegoating. Consumers who tend 
> to buy the cheapest available product regardless of quality (and they 
> are still the majority, to which I can attest having worked for a 
> while at a big box store) share the blame, as do most other elements 
> of the economic system that ignored cost and efficiency in favor of 
> other factors.   I'd even bet that your own investment funds lie with 
> companies that make as much profit as possible, as opposed to some 
> company that tried to fight the system by paying higher wages, paying 
> higher taxes, training it's own engineers, paying higher 
> transportation costs ... etc, etc, etc.
>
> Manufacturers mostly follow ... they don't really lead the parade.  I 
> can say with great experience that moving manufacturing offshore is 
> one of the riskiest, most traumatic actions a manufacturer can take.  
> It doesn't happen without significant outside pressure from one place 
> or another.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave  AB7E


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From jim.thom at telus.net  Mon Jul 11 13:13:08 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:13:08 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
Message-ID: <342710F832D74E68A17EE00C750BFBF0@JimPC>

Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 23:27:58 -0400
From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

A thought:
I read that in another generation or two, India will have more people 
with 4 year college degrees than the total US population. Can China be 
far behind?  They have highly qualified people who WANT to work, while 
we have many college grads who want to tell their employers what they 
will do.  I've seen a drastic change in new hire attitudes in my 50 plus 
years in industry


73

Roger (K8RI)

##  I ran into this young fellow the other day..working night shift at local 711.  he was the only one
in there that knows up from down.  real bright.  Turns out he is one of our Syrian refugees..that arrived here 
in town not too long ago.   Turns out he has a masters degree in electrical engineering.....from a university 
in Jordan..plus a lot more education.     Aged 25.  he applies to all the cable companies, and also telcos, cell
companies.. via their online hiring method.  Then gets zero reply from all of em.   he has zero work experience in
any of his fields,  just loads of education...and lotsa  paper work + references to prove it.   I said id help him out if I can
as I still know the right folks in the industry.  At least get the paper work to the right place.   I have seen too much
talent walk right out the door.  too bad.  he was willing to relocate anywhere..and work any hrs.  All he really wanted
was just an interview. 

##  all these  11,000  folks the local telco hired in the philipines.... all have a min of  4 years university.   They do everything
from processing orders for various telcos... to fielding calls  for visa /MC  and amex.   Huge call centers.   A huge 
chunk of our engineering depts have now gone to india.    Our engineers were really pissed off with that fiasco.  They 
came here from india..and sit beside our engineers....  who show em step by step how to do the work, process an
eng request for XXX  etc.  Then 6 months later, the same indian fellow is now doing their job.   Local eng retires,
and not replaced.   But no way in hell can anybody here in NA  even begin to compete  with cheap ( highly educated)
folks on the other side of the planet.   gates was paying indian  software types  like  $5K  per year..which is a kings ransom
over there.   Philipinos make abt $15- 20  per day ..and none of em get any benefits..or very minimal. 

##  In india, they process one helluva lot of income tax forms for the IRS in the usa.   that plus a lot of other stuff.  Now
state govts  are farming out  work to em.    When the internet started.. we all predicted... electronic sweat shops in 20 years,
and we were correct.   You can  now email the  MRI  /  CT scan to some Dr  in India..who will analyze it for u..then  email back the
results.   U got no idea whats  coming down the pipe in the next 2-5 years.   Local telco is now installing fiber  directly into all homes.
The bandwidth is insane.   1500 gig  bi directional on one strand is the norm these days..which is then shared by just 12 x customers.
Homes get one strand..and business gets 3 strands.   Each strand is divided into 12..via a prism  into 12 channels.  One channel
per home...and  3 x channels for most business customers. banks and financial institutions, govt offices etc, get a lot more... + 
redundant strands.   4k  video and high res mri /ct  etc,  is all geared up to process vast amounts of data.... on the other side of the planet.  

Jim   VE7RF      




From jim.thom at telus.net  Mon Jul 11 13:24:37 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:24:37 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Big Clamp on question
Message-ID: <8E87F398C9014463A79268383F148E49@JimPC>

Does anybody know if  4 turns of  RG-393  (.390 OD)  will fit INSIDE of the big clamp on ?? 
I believe the big clamp on is aprx  1?   ID. 

Tnx..... Jim   VE7RF

From k9mk at flash.net  Mon Jul 11 13:39:27 2016
From: k9mk at flash.net (Mike & Becca Krzystyniak)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:39:27 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <342710F832D74E68A17EE00C750BFBF0@JimPC>
References: <342710F832D74E68A17EE00C750BFBF0@JimPC>
Message-ID: <048801d1db9b$2d1dda40$87598ec0$@net>

  A number of years ago in a Corporate sponsored business class called "The
World is Flat", we were told pretty much the same thing.  The only
difference is that it was not 1-2 generations out, but here now.  I think
the USA College grad numbers are about 20% of the adult population, sans the
kids, do the math and I think the future you reference is here now.

MK


-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Thomson
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 12:13 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK

Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 23:27:58 -0400
From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

A thought:
I read that in another generation or two, India will have more people with 4
year college degrees than the total US population. Can China be far behind?
They have highly qualified people who WANT to work, while we have many
college grads who want to tell their employers what they will do.  I've seen
a drastic change in new hire attitudes in my 50 plus years in industry


73

Roger (K8RI)

##  I ran into this young fellow the other day..working night shift at local
711.  he was the only one in there that knows up from down.  real bright.
Turns out he is one of our Syrian refugees..that arrived here 
in town not too long ago.   Turns out he has a masters degree in electrical
engineering.....from a university 
in Jordan..plus a lot more education.     Aged 25.  he applies to all the
cable companies, and also telcos, cell
companies.. via their online hiring method.  Then gets zero reply from all
of em.   he has zero work experience in
any of his fields,  just loads of education...and lotsa  paper work +
references to prove it.   I said id help him out if I can
as I still know the right folks in the industry.  At least get the paper
work to the right place.   I have seen too much
talent walk right out the door.  too bad.  he was willing to relocate
anywhere..and work any hrs.  All he really wanted was just an interview. 

##  all these  11,000  folks the local telco hired in the philipines.... all
have a min of  4 years university.   They do everything
from processing orders for various telcos... to fielding calls  for visa /MC
and amex.   Huge call centers.   A huge 
chunk of our engineering depts have now gone to india.    Our engineers were
really pissed off with that fiasco.  They 
came here from india..and sit beside our engineers....  who show em step by
step how to do the work, process an
eng request for XXX  etc.  Then 6 months later, the same indian fellow is
now doing their job.   Local eng retires,
and not replaced.   But no way in hell can anybody here in NA  even begin to
compete  with cheap ( highly educated)
folks on the other side of the planet.   gates was paying indian  software
types  like  $5K  per year..which is a kings ransom
over there.   Philipinos make abt $15- 20  per day ..and none of em get any
benefits..or very minimal. 

##  In india, they process one helluva lot of income tax forms for the IRS
in the usa.   that plus a lot of other stuff.  Now
state govts  are farming out  work to em.    When the internet started.. we
all predicted... electronic sweat shops in 20 years,
and we were correct.   You can  now email the  MRI  /  CT scan to some Dr
in India..who will analyze it for u..then  email back the
results.   U got no idea whats  coming down the pipe in the next 2-5 years.
Local telco is now installing fiber  directly into all homes.
The bandwidth is insane.   1500 gig  bi directional on one strand is the
norm these days..which is then shared by just 12 x customers.
Homes get one strand..and business gets 3 strands.   Each strand is divided
into 12..via a prism  into 12 channels.  One channel
per home...and  3 x channels for most business customers. banks and
financial institutions, govt offices etc, get a lot more... + 
redundant strands.   4k  video and high res mri /ct  etc,  is all geared up
to process vast amounts of data.... on the other side of the planet.  

Jim   VE7RF      



_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From lwloen at gmail.com  Mon Jul 11 13:49:57 2016
From: lwloen at gmail.com (Larry Loen)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:49:57 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <048801d1db9b$2d1dda40$87598ec0$@net>
References: <342710F832D74E68A17EE00C750BFBF0@JimPC>
	<048801d1db9b$2d1dda40$87598ec0$@net>
Message-ID: <CAJRedisJk+XzbuuuUKcaA558XupVJcQ1pgqK3MStiO_5FmpCxw@mail.gmail.com>

It is not as gloomy as you might think.

What may bail us out is something as simple as time zones.  I have seen
foreign workers from India and China outperform those with (one presumes)
similar qualifications "back home" but "back home" is twelve hours "off" of
the US and a comparable amount "off" of Europe.

Maybe someone will figure out a way around that -- maybe everything will
simply move to India and China.  But, for right now, US college grads (and
anyone else working on the US) is still competitive despite "much cheaper"
overseas wages for college grads.  The extra headache of being in the wrong
time zone has all sorts of surprising bad effects and in many cases, the
difference in wages is dwarfed by the value created.


Larry WO7R

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Mike & Becca Krzystyniak <k9mk at flash.net>
wrote:

>   A number of years ago in a Corporate sponsored business class called "The
> World is Flat", we were told pretty much the same thing.  The only
> difference is that it was not 1-2 generations out, but here now.  I think
> the USA College grad numbers are about 20% of the adult population, sans
> the
> kids, do the math and I think the future you reference is here now.
>
> MK
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> Thomson
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 12:13 PM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
>
> Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 23:27:58 -0400
> From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK
>
> A thought:
> I read that in another generation or two, India will have more people with
> 4
> year college degrees than the total US population. Can China be far behind?
> They have highly qualified people who WANT to work, while we have many
> college grads who want to tell their employers what they will do.  I've
> seen
> a drastic change in new hire attitudes in my 50 plus years in industry
>
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
> ##  I ran into this young fellow the other day..working night shift at
> local
> 711.  he was the only one in there that knows up from down.  real bright.
> Turns out he is one of our Syrian refugees..that arrived here
> in town not too long ago.   Turns out he has a masters degree in electrical
> engineering.....from a university
> in Jordan..plus a lot more education.     Aged 25.  he applies to all the
> cable companies, and also telcos, cell
> companies.. via their online hiring method.  Then gets zero reply from all
> of em.   he has zero work experience in
> any of his fields,  just loads of education...and lotsa  paper work +
> references to prove it.   I said id help him out if I can
> as I still know the right folks in the industry.  At least get the paper
> work to the right place.   I have seen too much
> talent walk right out the door.  too bad.  he was willing to relocate
> anywhere..and work any hrs.  All he really wanted was just an interview.
>
> ##  all these  11,000  folks the local telco hired in the philipines....
> all
> have a min of  4 years university.   They do everything
> from processing orders for various telcos... to fielding calls  for visa
> /MC
> and amex.   Huge call centers.   A huge
> chunk of our engineering depts have now gone to india.    Our engineers
> were
> really pissed off with that fiasco.  They
> came here from india..and sit beside our engineers....  who show em step by
> step how to do the work, process an
> eng request for XXX  etc.  Then 6 months later, the same indian fellow is
> now doing their job.   Local eng retires,
> and not replaced.   But no way in hell can anybody here in NA  even begin
> to
> compete  with cheap ( highly educated)
> folks on the other side of the planet.   gates was paying indian  software
> types  like  $5K  per year..which is a kings ransom
> over there.   Philipinos make abt $15- 20  per day ..and none of em get any
> benefits..or very minimal.
>
> ##  In india, they process one helluva lot of income tax forms for the IRS
> in the usa.   that plus a lot of other stuff.  Now
> state govts  are farming out  work to em.    When the internet started.. we
> all predicted... electronic sweat shops in 20 years,
> and we were correct.   You can  now email the  MRI  /  CT scan to some Dr
> in India..who will analyze it for u..then  email back the
> results.   U got no idea whats  coming down the pipe in the next 2-5 years.
> Local telco is now installing fiber  directly into all homes.
> The bandwidth is insane.   1500 gig  bi directional on one strand is the
> norm these days..which is then shared by just 12 x customers.
> Homes get one strand..and business gets 3 strands.   Each strand is divided
> into 12..via a prism  into 12 channels.  One channel
> per home...and  3 x channels for most business customers. banks and
> financial institutions, govt offices etc, get a lot more... +
> redundant strands.   4k  video and high res mri /ct  etc,  is all geared up
> to process vast amounts of data.... on the other side of the planet.
>
> Jim   VE7RF
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

From w3frg1 at gmail.com  Mon Jul 11 14:19:11 2016
From: w3frg1 at gmail.com (Tom-W3FRG)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:19:11 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Big Clamp on question
Message-ID: <CAOW=JmmF4zO_zF5vA7U6thrHNzG+MmXOw6oUj7EfOAV8Bf8mZw@mail.gmail.com>

The Big Clamp On that I measured is 1+/- ID.
Using the area of a circle the RG-393 just makes 4 t.
So make it fit.

Tom W3FRG

Does anybody know if  4 turns of  RG-393  (.390 OD)  will fit INSIDE of the
big clamp on ??
I believe the big clamp on is aprx  1?   ID.

Tnx..... Jim   VE7RF

From sawyered at earthlink.net  Mon Jul 11 14:26:22 2016
From: sawyered at earthlink.net (Ed Sawyer)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:26:22 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
Message-ID: <000301d1dba1$bb9cad40$32d607c0$@earthlink.net>

Guys - enough already.

Ed  N1UR


From hhoyt at mebtel.net  Mon Jul 11 14:29:15 2016
From: hhoyt at mebtel.net (Howard Hoyt)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:29:15 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Big Clamp on question
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5390.1468259406.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
References: <mailman.5390.1468259406.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <7d456609-7e9e-e534-1876-97dd2cd6d151@mebtel.net>

Jim,

That is affirmative, I just tried it.  Email me if you want a pic 
showing clearance.

Cheers & 73,

Howie - WA4PSC
www.proaudioeng.com


On 7/11/2016 1:50 PM, towertalk-request at contesting.com wrote:
> [TowerTalk] Big Clamp on question


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Mon Jul 11 14:29:15 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:29:15 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <342710F832D74E68A17EE00C750BFBF0@JimPC>
References: <342710F832D74E68A17EE00C750BFBF0@JimPC>
Message-ID: <a83b680a-302d-93b3-572f-17fa0906ffa4@tm.net>

Yup!

Those countries are heavy in STEM degrees, while we are heavy in what 
are basically useless degrees.
Degrees in science? Those are too hard, so they opt for the easy stuff 
and still end up with mediocre grades.  Still the powers that be, harp 
on that difference in earnings potential a degree brings. Of course 
they'll gladly loan those same, unsuited for college students, money 
that easy degree will never be capable of paying off. Can't get a job 
with a Bachelor's degree? Just borrow more money for an advanced degree 
in the same field. More debt and still no job.  A course on money 
management (with good grades) should be required for any college 
entrance. Teach them how not to live on credit.  That's never gonna happen!

When we were young, the goals were degrees in Chemistry, Physics, EE,  
Chem E, or teaching. Hobbies tended to be oriented toward the sciences. 
Most colleges had ham radio clubs.  Now days a Bachelor's degree only 
gives the student the tools to learn a profession once hired.  Hence, 
with degrees, but no practical experience, jobs are difficult to find.

Locally, the hams are getting involved, starting, electronics, science, 
Astronomy, and ham clubs. Kids are flocking to these clubs.(some  
advisors are retired PHDs who have a love for learning) Some are earning 
their ham tickets.  I should point out, that Midland, MI and the 
surrounding area is highly science oriented with lots of PHDs in 
chemistry and physics.  Hundreds of chemical and electrical engineering 
jobs.  So the kids get a taste of these sciences through these clubs 
that make learning fun instead of something to be endured. They explore 
fields ignored by the standard high school courses and give them a 
reason to be prepared for college.

Most call centers are the starting point, or ground floor, with the 
techs reading from scripts. Many, "from over there" are very difficult 
to understand, which is a growing problem: 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2011/04/16/india-and-the-economic-folly-of-a-college-degree/#681f7f981d9a 


73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/11/2016 Monday 1:13 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 23:27:58 -0400
> From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK
>
> A thought:
> I read that in another generation or two, India will have more people
> with 4 year college degrees than the total US population. Can China be
> far behind?  They have highly qualified people who WANT to work, while
> we have many college grads who want to tell their employers what they
> will do.  I've seen a drastic change in new hire attitudes in my 50 plus
> years in industry
>
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
> ##  I ran into this young fellow the other day..working night shift at local 711.  he was the only one
> in there that knows up from down.  real bright.  Turns out he is one of our Syrian refugees..that arrived here
> in town not too long ago.   Turns out he has a masters degree in electrical engineering.....from a university
> in Jordan..plus a lot more education.     Aged 25.  he applies to all the cable companies, and also telcos, cell
> companies.. via their online hiring method.  Then gets zero reply from all of em.   he has zero work experience in
> any of his fields,  just loads of education...and lotsa  paper work + references to prove it.   I said id help him out if I can
> as I still know the right folks in the industry.  At least get the paper work to the right place.   I have seen too much
> talent walk right out the door.  too bad.  he was willing to relocate anywhere..and work any hrs.  All he really wanted
> was just an interview.
>
> ##  all these  11,000  folks the local telco hired in the philipines.... all have a min of  4 years university.   They do everything
> from processing orders for various telcos... to fielding calls  for visa /MC  and amex.   Huge call centers.   A huge
> chunk of our engineering depts have now gone to india.    Our engineers were really pissed off with that fiasco.  They
> came here from india..and sit beside our engineers....  who show em step by step how to do the work, process an
> eng request for XXX  etc.  Then 6 months later, the same indian fellow is now doing their job.   Local eng retires,
> and not replaced.   But no way in hell can anybody here in NA  even begin to compete  with cheap ( highly educated)
> folks on the other side of the planet.   gates was paying indian  software types  like  $5K  per year..which is a kings ransom
> over there.   Philipinos make abt $15- 20  per day ..and none of em get any benefits..or very minimal.
>
> ##  In india, they process one helluva lot of income tax forms for the IRS in the usa.   that plus a lot of other stuff.  Now
> state govts  are farming out  work to em.    When the internet started.. we all predicted... electronic sweat shops in 20 years,
> and we were correct.   You can  now email the  MRI  /  CT scan to some Dr  in India..who will analyze it for u..then  email back the
> results.   U got no idea whats  coming down the pipe in the next 2-5 years.   Local telco is now installing fiber  directly into all homes.
> The bandwidth is insane.   1500 gig  bi directional on one strand is the norm these days..which is then shared by just 12 x customers.
> Homes get one strand..and business gets 3 strands.   Each strand is divided into 12..via a prism  into 12 channels.  One channel
> per home...and  3 x channels for most business customers. banks and financial institutions, govt offices etc, get a lot more... +
> redundant strands.   4k  video and high res mri /ct  etc,  is all geared up to process vast amounts of data.... on the other side of the planet.
>
> Jim   VE7RF
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From mryan001 at tampabay.rr.com  Mon Jul 11 14:37:33 2016
From: mryan001 at tampabay.rr.com (Mike Ryan)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:37:33 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <000301d1dba1$bb9cad40$32d607c0$@earthlink.net>
References: <000301d1dba1$bb9cad40$32d607c0$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <F10160BA73CD40E388BE1E6656EF3F27@MichaelRyanPC>

Thank you Ed..let's hope this thread goes SK.  -M

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ed Sawyer 
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 2:26 PM 
To: towertalk at contesting.com 
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK 

Guys - enough already.

Ed  N1UR

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From wesattaway at bellsouth.net  Mon Jul 11 14:57:32 2016
From: wesattaway at bellsouth.net (Wes Attaway (N5WA))
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:57:32 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <F10160BA73CD40E388BE1E6656EF3F27@MichaelRyanPC>
References: <000301d1dba1$bb9cad40$32d607c0$@earthlink.net>
	<F10160BA73CD40E388BE1E6656EF3F27@MichaelRyanPC>
Message-ID: <E6B1E51BB9BE4E629DDA23AE1AE0FDC7@Office1>

Maybe it is time for the thread to die but I think it has been pretty
interesting from the standpoint of the numerous real-world experiences
several of the guys have related.  

We have seen some good info about why some businesses move overseas and also
the info about how ferrite manufacturing QC and certain types of "casting"
QC can go awry for reasons that are not obvious. 

AES aside, all this stuff is a lot more complicated than is generally
understood.   

   -------------------
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
   -------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Ryan
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 1:38 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

Thank you Ed..let's hope this thread goes SK.  -M

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ed Sawyer 
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 2:26 PM 
To: towertalk at contesting.com 
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK 

Guys - enough already.

Ed  N1UR

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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


From wv2zow at gmail.com  Mon Jul 11 14:58:29 2016
From: wv2zow at gmail.com (Michael Clarson)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:58:29 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Routing Coax and Control Lines
In-Reply-To: <57816C2B.1090802@pacbell.net>
References: <CAOW=Jm=djnXFmyfFqhuxM2YEca1ABjXLauaw88h5v=dsc9cvMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<57816C2B.1090802@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <CAFx0t24sNP5sKXq8QJxmtYH+ZnF9z0XNAMD8TEMMkqVvo_0S0g@mail.gmail.com>

Tom and Grant: I do not believe the AVA style comes in 1/2". LDF4-50A is
still available. LDF5 and above has been discontinued. 73, --Mike, WV2ZOW

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Grant Saviers <grants2 at pacbell.net> wrote:

> I'd caution that "new" generation Heliax is very fragile.  LDF4, FSJ4,
> LDF5 all had much heavier copper shields.  I had to buy some AVA5 after my
> LDF5 ran out and it is an entirely different animal. It is very easy to
> kink and flatten and it is tough to clean the foam without damage to the
> shield.  It was mentioned here that one cell installer won't even accept an
> AVA reel on its side because damage is very likely.
>
> Also, for aerial suspension, falling branches or ice from antennas or
> tower will likely put a significant dent in AVA.  The commercial design is
> an "ice bridge" cover above the suspended Heliax which could be solid or
> perforated/woven/expanded galvanized steel.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
>
>
>
> On 7/9/2016 11:37 AM, Tom-W3FRG wrote:
>
>> I did a slit trench, an inch or two below the grass roots with the garden
>> tractor and put the Heliax directly into it and just drove over it to
>> close
>> up the opening.
>> Heliax is a direct burial cable.
>> I have three runs done this way with a 4 port, remote wireless switch,
>> controlling the line back to the station some 130' away.
>> Each run goes to approx. the center location of a wire antenna above and
>> then back to the RF switch.
>>
>> Tom W3FRG
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

From k6uj at pacbell.net  Mon Jul 11 16:52:07 2016
From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Bob K6UJ)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:52:07 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
In-Reply-To: <CAC5FBO9nnGcB033PzBaanw3qhGPvqNqx4u9CH+HMfb30DLnMQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
	<20160709115236.E3369AC8021@mx.contesting.com>
	<1a6243ad-8759-e2b2-db67-8af0a49fd7dd@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<CAC5FBO9nnGcB033PzBaanw3qhGPvqNqx4u9CH+HMfb30DLnMQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f945debc-e95e-7d79-0faa-75536e16319c@pacbell.net>

Wow Dick,,
You still have an MFJ-259 ?
That's incredible,  I think they came over on the Mayflower.
Just kidding,  I have one too and it still works fine. :-)
I bought an AA-30 also and like the graphs it does.


73,
Bob
K6UJ




On 7/9/16 10:48 AM, Richard Solomon wrote:
> You guys can laugh all you want to,
> but my MFJ-259, which is quite old,
> maybe 15 years ?? Still works like
> a charm.
>
> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat,7/9/2016 4:52 AM, Bill Cotter wrote:
>>
>>> Attached is a marketing analysis of several handheld analyzers I did for
>>> our ham club. It has links to the technical details.
>>>
>> The Tower Talk list does not support attachments.
>>
>> Hardy,
>>
>> You said you wanted something to drag to the top of a tower, but with this
>> analyzer, you can easily get good data from anywhere on the feedline,
>> including the shack.
>>
>> http://sdr-kits.net/VNWA3_Description.html
>>
>> I no longer climb anything higher than a stepladder, so I do all my
>> measurements from the shack. It needs no power supply, getting its power
>> from the USB port that connects it to the computer that processes the data.
>> As an engineer, you will really appreciate it.
>>
>> It does TDR by computing the inverse FFT of a sweep, which can be set for
>> any range that you choose for the level of detail you need. There's some
>> math built into the control software, and it exports data in several
>> formats, including s1p Touchstone files, which can be imported by SimSmith
>> and ZPlots, among others.  It's a full vector network analyzer, so it also
>> measures S21.
>>
>> I paid $740 three years ago, shipped to my W6 QTH, with calibration loads
>> and a case that I wouldn't order again. With the Pound in free fall, my
>> guess is that you could buy it for about $650 today. It's a real winner.
>> Well supported by the mfr (some hams in the UK) and the designer, DG8SAQ, a
>> university EE prof who also wrote the software.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Mon Jul 11 17:42:14 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:42:14 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <E6B1E51BB9BE4E629DDA23AE1AE0FDC7@Office1>
References: <000301d1dba1$bb9cad40$32d607c0$@earthlink.net>
	<F10160BA73CD40E388BE1E6656EF3F27@MichaelRyanPC>
	<E6B1E51BB9BE4E629DDA23AE1AE0FDC7@Office1>
Message-ID: <7461a7b3-fa34-5f12-a7ad-598f5c1a7b5e@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Mon,7/11/2016 11:57 AM, Wes Attaway (N5WA) wrote:
> Maybe it is time for the thread to die but I think it has been pretty
> interesting from the standpoint of the numerous real-world experiences
> several of the guys have related.

Yes, it has been quite interesting. One thing I'd like to point out is 
that certain regulations imposed by federal and local governments are 
there to protect local residents from abuse by businessmen. I was born 
and raised in WV, my mom was born in coal country in KY and lived all 
her life there, my grandfather was born and raised in coal country in 
MD, got an EE from Pratt Institute, and spent all of his working life as 
an EE in the mines in WV and KY.

Those coal companies badly abused the people who worked for them in the 
form of truly awful and unsafe working conditions, and the people who 
lived there by destroying the beautiful mountains, and destroyed streams 
by discharging poisonous byproducts of their operations into those 
streams. I've read of similar abuses by the mining of coal, gold, 
silver, copper, and other minerals in the Rockies. We all know about the 
poisoning of the air by the failure to reasonably treat combustion 
byproducts.

The abuses of these companies, while increasing their profits, do so at 
the expense of the people who live there, the insurance companies and 
governments who pay for medical care for those who are sickened by the 
abuse. And as citizens, we all pay for the abuse in the form of higher 
taxes and/or higher insurance premiums.

So SOME regulations are VERY necessary. Certainly regulation of those 
bankers and Wall Street tycoons that caused millions to lose their homes 
and life saving is necessary.

FWIW, California, where I've lived for 10 years, is well known for 
pretty tough environmental regulations, but it hasn't hurt the economy 
here at all. California has a very solid economy, and recovered from the 
2008 financial crisis much sooner than most of the rest of the country.

These are not (or at least should not be) partisan political issues, 
they are HUMAN issues.

73, Jim K9YC


From dickw1ksz at gmail.com  Mon Jul 11 18:18:18 2016
From: dickw1ksz at gmail.com (Richard Solomon)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:18:18 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
In-Reply-To: <f945debc-e95e-7d79-0faa-75536e16319c@pacbell.net>
References: <00c001d1d859$ae359090$0aa0b1b0$@com>
	<20160709115236.E3369AC8021@mx.contesting.com>
	<1a6243ad-8759-e2b2-db67-8af0a49fd7dd@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<CAC5FBO9nnGcB033PzBaanw3qhGPvqNqx4u9CH+HMfb30DLnMQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<f945debc-e95e-7d79-0faa-75536e16319c@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <CAC5FBO_O3AQ=o94J+u8oG4-ZQ5k_EYp5JD9WYPR3kyW5uJLmHQ@mail.gmail.com>

It seems to be about that old. I stuck
a small re-chargeable battery on the
back that powers it for several days.

One nice thing about living out here
in the Sonoran Desert, AM BC Stations
are few and far between.

I also have an Array Solutions 4170C,
but it is definitely a lab creature. A tad
tough reading a screen out in the bright
sun.

73, Dick, W1KSZ

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Bob K6UJ <k6uj at pacbell.net> wrote:

> Wow Dick,,
> You still have an MFJ-259 ?
> That's incredible,  I think they came over on the Mayflower.
> Just kidding,  I have one too and it still works fine. :-)
> I bought an AA-30 also and like the graphs it does.
>
>
> 73,
> Bob
> K6UJ
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/9/16 10:48 AM, Richard Solomon wrote:
>
>> You guys can laugh all you want to,
>> but my MFJ-259, which is quite old,
>> maybe 15 years ?? Still works like
>> a charm.
>>
>> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat,7/9/2016 4:52 AM, Bill Cotter wrote:
>>>
>>> Attached is a marketing analysis of several handheld analyzers I did for
>>>> our ham club. It has links to the technical details.
>>>>
>>>> The Tower Talk list does not support attachments.
>>>
>>> Hardy,
>>>
>>> You said you wanted something to drag to the top of a tower, but with
>>> this
>>> analyzer, you can easily get good data from anywhere on the feedline,
>>> including the shack.
>>>
>>> http://sdr-kits.net/VNWA3_Description.html
>>>
>>> I no longer climb anything higher than a stepladder, so I do all my
>>> measurements from the shack. It needs no power supply, getting its power
>>> from the USB port that connects it to the computer that processes the
>>> data.
>>> As an engineer, you will really appreciate it.
>>>
>>> It does TDR by computing the inverse FFT of a sweep, which can be set for
>>> any range that you choose for the level of detail you need. There's some
>>> math built into the control software, and it exports data in several
>>> formats, including s1p Touchstone files, which can be imported by
>>> SimSmith
>>> and ZPlots, among others.  It's a full vector network analyzer, so it
>>> also
>>> measures S21.
>>>
>>> I paid $740 three years ago, shipped to my W6 QTH, with calibration loads
>>> and a case that I wouldn't order again. With the Pound in free fall, my
>>> guess is that you could buy it for about $650 today. It's a real winner.
>>> Well supported by the mfr (some hams in the UK) and the designer,
>>> DG8SAQ, a
>>> university EE prof who also wrote the software.
>>>
>>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From john at kk9a.com  Mon Jul 11 21:17:50 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 21:17:50 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
Message-ID: <004c01d1dbdb$384b1320$a8e13960$@com>

I have a MFJ-259B. It is the the only MFJ product that I own. Mine has
worked well for checking and adjusting antennas while on the tower.

John KK9A


To:	towertalk at contesting.com
Subject:	Re: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers
From:	Bob K6UJ <k6uj at pacbell.net>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:52:07 -0700


Wow Dick,,
You still have an MFJ-259 ?
That's incredible,  I think they came over on the Mayflower.
Just kidding,  I have one too and it still works fine. :-)
I bought an AA-30 also and like the graphs it does.


73,
Bob
K6UJ


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Mon Jul 11 21:45:46 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 21:45:46 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <7461a7b3-fa34-5f12-a7ad-598f5c1a7b5e@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <000301d1dba1$bb9cad40$32d607c0$@earthlink.net>
	<F10160BA73CD40E388BE1E6656EF3F27@MichaelRyanPC>
	<E6B1E51BB9BE4E629DDA23AE1AE0FDC7@Office1>
	<7461a7b3-fa34-5f12-a7ad-598f5c1a7b5e@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <9d11b9df-a86e-434d-08c7-4bbe9733b9dc@tm.net>

Off List:

Jim, according to reports, industries are leaving Ca in droves for Texas 
and other SW states. The ones staying are the diehard liberal groups.  
It appears that several large cities are close to bankruptcy and violent 
crime is climbing.

So, driving out the tax base would appear to be hurting the economy.


73

Roger (K8RI)



On 7/11/2016 Monday 5:42 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On Mon,7/11/2016 11:57 AM, Wes Attaway (N5WA) wrote:
>> Maybe it is time for the thread to die but I think it has been pretty
>> interesting from the standpoint of the numerous real-world experiences
>> several of the guys have related.
>
> Yes, it has been quite interesting. One thing I'd like to point out is 
> that certain regulations imposed by federal and local governments are 
> there to protect local residents from abuse by businessmen. I was born 
> and raised in WV, my mom was born in coal country in KY and lived all 
> her life there, my grandfather was born and raised in coal country in 
> MD, got an EE from Pratt Institute, and spent all of his working life 
> as an EE in the mines in WV and KY.
>
> Those coal companies badly abused the people who worked for them in 
> the form of truly awful and unsafe working conditions, and the people 
> who lived there by destroying the beautiful mountains, and destroyed 
> streams by discharging poisonous byproducts of their operations into 
> those streams. I've read of similar abuses by the mining of coal, 
> gold, silver, copper, and other minerals in the Rockies. We all know 
> about the poisoning of the air by the failure to reasonably treat 
> combustion byproducts.
>
> The abuses of these companies, while increasing their profits, do so 
> at the expense of the people who live there, the insurance companies 
> and governments who pay for medical care for those who are sickened by 
> the abuse. And as citizens, we all pay for the abuse in the form of 
> higher taxes and/or higher insurance premiums.
>
> So SOME regulations are VERY necessary. Certainly regulation of those 
> bankers and Wall Street tycoons that caused millions to lose their 
> homes and life saving is necessary.
>
> FWIW, California, where I've lived for 10 years, is well known for 
> pretty tough environmental regulations, but it hasn't hurt the economy 
> here at all. California has a very solid economy, and recovered from 
> the 2008 financial crisis much sooner than most of the rest of the 
> country.
>
> These are not (or at least should not be) partisan political issues, 
> they are HUMAN issues.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From wmunro1 at hawaii.rr.com  Mon Jul 11 23:22:42 2016
From: wmunro1 at hawaii.rr.com (Warren Munro)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 23:22:42 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] latest topics
Message-ID: <20160712032242.YREOO.156235.root@cdptpa-web25>


All:

I see that now we have Jesus on board.  Next step is probably to expound on Hillary versus The Donald.

At least AES may have died an overdue death.

73

Warren  KH6WM

From n4lg at qx.net  Mon Jul 11 23:47:45 2016
From: n4lg at qx.net (Bill Cotter)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 23:47:45 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Comparison of Antenna Analyzers from eHam
Message-ID: <20160712034802.ED859AC8021@mx.contesting.com>

Here is a copy & paste of the analyzer comparison.

73 Bill N4LG


  Comparison of Antenna Analyzers from eHam
Source of review data:
http://www.eham.net/reviews/products/31
Sorted by highest score and highest number of reviewers
Reviews chosen from 2015 only for freshest opinions
Stand alone analyzers only (PC not required)
MULT column = score x reviews (To get a feel for diversity of 
opinions)
MFJ-259B shown for comparison only (no longer available)
AnalyzerScoreReviewsMultDatePrice
RigExpert AA-54 Antenna Analyzer5.0522606/12/15$300
SARK-110 Vector Impedance Antenna Analyzer4.915748/22/15$330
RigExpert AA-30 Antenna Analyzer4.8281346/26/15$265
Rigexpert AA-600 antenna analyzer4.715718/24/15$850
Youkits FG-01 graphic antenna analyzer4.6502309/13/15$249
Feature Tech AW07A HF-VHF-UHF Antenna Analyzer4.513596/1/15$229
MFJ-259B (no longer available)4.125010256/23/15
INDIVIDUAL PRODUCT REVIEWS
RigExpert AA-54http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/9678
SARK-110 Vector Impedance Antenna 
Analyzerhttp://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/10856
RigExpert AA-30 Antenna 
Analyzerhttp://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/9331
Rigexpert AA-600 antenna 
analyzerhttp://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/11250
Youkits FG-01 graphic antenna 
analyzerhttp://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/10074
Feature Tech AW07A HF-VHF-UHF Antenna 
Analyzerhttp://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/8983
MFJ-259Bhttp://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/13
MANUFACTURER URL
RigExpert AA-54http://www.rigexpert.com
SARK-110 Vector Impedance Antenna Analyzerhttp://www.sark110.com/
RigExpert AA-30 Antenna Analyzerhttp://www.rigexpert.com
Rigexpert AA-600 antenna 
analyzerhttp://www.rigexpert.com/index?s=aa1000
Youkits FG-01 graphic antenna analyzerhttp://www.youkits.com
Feature Tech AW07A HF-VHF-UHF Antenna 
Analyzerhttp://www.hamradioinfinity.com
MFJ-259Bhttp://www.mfjenterprises.com  


From kdutson at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jul 12 09:47:33 2016
From: kdutson at sbcglobal.net (Keith Dutson)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:47:33 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Routing Coax and Control Lines
In-Reply-To: <CAFx0t24sNP5sKXq8QJxmtYH+ZnF9z0XNAMD8TEMMkqVvo_0S0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOW=Jm=djnXFmyfFqhuxM2YEca1ABjXLauaw88h5v=dsc9cvMg@mail.gmail.com>	<57816C2B.1090802@pacbell.net>
	<CAFx0t24sNP5sKXq8QJxmtYH+ZnF9z0XNAMD8TEMMkqVvo_0S0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008501d1dc43$f2750590$d75f10b0$@sbcglobal.net>

Michael,

Thanks for pointing this out.  I have seen some Chinese coax in 1/2 inch
(Hansen).  It is similar to LDF4-50A, with a lighter copper shield.  All of
my coax is Andrew LDF4 and LDF5.

Thanks to all who have offered comments.  I subsequently investigated
several cell towers in my area.  All of them have the coax coming off the
tower at about 10-12 feet, and they are suspended under a steel railing to
reach the equipment room.  This is likely better than a plastic tube.

73, Keith NM5G

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Michael Clarson
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 1:58 PM
To: Grant Saviers <grants2 at pacbell.net>
Cc: towertalk at contesting.com; Tom-W3FRG <w3frg1 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Routing Coax and Control Lines

Tom and Grant: I do not believe the AVA style comes in 1/2". LDF4-50A is
still available. LDF5 and above has been discontinued. 73, --Mike, WV2ZOW

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Grant Saviers <grants2 at pacbell.net> wrote:

> I'd caution that "new" generation Heliax is very fragile.  LDF4, FSJ4,
> LDF5 all had much heavier copper shields.  I had to buy some AVA5 
> after my
> LDF5 ran out and it is an entirely different animal. It is very easy 
> to kink and flatten and it is tough to clean the foam without damage 
> to the shield.  It was mentioned here that one cell installer won't 
> even accept an AVA reel on its side because damage is very likely.
>
> Also, for aerial suspension, falling branches or ice from antennas or 
> tower will likely put a significant dent in AVA.  The commercial 
> design is an "ice bridge" cover above the suspended Heliax which could 
> be solid or perforated/woven/expanded galvanized steel.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
>
>
>
> On 7/9/2016 11:37 AM, Tom-W3FRG wrote:
>
>> I did a slit trench, an inch or two below the grass roots with the 
>> garden tractor and put the Heliax directly into it and just drove 
>> over it to close up the opening.
>> Heliax is a direct burial cable.
>> I have three runs done this way with a 4 port, remote wireless 
>> switch, controlling the line back to the station some 130' away.
>> Each run goes to approx. the center location of a wire antenna above 
>> and then back to the RF switch.
>>
>> Tom W3FRG
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From champsruss at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 12 10:35:33 2016
From: champsruss at yahoo.com (Russ Dearmore)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:35:33 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
References: <351868687.1769124.1468334133719.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <351868687.1769124.1468334133719.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Roger,? Not sure where you got your information about CA but it has gone from an unbelievable deficit to a billion dollar surplus and all because the rich were finally forced to pay their fair share of taxes.? The worst case example of trickle down economics is Kansas and Louisiana who are in the poor house now trying to prove long exposed political failures of the conservatives.? CA has moved from number 7 to number 6 of the world's economies and if England keeps letting bozos run their country CA will overtake them very shortly.? You might profit from not listening to foreign controlled news sources.....? Russ? K5ZZR ? ???My Heroes Wear Combat Boots!????????????

From el34guy at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 11:09:37 2016
From: el34guy at aol.com (el34guy at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:09:37 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <351868687.1769124.1468334133719.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <351868687.1769124.1468334133719.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<351868687.1769124.1468334133719.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <155dfa8028a-5a82-239b3@webprd-m20.mail.aol.com>

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/02/05/california-state-moves-to-deficit-as-silicon-valley-begins-to-crumble/




-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Dearmore via TowerTalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
To: Towertalk Reflector <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 12, 2016 9:39 am
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK

Roger,  Not sure where you got your information about CA but it has gone from an unbelievable deficit to a billion dollar surplus and all because the rich were finally forced to pay their fair share of taxes.  The worst case example of trickle down economics is Kansas and Louisiana who are in the poor house now trying to prove long exposed political failures of the conservatives.  CA has moved from number 7 to number 6 of the world's economies and if England keeps letting bozos run their country CA will overtake them very shortly.  You might profit from not listening to foreign controlled news sources.....  Russ  K5ZZR      My Heroes Wear Combat Boots!            ______________________________________________________________________________________________TowerTalk mailing listTowerTalk at contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From marinesvcs at gmail.com  Tue Jul 12 11:37:37 2016
From: marinesvcs at gmail.com (Paul F. Merrill)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 07:37:37 -0800
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES Thread (SK)
Message-ID: <CAM42371ZwQQOyrCVzv2zg-J0L34UYQCYo+je0-NHccEgAWxf5g@mail.gmail.com>

Can we please kill this thread already?  If someone absolutely has to have
the last word, let it be an Admin, but this has devolved into theory,
speculation, bias and the trading of Internet memes.

Really...I'll do a Kickstarter to reopen AES if it'll give a day's peace
and quiet on the Board.

Paul / W7IV

From jim.thom at telus.net  Tue Jul 12 11:46:33 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:46:33 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
Message-ID: <B3D665F6D01A4514BCA3ADCB5AB5098B@JimPC>

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:09:37 -0400
From: el34guy at aol.com
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/02/05/california-state-moves-to-deficit-as-silicon-valley-begins-to-crumble/

##  better yet, read the comments  down below the  article..... in the above posted news story url

Jim  VE7RF

From N3ND at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 11:52:21 2016
From: N3ND at aol.com (Dan Atchison)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:52:21 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK OT
Message-ID: <13582521-e588-f43d-4b7e-10e5b2ce96a1@aol.com>

This is really getting off topic, but I feel compelled to respond.

In actuality, the concern is not deficit, it is the debt. California is 
close to half a $1T, yes, trillion, in debt.  How do you fix that?  How 
do you pay it back?  it's disconcerting.

*********************

Roger,  Not sure where you got your information about CA but it has gone from
an unbelievable deficit to a billion dollar surplus and all because the rich
were finally forced to pay their fair share of taxes.  The worst case example
of trickle down economics is Kansas and Louisiana who are in the poor house now
trying to prove long exposed political failures of the conservatives.  CA has
moved from number 7 to number 6 of the world's economies and if England keeps
letting bozos run their country CA will overtake them very shortly.  You might
profit from not listening to foreign controlled news sources.....  Russ  K5ZZR
     My Heroes Wear Combat Boots!



From dearborn9 at sbcglobal.net  Tue Jul 12 12:09:01 2016
From: dearborn9 at sbcglobal.net (Jim McLaughlin)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:09:01 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES Thread (SK)
In-Reply-To: <CAM42371ZwQQOyrCVzv2zg-J0L34UYQCYo+je0-NHccEgAWxf5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM42371ZwQQOyrCVzv2zg-J0L34UYQCYo+je0-NHccEgAWxf5g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <07f9a276-d2e3-eec5-a266-631a881c8909@sbcglobal.net>

Now there is something well said.........finally. Even if the Admin. 
says so, we all know, this will certainly not be the last word, just watch.

Jim - W9JEM




On 7/12/2016 10:37 AM, Paul F. Merrill wrote:
> Can we please kill this thread already?  If someone absolutely has to have
> the last word, let it be an Admin, but this has devolved into theory,
> speculation, bias and the trading of Internet memes.
>
> Really...I'll do a Kickstarter to reopen AES if it'll give a day's peace
> and quiet on the Board.
>
> Paul / W7IV
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From w7why at frontier.com  Tue Jul 12 12:39:18 2016
From: w7why at frontier.com (Tom Osborne)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:39:18 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES Thread (SK)
In-Reply-To: <CAM42371ZwQQOyrCVzv2zg-J0L34UYQCYo+je0-NHccEgAWxf5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM42371ZwQQOyrCVzv2zg-J0L34UYQCYo+je0-NHccEgAWxf5g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAG32hyNwpCFw06qnqN0CsM1dBZW486DMoUXRQm2i+Q6hJmNcCw@mail.gmail.com>

Steve must be on vacation or he would have stopped this a long time ago.

I don't understand how this turned into a political discussion.  I get
enough of that on TV.  73
Tom W7WHY

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Paul F. Merrill <marinesvcs at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Can we please kill this thread already?  If someone absolutely has to have
> the last word, let it be an Admin, but this has devolved into theory,
> speculation, bias and the trading of Internet memes.
>
> Really...I'll do a Kickstarter to reopen AES if it'll give a day's peace
> and quiet on the Board.
>
> Paul / W7IV
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From fishflorida at gmail.com  Tue Jul 12 13:23:25 2016
From: fishflorida at gmail.com (Mickey Baker)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 13:23:25 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES Thread (SK)
In-Reply-To: <CAG32hyNwpCFw06qnqN0CsM1dBZW486DMoUXRQm2i+Q6hJmNcCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM42371ZwQQOyrCVzv2zg-J0L34UYQCYo+je0-NHccEgAWxf5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAG32hyNwpCFw06qnqN0CsM1dBZW486DMoUXRQm2i+Q6hJmNcCw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOB+T5aD95D7yW3Hqzbm63Dxo=nOLL0T4zM_XEAAOZsdKSthjw@mail.gmail.com>

This thread WOULD be dead except for those who are complaining about the
thread not being dead.

Mickey N4MB

Mickey Baker, N4MB
Palm Beach Gardens
*?Tell me, and I will listen. Show me, and I will understand. Involve me,
and I will learn.? *Teton Lakota, American Indian Saying.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Tom Osborne <w7why at frontier.com> wrote:

> Steve must be on vacation or he would have stopped this a long time ago.
>
> I don't understand how this turned into a political discussion.  I get
> enough of that on TV.  73
> Tom W7WHY
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Paul F. Merrill <marinesvcs at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Can we please kill this thread already?  If someone absolutely has to
> have
> > the last word, let it be an Admin, but this has devolved into theory,
> > speculation, bias and the trading of Internet memes.
> >
> > Really...I'll do a Kickstarter to reopen AES if it'll give a day's peace
> > and quiet on the Board.
> >
> > Paul / W7IV
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

From K7LXC at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 13:39:20 2016
From: K7LXC at aol.com (K7LXC at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 13:39:20 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] SK SK
Message-ID: <20af01.2802fa1b.44b68544@aol.com>

Okay. No more politics or economics pse.
 
Cheers,
Steve    K7LXC
TT ADMIN

From K8MFO at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 20:03:10 2016
From: K8MFO at aol.com (K8MFO at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:03:10 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Interesting News Release from HRO
Message-ID: <24cd6e.249f4614.44b6df3e@aol.com>

 
How about this?   A little bit of good news.
 
 
http://www.hamradio.com/press-release.cfm
 
 
73
 
Don K8MFO

From PAUL924 at aol.com  Tue Jul 12 16:17:34 2016
From: PAUL924 at aol.com (PAUL924 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:17:34 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Something new in the air...
Message-ID: <14709d.b80e7ef.44b6aa5d@aol.com>

 
Hi Guys,
I recently had a QSO with Amir 4X6TT and even during these  poor 
propagation conditions he was 59+ 20db on 20 meters. I asked him what type  of antenna 
he was using and he said a GPX 16-3 which I had never heard of  before. I 
located the website  _www.gpxantennas.com_ (http://www.gpxantennas.com/) . 
owner SP7GPX. After I signed with him several other stateside stations using 
antennas  from this site called him and they were also very loud. 
I wanted share this information  with those members of TowerTalk who may 
not be familiar with these  antennas. 
73,
Paul  W2JGQ 

From k2xx at swva.net  Tue Jul 12 17:21:29 2016
From: k2xx at swva.net (Joe Giacobello, K2XX)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:21:29 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] The HRO Saga Continues....
Message-ID: <57855F59.4060802@swva.net>


  Ham Radio Outlet - Press Release for Immediate Release

*July 12, 2016*

*RE: HRO-Milwaukee, Amateur Electronic Supply's closing on 7/28/2016*

On July 1, 2016 Amateur Electronic Supply (AES) made the decision to 
close down their entire organization and terminate all retail operations 
at their Las Vegas, Cleveland, Orlando and Milwaukee locations.

Upon hearing the news, and with the concurrence of AES senior 
management, Ham Radio Outlet (HRO) sent senior management to each 
location to interview the staff with hopes of acquiring some of the 
Amateur Radio retail employee talent in each of the current AES locations.

Together with this interview process, HRO examined what it would take to 
perhaps acquire one or more of the AES store locations. At the time of 
these interviews, many opportunities were explored with current AES 
senior management.

We are very excited to announce that HRO was successful in providing 
offers of employment to a number of soon to be former AES employees and 
that to some, we have offered positions that involve HRO sponsored and 
funded relocation.

We are also extremely pleased to announce that, after the closing of the 
Milwaukee AES location on July 28, 2016, Ham Radio Outlet will begin an 
extensive remodeling project to create the largest Amateur Radio retail 
showroom in North America. We will open our newest and largest Ham Radio 
Outlet in Milwaukee at the end of August 2016.

Effective at the closing of AES on July 28, 2016, all former AES 
locations' direct telephone numbers and toll free telephone numbers will 
be redirected to the closest HRO location so as to not disrupt providing 
service to the AES customer base. Additionally effective on July 28, 
2016, the www.aesham.com website will be directed to www.hamradio.com 
also so as not to disrupt service for the AES online customer base.

Steve Gilmore, National Sales Manager for HRO states, "We are extremely 
excited to have a store in the Central Northern part of the United 
States. It will minimize shipping times for our products to be able to 
be delivered in 2 days or less in most of the lower 48 United States. We 
are building a showplace that all must come see! It will be expansive 
with massive inventory levels and a large all encompassing demonstration 
area featuring nearly all of the Amateur Radio transceivers on the 
market today."

Robert Ferrero, President of HRO tells us, "It is with great pleasure 
that we are able to continue Terry Sterman and Phil Majerus' legacy of 
providing a fantastic Amateur Radio store in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It is 
our immediate goal to have the largest, most well stocked Amateur Radio 
retail store in North America and perhaps even the world."

HRO is a family owned business with 14 sales locations throughout the 
United States which includes a formidable presence on the Internet, 
making it the largest Ham Radio dealership in the world.

HRO has been continually expanding with our most recent location in 
Plano, Texas which opened on February 2, 2015. HRO is also continuing to 
evolve with the relocation and expansion of our Portland store which 
will open on July 25, 2016 at 14405 SW Pacific Highway, Portland, Oregon 
97224.

Ham Radio Outlet - Milwaukee is located at 5710 W Good Hope Rd, 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It will be open for business at the end of August 
2016.



From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Tue Jul 12 20:20:57 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:20:57 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] question about a matching transformer
Message-ID: <7F2A3A0508A34A72902A05557EB5B5DC@RXDesignDell>

Hello, 

this is to those experts out there familiar with toroidal transformers. 

The common one used in boxes like the ?StackMatch? is a 2.25:1 transformer. it is tri-filiar wound on a 2.4? core. So it provides, when seeing 2 50 ohm loads (2 monobanders for example) an SWR of about 1.14:1. 

So in the WX0B version, shown in the ARRL AB, there are 4 turns. In the W2FMI version there are 6 turns. In either case the transformation is clear: 3 ?coils? divided down to 2 coils or a turns ratio of 1.5:1 so the impedance ratio would be 2.25:1 (1.5^2). 

But there is a version of it ? shown in W2FMI?s book, that provides for a 2:1 match. And my initial thoughts are ? if I am using 2 monobanders and I can do 2:1 why would I not do it? 

W2FMI shows again a tri-filiar wound coil ? with 6 turns and the ?top? or end coil, that which is going to the source, is tapped down 1 turn from the source end. Thus you have essentially (5/6 + 2)/2 = 1.416:1 or an impedance ratio of 2:1! 

That all is straight forward. I?ve never seen someone do this ? but it seems again straight forward. 

So I have been TRYING to get it to work without any success. 

I start with a 240 core (tested both K and 61 material) ... and I have attached to it ? short leads, 2 50 ohm resistors with a measured resistance of 25.3. And an SO239. I?ve checked it using a SARK110. This is not on a PCB ? no relays, no board traces ? just short leads on a transformer, 2 resistors and comp cap. 

So wound with 5 turns I can establish, using the K material, a relatively good response for the 2.25:1 version. (The 61 material is not quite as good). I have to use a compensation capacitor at the load input and have tested various values. The best ?fit?, using the 2.25:1 ratio (trying to duplicate its results first) is to use a value of 75pf. That gives me an SWR of 1.14:1 on 20 and 15 and 1.15:1 on 20. 

So I then tap down ~1 turn (for 5 turns tapped down 1 turn it should still be, in theory, 1.96:1 or an SWR of 1.02:1) ... and I cannot for the live of me get any kind of what seems like proper results. It is quite high on 10 meters ? approaching 2:1 and typically 1.2:1 or worse on 20 depending on the comp cap. I?ve tested anywhere from no comp cap to 200pf in small increments ... it just doesn?t work. [note any comment about the choice of the resistor load, which are metal film, has to be considered under the light of ? it works using the 2.25:1 version!]

Can an expert perhaps write to me directly, not burdening others here, and hopefully point me in the correct direction please? This SHOULD work! 

Gary 
K9RX at arrl dot net

[ref: The SARK has been OSL calibrated with the cable in use ? and the resistor load has been checked at the end of that independent of the transformer and reads 2.00:1 from 14 through 29Mhz with 0 ohms reactance[

From grants2 at pacbell.net  Mon Jul 11 23:06:48 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:06:48 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] AES SK
In-Reply-To: <2c35195d-bab4-d17f-810e-b055836dbf84@tm.net>
References: <D3A3EDC9.3B605%scottw3tx@verizon.net>
	<EF35C5E4-216D-4D11-99D9-C239FEFEEE73@mymts.net>
	<72ac2f3e-64c5-9762-7c1d-b8f3c55c63f4@cis-broadband.com>
	<2c35195d-bab4-d17f-810e-b055836dbf84@tm.net>
Message-ID: <57845EC8.7030608@pacbell.net>

I would second these views having had plants in the US, Asia, and 
Europe.  While local politics often "encouraged" local manufacturing, in 
the end the most efficient producer environments win.  When countries 
make it an objective to be competitive on a global scale and have good 
leadership they often achieve that goal - witness Singapore's history.

Engineering as a profession is "too hard" for many US students, PolySci 
is easy but then graduates wonder why their jobs are in retail or food 
service.  A recent major magazine article was about the "crushing 
college debt" of many students and their inability to pay.  NOT ONCE did 
it mention the career choice of the students profiled - DUH.  When I 
introduced 6-Sigma statistical process control to my operations and 
checked on "how is it going?" at a plant, the plant manager said, "we've 
hit a snag, we have to teach much of the workforce how to add and 
subtract."  The failure of US public education to produce a workforce 
educated for the jobs of today is appalling.  In Asia, the skills needed 
were there and the techniques enthusiastically embraced by the labor 
force.  The "top 5%" are a much larger population besides.

Consider that the Philippines graduates more engineers (5 year program, 
accredited) than the USA.  There aren't the MIT, Stanford, or Berkeley 
PhD level institutions, yet.  The degrees granted focus heavily towards 
the semiconductor industry (BS/MS EE & CS). Now they are rapidly 
up-skilling into test design,  design spins, and then original designs 
and that work is being off-shored by US companies.  TSMC (Taiwan) didn't 
become the largest semiconductor company in the world by accident.

Cheapest labor is less important as automation has reduced the 
handwork.  Years ago the garment makers realized that computer driven 
sewing machines were changing the game.  The latest and most productive 
machine tools cost the same everywhere in the world and it is the 
innovation in them and the workforce skill to optimize their performance 
that makes a difference.   That takes a very skilled labor base.   Then 
there are the regulations and bureaucracy.  Many years ago Andy Grove 
(SK) promised California he would not build another Intel plant in CA 
unless the state fixed its bizarre permitting and tax/regulatory 
burdens.  I had to LOL when the press and politicians 10 years later 
bitched that Intel was building all plants elsewhere.  It took me 6 
years and many dollars to get a single family home building permit in 
Santa Clara County, on a large property with ZERO issues.  Now I don't 
live in CA. People and companies can vote with their feet.  Especially 
with the incentives, skilled labor, low taxes, and streamlined 
permitting offered by competing political entities.  SiVly is propping 
up CA finances for now, watch out when startup stock options aren't "in 
the money".  The rest of CA is in the tank, just drive through the 
Central Valley.

I've been buying machine tools and tooling for the last 25 years. The 
three most scary words 15 years ago were "Made in India."  In the past 
year, several items I've purchased had that dreaded marking, but are 
first class.  Maybe not Hardinge or Starrett level yet, but so close as 
to not be important to me.  Several of the well known but lesser brands 
are now India made.

Grant KZ1W


On 7/10/2016 20:27 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
> Overly simplistic with the reasons for ham gear as well as many 
> products off shore include all the things someone said were unrelated. 
> Unions, politics, skilled and unskilled labor, work ethics, 
> unrealistic expectations and attitudes taught all the way through the 
> school system.  Add to that the global market system.
>
> The company I worked for had numerous plants around the US.  There are 
> many states that welcome new industries with minimal regulations and 
> taxes. Unfortunately the Feds regulations can make starting a new 
> business anywhere, more than a little difficult.
>
> We had plants on nearly every continent to take advantage of those 
> "local markets"
>
> "Ham Radio" is no where near a large enough market to support that 
> kind of business model.
>
> "Off Shore" does not mean junk, but as long as most hams are cheap, 
> someone, here or there will build and sell "cheap stuff". Let's face 
> it. If WE didn't purchase enough cheap stuff to support the making of 
> cheap stuff, then they'd stop making cheap stuff.
>
> You don't need to be very old to remember when Japan was synonymous 
> with cheap stuff.
> Those producing cheap stuff soon learn there is a lot more money in 
> building "good stuff"
>
> "Cheap labor" has a way of becoming expensive labor.
> Japan was replaced by Korea and Mexico. Now why would Japanese 
> companies start building cars in the US?  It doesn't take long for an 
> open mind to find those answers.
>
> Korean cheap labor is being replaced by Chinese and Indian labor.
>
> A thought:
> I read that in another generation or two, India will have more people 
> with 4 year college degrees than the total US population. Can China be 
> far behind?  They have highly qualified people who WANT to work, while 
> we have many college grads who want to tell their employers what they 
> will do.  I've seen a drastic change in new hire attitudes in my 50 
> plus years in industry
>
> Whoever remarked about the falling # of Hams needs to read 
> http://www.arrl.org/news/amateur-radio-showing-steady-growth-in-the-us
> True, fewer build their own HF and VHF rigs, but LF and SHF are now 
> the domain of the home builders. OTOH many of the new hams with store 
> bought equipment understand the programming and protocols for some 
> very sophisticated communications that leave old time CW and SSB hams 
> scratching their heads?
>
> All of these things/topics affect Ham Radio, one way or another.!
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>
> On 7/9/2016 Saturday 3:55 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> That's a bit simplistic.  I spent over 30 years working for a huge 
>> North American based semiconductor company, and there were a variety 
>> of reasons we ended up moving most manufacturing elsewhere.  Labor 
>> cost was certainly one of them, but rarely the deciding factor.  
>> Others included:
>>
>> 1.  Availability of trained engineers.  Places like China and India 
>> have a far greater pool of highly skilled and dedicated engineers, 
>> and engineers in the U.S. tended to think of manufacturing as being 
>> "unglamorous."
>>
>> 2.  Proximity to local markets.  As the world economy became more 
>> global, being able to be closer to your customer had tremendous 
>> advantages in terms of customer relationships and cycle time 
>> reductions, not to mention trade (many countries lower tax rates for 
>> local content) and currency issues.
>>
>> 3.  Bureaucracy and overhead issues.  At one point we wanted to 
>> significantly expand a wafer fab locally, but were told by the city 
>> that it would take at least 18 months simply to get the approvals for 
>> it ... in spite of the fact that we had already proposed every safety 
>> and environmental upgrade imaginable for it.  Markets don't wait for 
>> that kind of crap, and we ended up having to build the fab offshore 
>> where some other entity actually wanted it.
>>
>> Other industries faced different issues ... tax burdens in the U.S., 
>> ridiculous union requirements (much less of an issue now, of course, 
>> at least in most places), availability of raw materials, etc.  The 
>> problem as many of us recognized even back then was that once such 
>> manufacturing migrations begin they are very difficult to curb.  How 
>> many colleges and universities in North America offer engineering 
>> courses specifically geared toward manufacturing?  Damn few, if any.  
>> In Asia they are everywhere. Compare tax rates.  Compare 
>> transportation costs to major markets (North America is no longer the 
>> only one).
>>
>> The list of reasons why such "big box" products are built elsewhere 
>> is almost endless, and while it may be convenient to blame the 
>> manufacturers for that it is simply scapegoating. Consumers who tend 
>> to buy the cheapest available product regardless of quality (and they 
>> are still the majority, to which I can attest having worked for a 
>> while at a big box store) share the blame, as do most other elements 
>> of the economic system that ignored cost and efficiency in favor of 
>> other factors.   I'd even bet that your own investment funds lie with 
>> companies that make as much profit as possible, as opposed to some 
>> company that tried to fight the system by paying higher wages, paying 
>> higher taxes, training it's own engineers, paying higher 
>> transportation costs ... etc, etc, etc.
>>
>> Manufacturers mostly follow ... they don't really lead the parade.  I 
>> can say with great experience that moving manufacturing offshore is 
>> one of the riskiest, most traumatic actions a manufacturer can take.  
>> It doesn't happen without significant outside pressure from one place 
>> or another.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Dave  AB7E
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From john at kk9a.com  Tue Jul 12 22:16:03 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 22:16:03 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Band Pass Filters
Message-ID: <005001d1dcac$81fe5730$85fb0590$@com>

Does anyone have any experience or comments regarding the RA6LBS band pass
filters that DX Engineering sells? They come in 200, 500 and 1,500 watt
models.

John KK9A


From jim.thom at telus.net  Wed Jul 13 10:09:58 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:09:58 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] question about a matching transformer
Message-ID: <F55902F07401455992EEB211F0EBCAB0@JimPC>

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:20:57 -0400
From: "StellarCAT" <rxdesign at ssvecnet.com>
To: "tower" <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] question about a matching transformer


But there is a version of it ? shown in W2FMI?s book, that provides for a 2:1 match. And my initial thoughts are ? if I am using 2 monobanders and I can do 2:1 why would I not do it? 


Gary 
K9RX at arrl dot net

##  If using 2  x monobanders, why not just use either the traditional method, with 70/75 ohm coax and relays..... or a simple L network, and relays. 
The L network is dead simple, just a shunt C from 50 ohm input to chassis..then a series coil  from 50 ohm input connector to the 25 ohm output. 
Use some surplus  NPO  ceramic 5 kv doorknobs for the  C ....and a small  .25 inch OD  cu tubing coil, for the coil.   I have designed a few of these,
like for  40 + 15m.    And also a 50 to 16.66 ohm L network  for  3 x yagis.   Extremely low Q.  Terminate the outputs with 50 ohm plugs..and  sweep the
input across the band of interest...dead flat..right out past each end.  You cant blow up an L network.  Typ deal is to parallel a few of the NPO caps  to get the exact value required. 
Allen Bond at max gain systems had plenty of NPO caps a while ago.   Then relays used to select  top /bottom /both. 

##  If you meant  2 x tribanders, etc, then disregard. 

Jim   VE7RF  


From jim.thom at telus.net  Wed Jul 13 12:27:13 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:27:13 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] 20m stack switching question
Message-ID: <048626A32BD94E7481C9A190EF114B45@JimPC>

A buddy has  3 x 20m monobanders, stacked at   172, 117,  62  ft.   Currently, all 3 are driven in  phase,
via a L network.  ( 50 ohm to 16.66 ohms, consisting of a   shunt  317.7 pf  cap  from input  50 ohm connector to chassis, then
a series .2646 uh coil. Coil goes from input connector...to the 3 x paralleled output connectors)   Its just a mess of  5 kv NPO  doorknob caps
in parallel + some cu tubing.   Pretty straight forward.   In actuality,  325 pf was used... and slightly less coil. 

The plan was to install some relays, and  then be able to switch top, middle, and bottom.... and all 3 in phase.   We can pull that off
with just  3 x  SPST  relays...and  1 x  SPDT relay. 

Then we thought, why not be able to use any 2 x yagis at a time, like  top + middle... middle + bottom.... and also  top and bottom.
That could be done with a 2nd L network +  1 x additional SPDT relay.

Ok, is it even worth it to be able to use any  2 yagis ??   For  DX, all 3 in phase work pretty good.   For local, say within 3000 miles, perhaps
the lowest yagi alone would suffice?     I cant see  the top and bottom buying him anything..... vs  all  3 in phase.  I cant see the top and middle
outperforming all  3 in phase.   That only leaves the middle and bottom..and even that is dubious... but we have zero experience with this. 

Even with the 4 x relays and just one L network box,  we could still easily select any 2 yagis..and use the 50: 16.66 ohm L network... however
the swr  will not be dead flat, but it would be <  2: 1      25 / 16.66 =   1.5:1  swr.... which is still useable.  

Are we wasting our time ?   On a side note, the pair of 40m yagis, 180 + 89 feet, are also driven in phase.... with no provisions  for top + bottom
switching.  However,  BOP  was added to the BIP.   Easily done with a switchable  1/2 wave of coax in either leg.  Then countless  hrs spent switching between
BIP...and BOP.   BOP was a disaster.  Only once  was BOP a bit louder... and that was on 40M during the daytime..and just one station, aprx  200 miles away.
Looking at some notes here and there, it appears that  BOP  has a higher take off angle than the lower 40M by itself...which ends up way too high. 

Latest plan is to be able to switch  top /bottom /both on the  pair of 40m yagis......and ditto with the pair of 15M yagis ( 127  +  79 ft) .  We could also add
the BOP function, but after the 40M failed experiment, I think BOP is a total write off. 

Any thought on any of this  would be greatly appreciated.   BTW, all yagis are pointed in the same direction on a rotating tower.   In the original config,
non rotable tower, tic rings were used on 40M + 20m.... then all ants could be pointed in different directions.  That came in handy at times, but the tic rings
were a constant head ache. 

Jim  VE7RF

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Wed Jul 13 14:02:47 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:02:47 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Band Pass Filters
In-Reply-To: <005001d1dcac$81fe5730$85fb0590$@com>
References: <005001d1dcac$81fe5730$85fb0590$@com>
Message-ID: <af4a55f3-cda0-07f4-6ed0-2cf2215fdebc@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Tue,7/12/2016 7:16 PM, john at kk9a.com wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience or comments regarding the RA6LBS band pass
> filters that DX Engineering sells? They come in 200, 500 and 1,500 watt
> models.

Someone else asked me about this in direct email, so I looked at the DXE 
website. It appears that they won't ship until the fall, and performance 
specs are next to non-existent. DXE has a reputation for selling good 
stuff, but this one is still an unknown quantity.

73, Jim K9YC


From w5ifp at gvtc.com  Wed Jul 13 16:21:56 2016
From: w5ifp at gvtc.com (Jim Hargrave)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 15:21:56 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Something new in the air...
In-Reply-To: <14709d.b80e7ef.44b6aa5d@aol.com>
References: <14709d.b80e7ef.44b6aa5d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000901d1dd44$33c63f40$9b52bdc0$@gvtc.com>

Bad link... try: (http://www.gxpantennas.com/) 

 

73, Jim - w5ifp at gvtc.com

 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On

>> Behalf Of PAUL924--- via TowerTalk

>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 3:18 PM

>> To: towertalk at contesting.com

>> Subject: [TowerTalk] Something new in the air...

>> 

>> 

>> Hi Guys,

>> I recently had a QSO with Amir 4X6TT and even during these  poor

>> propagation conditions he was 59+ 20db on 20 meters. I asked him

>> what type  of antenna he was using and he said a GPX 16-3 which I

>> had never heard of  before. I located the website

>> _www.gpxantennas.com_ ( <http://www.gpxantennas.com/>
http://www.gpxantennas.com/) .

>> owner SP7GPX. After I signed with him several other stateside

>> stations using antennas  from this site called him and they were
also

>> very loud.

>> I wanted share this information  with those members of TowerTalk

>> who may not be familiar with these  antennas.

>> 73,

>> Paul  W2JGQ

>> _______________________________________________

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> TowerTalk mailing list

>>  <mailto:TowerTalk at contesting.com> TowerTalk at contesting.com

>>  <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From hanslg at aol.com  Wed Jul 13 10:15:11 2016
From: hanslg at aol.com (Hans Hammarquist)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:15:11 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  Portable analyzers
In-Reply-To: <CAC5FBO9nnGcB033PzBaanw3qhGPvqNqx4u9CH+HMfb30DLnMQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <155e49c84d3-36de-289ea@webprd-m63.mail.aol.com>

OK Dick,


The MFJ-259 (as well as the MFJ-269) works well but they are like using a manual tuned radio as a spectrum analyzer, tedious. I'm using mine a lot but wouldn't mind to have some help with a faster overview especially when working with multiband antennas. Compared to "modern" VNA they are rather clumsy too in size too.


We shouldn't hang on the old, good stuff forever. We can upgrade from the muscle cars to the more "fuel efficient" models. :)


73 de,


Hans - N2JFS



-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz at gmail.com>
To: towertalk <TowerTalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Sat, Jul 9, 2016 1:51 pm
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Portable analyzers

You guys can laugh all you want to,
but my MFJ-259, which is quite old,
maybe 15 years ?? Still works like
a charm.

73, Dick, W1KSZ




From lists at subich.com  Wed Jul 13 10:20:51 2016
From: lists at subich.com (Joe Subich, W4TV)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:20:51 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Something new in the air...
In-Reply-To: <14709d.b80e7ef.44b6aa5d@aol.com>
References: <14709d.b80e7ef.44b6aa5d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <5ac74568-a9cd-e0aa-1a94-f1fdc0869405@subich.com>

> I located the website _www.gpxantennas.com_
> (http://www.gpxantennas.com/) . owner SP7GPX.

The correct website is <http://www.gxp_antennas.com>.
Owner's callsign is SP7GXP

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 7/12/2016 4:17 PM, PAUL924--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
> I recently had a QSO with Amir 4X6TT and even during these  poor
> propagation conditions he was 59+ 20db on 20 meters. I asked him what type  of antenna
> he was using and he said a GPX 16-3 which I had never heard of  before. I
> located the website  _www.gpxantennas.com_ (http://www.gpxantennas.com/) .
> owner SP7GPX. After I signed with him several other stateside stations using
> antennas  from this site called him and they were also very loud.
> I wanted share this information  with those members of TowerTalk who may
> not be familiar with these  antennas.
> 73,
> Paul  W2JGQ
> _______________________________________________
>

From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Wed Jul 13 11:18:46 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:18:46 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Something new in the air...
In-Reply-To: <14709d.b80e7ef.44b6aa5d@aol.com>
References: <14709d.b80e7ef.44b6aa5d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <C3AB7FE7238E4FD78AC556256A1C2171@RXDesignDell>

not to thread on your enthusiasm, and I'm sure you know this, but the reason 
why he (or anyone for that matter) is above the rest of the stations isn't 
the antenna - or at least its just a factor in the overall scheme of things 
... propagation is a key factor as is location, location location.

Before I recently moved to South Carolina I used HFTA extensively to vet 
every home we were looking at .... in 6 months found zero that met all our 
criteria - so instead I found 11+ acres that was great re HFTA (and ok for 
most other things) and bought it - built a house and am now assembling a 
station ... angle is the most important factor (assuming propagation is 
there - or compared to another station nearby) in that it can make an 
average antenna - even a dipole - out perform a large array ... HFTA will 
tell you this and I personally know - when I was in Arizona Dave, AB7E, was 
on the side of a mountain with a gentle slope towards EU out for miles - 
when modeled his location equipped with a dipole at 40' would outperform my 
3/3/3 on 20 meters - towards EU .... and I'd hear VK's 20 over that he 
couldn't tell were there!

I only write this because it appears you're suggesting that it is this 
antenna that makes all these stations above the pack. Generally speaking the 
difference between an average 3 element beam on a compromised boom (length) 
and a monobander is only 2 or 3 db...

Gary
K9RX

-----Original Message----- 
From: PAUL924 at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:17 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Something new in the air...


Hi Guys,
I recently had a QSO with Amir 4X6TT and even during these  poor
propagation conditions he was 59+ 20db on 20 meters. I asked him what type 
of antenna
he was using and he said a GPX 16-3 which I had never heard of  before. I
located the website  _www.gpxantennas.com_ (http://www.gpxantennas.com/) .
owner SP7GPX. After I signed with him several other stateside stations using
antennas  from this site called him and they were also very loud.
I wanted share this information  with those members of TowerTalk who may
not be familiar with these  antennas.
73,
Paul  W2JGQ


From hanslg at aol.com  Wed Jul 13 13:32:38 2016
From: hanslg at aol.com (Hans Hammarquist)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:32:38 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  AES SK
In-Reply-To: <57845EC8.7030608@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <155e5514add-36de-298c9@webprd-m63.mail.aol.com>

Hi Grant,


Let me through in a penny here.


I have been "working" in this country for 30 years. When I went to engineering school (more than 50 years ago) we were a proud bunch of student that were going to provide the country (and the world) with the best engineered products available. Working in this country I found that engineers are commodities that were used "as efficient as possible". Way too many times have I been offered a "permanent" position just to be told after I finished a project (frequently ahead of schedule) that they had no more projects for me and I had to go.


With that in mind I truly understand students that don't want to pursue an engineering career. They will have student loans to pay plus they want to make a living beyond barely "getting around". The day these "fast buck artists" that role our economy today, understand that the USA cannot continue to promote non-producing industries such as "Wall Streeters", the engineers will be appreciated and we will get a quality engineering corp again. USA needs a new "Put-a-man-on-the-Moon" incentive. The Apollo project was just sooo good for the country.


With a high heart rate for the moment. 73 de,


Hans - N2JFS


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Saviers <grants2 at pacbell.net>
To: Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>; towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Wed, Jul 13, 2016 9:30 am
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK


Engineering as a profession is "too hard" for many US students, PolySci 
is easy but then graduates wonder why their jobs are in retail or food 
service.  A recent major magazine article was about the "crushing 
college debt" of many students and their inability to pay.  NOT ONCE did 
it mention the career choice of the students profiled - DUH. 




From w3ea at hotmail.com  Wed Jul 13 22:50:08 2016
From: w3ea at hotmail.com (Wayne Kline)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 22:50:08 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fulton winch modification
Message-ID: <BAY177-W4A484A6DC6346FC39E6188F320@phx.gbl>

 I remember a fellow TT'er who modified a Fulton  2500 winch . to be able to use  a power drill motor ?
 
Wayne  W3EA  
 		 	   		  

From grants2 at pacbell.net  Wed Jul 13 23:19:35 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 20:19:35 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] 20m stack switching question
In-Reply-To: <048626A32BD94E7481C9A190EF114B45@JimPC>
References: <048626A32BD94E7481C9A190EF114B45@JimPC>
Message-ID: <578704C7.9020404@pacbell.net>

Jim,

I have only a years experience with my 5 over 5 stacks but have observed 
that the top antenna only can be much quieter at times.  I haven't 
experienced heavy p-static but that is often cited as a reason to select 
a lower antenna, as is shorter paths.   Otherwise I'm in BIP mode except 
when antennas are in different directions for contests (all are 
independent on K0XG rings).  So, extrapolating that to a 3 high stack 
rotating tower, I would probably do top only, bottom only, and all.

What I've read agrees that BOP is pretty useless, so I bought stack 
matches without that capability.

Grant KZ1W


On 7/13/2016 9:27 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> A buddy has  3 x 20m monobanders, stacked at   172, 117,  62  ft.   Currently, all 3 are driven in  phase,
> via a L network.  ( 50 ohm to 16.66 ohms, consisting of a   shunt  317.7 pf  cap  from input  50 ohm connector to chassis, then
> a series .2646 uh coil. Coil goes from input connector...to the 3 x paralleled output connectors)   Its just a mess of  5 kv NPO  doorknob caps
> in parallel + some cu tubing.   Pretty straight forward.   In actuality,  325 pf was used... and slightly less coil.
>
> The plan was to install some relays, and  then be able to switch top, middle, and bottom.... and all 3 in phase.   We can pull that off
> with just  3 x  SPST  relays...and  1 x  SPDT relay.
>
> Then we thought, why not be able to use any 2 x yagis at a time, like  top + middle... middle + bottom.... and also  top and bottom.
> That could be done with a 2nd L network +  1 x additional SPDT relay.
>
> Ok, is it even worth it to be able to use any  2 yagis ??   For  DX, all 3 in phase work pretty good.   For local, say within 3000 miles, perhaps
> the lowest yagi alone would suffice?     I cant see  the top and bottom buying him anything..... vs  all  3 in phase.  I cant see the top and middle
> outperforming all  3 in phase.   That only leaves the middle and bottom..and even that is dubious... but we have zero experience with this.
>
> Even with the 4 x relays and just one L network box,  we could still easily select any 2 yagis..and use the 50: 16.66 ohm L network... however
> the swr  will not be dead flat, but it would be <  2: 1      25 / 16.66 =   1.5:1  swr.... which is still useable.
>
> Are we wasting our time ?   On a side note, the pair of 40m yagis, 180 + 89 feet, are also driven in phase.... with no provisions  for top + bottom
> switching.  However,  BOP  was added to the BIP.   Easily done with a switchable  1/2 wave of coax in either leg.  Then countless  hrs spent switching between
> BIP...and BOP.   BOP was a disaster.  Only once  was BOP a bit louder... and that was on 40M during the daytime..and just one station, aprx  200 miles away.
> Looking at some notes here and there, it appears that  BOP  has a higher take off angle than the lower 40M by itself...which ends up way too high.
>
> Latest plan is to be able to switch  top /bottom /both on the  pair of 40m yagis......and ditto with the pair of 15M yagis ( 127  +  79 ft) .  We could also add
> the BOP function, but after the 40M failed experiment, I think BOP is a total write off.
>
> Any thought on any of this  would be greatly appreciated.   BTW, all yagis are pointed in the same direction on a rotating tower.   In the original config,
> non rotable tower, tic rings were used on 40M + 20m.... then all ants could be pointed in different directions.  That came in handy at times, but the tic rings
> were a constant head ache.
>
> Jim  VE7RF
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From jim.thom at telus.net  Wed Jul 13 23:22:45 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 20:22:45 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  Portable analyzers
Message-ID: <FEA258BB513A49C1852F93FD6B8E8517@JimPC>

Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:15:11 -0400
From: Hans Hammarquist <hanslg at aol.com>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  Portable analyzers

OK Dick,

We shouldn't hang on the old, good stuff forever. We can upgrade from the muscle cars to the more "fuel efficient" models. :)

73 de, Hans - N2JFS

##  say what ?   I like my 500 hp supercharged mustang.  0-60 in 3.7 secs.    Sure its a gas pig, and uses 94 octane, but who really cares.   Its fun watching  BMW / Posche / Euro trash / ricers  going backwards in the mirrors. 
I also have a fuel efficient  4 cyl,  175 hp  ford fusion.   Guess which one the wife drives ? 

Jim   VE7RF

From richard at karlquist.com  Thu Jul 14 00:26:05 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 21:26:05 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fulton winch modification
In-Reply-To: <BAY177-W4A484A6DC6346FC39E6188F320@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY177-W4A484A6DC6346FC39E6188F320@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1a50c855-4606-d220-6311-8b77777b486d@karlquist.com>

On 7/13/2016 7:50 PM, Wayne Kline wrote:
>  I remember a fellow TT'er who modified a Fulton  2500 winch . to be able to use  a power drill motor ?
>
> Wayne  W3EA
>  		 	   		

http://www.n6rk.com/drill_adapter_for_winch/drill_adapter_for_winch.html

Rick N6RK

From ve6jy.1 at gmail.com  Thu Jul 14 00:39:27 2016
From: ve6jy.1 at gmail.com (Don Moman VE6JY)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 04:39:27 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] 20m stack switching question
In-Reply-To: <048626A32BD94E7481C9A190EF114B45@JimPC>
References: <048626A32BD94E7481C9A190EF114B45@JimPC>
Message-ID: <CAJf7ZhQ0qv-YQGeMwqW6jdCnybGvWU24mZj7zkRTs9H24tyYhA@mail.gmail.com>

On 20m I have a 4 high and a 3 high 20m stack. All towers can have any
combination using modified stack match style boxes with a 25 to 50 ohm
unun. The mismatch, even using 4 antennas in // is quite acceptable to me.
Then each tower goes thru a 2 position stack box.

My thoughts...

It is essential here to take the top antenna out of the mix when rain or
snow static hits.

At this location the low 20m yagi in the stack seems to (if it does
anything) reduce a weak signal or add noise, either way the effect isn't
useful.

If contesting is a major interest, having all the antennas in the same
direction is a BIG disadvantage.  Geographical diversity is most
beneficial, esp from this signal starved part of the world.  Our normal 20m
contest set is top 2 on Eu, top 2 on other stak into JA, and lower yagis
into east and west coast areas. All lower yagis are on side mounts that
cover the aforementioned areas.

73 Don
VE6JY

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Jim Thomson <jim.thom at telus.net> wrote:

> A buddy has  3 x 20m monobanders, stacked at   172, 117,  62  ft.
>  Currently, all 3 are driven in  phase,
> via a L network.  ( 50 ohm to 16.66 ohms, consisting of a   shunt  317.7
> pf  cap  from input  50 ohm connector to chassis, then
> a series .2646 uh coil. Coil goes from input connector...to the 3 x
> paralleled output connectors)   Its just a mess of  5 kv NPO  doorknob caps
> in parallel + some cu tubing.   Pretty straight forward.   In actuality,
> 325 pf was used... and slightly less coil.
>
> The plan was to install some relays, and  then be able to switch top,
> middle, and bottom.... and all 3 in phase.   We can pull that off
> with just  3 x  SPST  relays...and  1 x  SPDT relay.
>
> Then we thought, why not be able to use any 2 x yagis at a time, like  top
> + middle... middle + bottom.... and also  top and bottom.
> That could be done with a 2nd L network +  1 x additional SPDT relay.
>
> Ok, is it even worth it to be able to use any  2 yagis ??   For  DX, all 3
> in phase work pretty good.   For local, say within 3000 miles, perhaps
> the lowest yagi alone would suffice?     I cant see  the top and bottom
> buying him anything..... vs  all  3 in phase.  I cant see the top and middle
> outperforming all  3 in phase.   That only leaves the middle and
> bottom..and even that is dubious... but we have zero experience with this.
>
> Even with the 4 x relays and just one L network box,  we could still
> easily select any 2 yagis..and use the 50: 16.66 ohm L network... however
> the swr  will not be dead flat, but it would be <  2: 1      25 / 16.66 =
>  1.5:1  swr.... which is still useable.
>
> Are we wasting our time ?   On a side note, the pair of 40m yagis, 180 +
> 89 feet, are also driven in phase.... with no provisions  for top + bottom
> switching.  However,  BOP  was added to the BIP.   Easily done with a
> switchable  1/2 wave of coax in either leg.  Then countless  hrs spent
> switching between
> BIP...and BOP.   BOP was a disaster.  Only once  was BOP a bit louder...
> and that was on 40M during the daytime..and just one station, aprx  200
> miles away.
> Looking at some notes here and there, it appears that  BOP  has a higher
> take off angle than the lower 40M by itself...which ends up way too high.
>
> Latest plan is to be able to switch  top /bottom /both on the  pair of 40m
> yagis......and ditto with the pair of 15M yagis ( 127  +  79 ft) .  We
> could also add
> the BOP function, but after the 40M failed experiment, I think BOP is a
> total write off.
>
> Any thought on any of this  would be greatly appreciated.   BTW, all yagis
> are pointed in the same direction on a rotating tower.   In the original
> config,
> non rotable tower, tic rings were used on 40M + 20m.... then all ants
> could be pointed in different directions.  That came in handy at times, but
> the tic rings
> were a constant head ache.
>
> Jim  VE7RF
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From bswadener at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 14 04:37:33 2016
From: bswadener at yahoo.com (Bryan Swadener)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 08:37:33 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fulton winch modification
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5642.1468470379.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
References: <mailman.5642.1468470379.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <842979074.3436463.1468485453264.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

What Rick said. I use a Milwaukee "Super Hawg" right-angle drill.
It appears to have the most powerful motor. I found mine on ebay,
as a "factory reconditioned" unit, for about $200.

I use it to tilt/telescope my UST TX472 + big yagi up/down. If I don't
stop, it takes only seconds to tilt or telescope the tower. And, I have
a gnarly drill that can bore holes in just about anything! :D

vy 73,Bryan WA7PRChttp://www.tinyurl.com/wa7prc-tower
 
     Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 21:26:05 -0700
From: Rick N6RK
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fulton winch modification

On 7/13/2016 7:50 PM, Wayne Kline wrote:
>? I remember a fellow TT'er who modified a Fulton? 2500 winch . to be able to use? a power drill motor ?
>
> Wayne? W3EA
>? ??? ??? ??? ? ??? ??? 

http://www.n6rk.com/drill_adapter_for_winch/drill_adapter_for_winch.html

Rick N6RK
   

From jlangdon1 at austin.rr.com  Thu Jul 14 06:04:54 2016
From: jlangdon1 at austin.rr.com (John Langdon)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 05:04:54 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] 20m stack switching question
In-Reply-To: <048626A32BD94E7481C9A190EF114B45@JimPC>
References: <048626A32BD94E7481C9A190EF114B45@JimPC>
Message-ID: <027f01d1ddb7$2b670320$82350960$@austin.rr.com>

I have had several stacked antenna systems since 1997 - a six stack of
tri-banders, some three and two stacks of mono-banders, and a three stack of
OWA's on 40.  I have usually been able to switch all combinations and
permutations of the stack.

Roughly 85% of the time, selecting all the antennas in the stack produced
the best signal.  Usually the difference between worst and best choice is
less than 3 dB, but occasionally it is very great - 20 dB or more.

The other 15% is explained by, in no particular order:

1. Domestic contests where often antennas over 40' high are down a lot
compared to low ones. The "BIP BOP" setup sometimes helps with this, but
IMHO dedicated low antennas are better.
2. Major precipitation static makes all but the low antenna almost unusable
3. Sporadic E openings on 10 and 12 meters, like the ARRL 10M contest
4. Antipodal long path to VU on 20M, where the high antenna only is often
best
5. When running a pileup with lots of callers (like JA's on 20 or 15 during
ARRL DX) switching to a different antenna often allows you to easily
separate the 'layers' of callers and pick out one to respond to.
6. High angle multiple bounce paths - mostly 10, 15 and 20 meters in the
summer, like during the IARU contest
7. All other

Was it worth all the switching gear and extra feedlines and connectors? On a
strict dB per $ figure of merit, no.  Was it interesting? Very.

73 John N5CQ





-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Thomson
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 11:27 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] 20m stack switching question

A buddy has  3 x 20m monobanders, stacked at   172, 117,  62  ft.
Currently, all 3 are driven in  phase,
via a L network.  ( 50 ohm to 16.66 ohms, consisting of a   shunt  317.7 pf
cap  from input  50 ohm connector to chassis, then
a series .2646 uh coil. Coil goes from input connector...to the 3 x
paralleled output connectors)   Its just a mess of  5 kv NPO  doorknob caps
in parallel + some cu tubing.   Pretty straight forward.   In actuality,
325 pf was used... and slightly less coil. 

The plan was to install some relays, and  then be able to switch top,
middle, and bottom.... and all 3 in phase.   We can pull that off
with just  3 x  SPST  relays...and  1 x  SPDT relay. 

Then we thought, why not be able to use any 2 x yagis at a time, like  top +
middle... middle + bottom.... and also  top and bottom.
That could be done with a 2nd L network +  1 x additional SPDT relay.

Ok, is it even worth it to be able to use any  2 yagis ??   For  DX, all 3
in phase work pretty good.   For local, say within 3000 miles, perhaps
the lowest yagi alone would suffice?     I cant see  the top and bottom
buying him anything..... vs  all  3 in phase.  I cant see the top and middle
outperforming all  3 in phase.   That only leaves the middle and bottom..and
even that is dubious... but we have zero experience with this. 

Even with the 4 x relays and just one L network box,  we could still easily
select any 2 yagis..and use the 50: 16.66 ohm L network... however
the swr  will not be dead flat, but it would be <  2: 1      25 / 16.66 =
1.5:1  swr.... which is still useable.  

Are we wasting our time ?   On a side note, the pair of 40m yagis, 180 + 89
feet, are also driven in phase.... with no provisions  for top + bottom
switching.  However,  BOP  was added to the BIP.   Easily done with a
switchable  1/2 wave of coax in either leg.  Then countless  hrs spent
switching between
BIP...and BOP.   BOP was a disaster.  Only once  was BOP a bit louder... and
that was on 40M during the daytime..and just one station, aprx  200 miles
away.
Looking at some notes here and there, it appears that  BOP  has a higher
take off angle than the lower 40M by itself...which ends up way too high. 

Latest plan is to be able to switch  top /bottom /both on the  pair of 40m
yagis......and ditto with the pair of 15M yagis ( 127  +  79 ft) .  We could
also add the BOP function, but after the 40M failed experiment, I think BOP
is a total write off. 

Any thought on any of this  would be greatly appreciated.   BTW, all yagis
are pointed in the same direction on a rotating tower.   In the original
config,
non rotable tower, tic rings were used on 40M + 20m.... then all ants could
be pointed in different directions.  That came in handy at times, but the
tic rings were a constant head ache. 

Jim  VE7RF
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Thu Jul 14 07:08:02 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 07:08:02 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] question about a matching transformer
In-Reply-To: <F55902F07401455992EEB211F0EBCAB0@JimPC>
References: <F55902F07401455992EEB211F0EBCAB0@JimPC>
Message-ID: <BBB6DA8CF72F4E3ABA0FDC24AA98932A@RXDesignDell>

it is 2X monos and I want to be able to select all combo's including out of 
phase... besides - it SHOULD work! It too is dead simple - supposedly.

thanks though.

g.



-----Original Message----- 
From: Jim Thomson
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 10:09 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] question about a matching transformer

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:20:57 -0400
From: "StellarCAT" <rxdesign at ssvecnet.com>
To: "tower" <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] question about a matching transformer


But there is a version of it ? shown in W2FMI?s book, that provides for a 
2:1 match. And my initial thoughts are ? if I am using 2 monobanders and I 
can do 2:1 why would I not do it?


Gary
K9RX at arrl dot net

##  If using 2  x monobanders, why not just use either the traditional 
method, with 70/75 ohm coax and relays..... or a simple L network, and 
relays.
The L network is dead simple, just a shunt C from 50 ohm input to 
chassis..then a series coil  from 50 ohm input connector to the 25 ohm 
output.
Use some surplus  NPO  ceramic 5 kv doorknobs for the  C ....and a small 
.25 inch OD  cu tubing coil, for the coil.   I have designed a few of these,
like for  40 + 15m.    And also a 50 to 16.66 ohm L network  for  3 x yagis. 
Extremely low Q.  Terminate the outputs with 50 ohm plugs..and  sweep the
input across the band of interest...dead flat..right out past each end.  You 
cant blow up an L network.  Typ deal is to parallel a few of the NPO caps 
to get the exact value required.
Allen Bond at max gain systems had plenty of NPO caps a while ago.   Then 
relays used to select  top /bottom /both.

##  If you meant  2 x tribanders, etc, then disregard.

Jim   VE7RF



From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Thu Jul 14 07:17:19 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 07:17:19 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 20m stack switching question
In-Reply-To: <048626A32BD94E7481C9A190EF114B45@JimPC>
References: <048626A32BD94E7481C9A190EF114B45@JimPC>
Message-ID: <34EDBEAB55CC4296BC220F279FDBEAC8@RXDesignDell>

I had a 3 stack of C31's in Arizona and was able using a StackMatch to 
select any combo (no out of phase selection though)... I can tell you on 20 
meters there was never a case where anything other than all 3 was better. On 
15 once in a while there might be a selection, like the bottom antenna, that 
was better... and on 10 it was a little more often with a few rare cases 
where the bottom one was MUCH better... as far as BOP my plans on stacks for 
10,15, 20 (2X) include this ability - but when you model it note that it has 
marginal benefit on 20 as that lobe is pretty darn high - maybe for SS 
stateside contacts... on 15 and especially on 10 it starts to model quite 
nicely. As you've seen indeed on 40 it would have no value doing BOP.

Also note for other reference the 'likely' best combinations of a 2 stack 
from best to least best are: BIP, Bottom, BOP. The top alone is never (very 
rarely and then marginally) any better than BIP and just isn't needed as a 
selection.

Gary
K9RX


-----Original Message----- 
From: Jim Thomson
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 12:27 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] 20m stack switching question

A buddy has  3 x 20m monobanders, stacked at   172, 117,  62  ft. 
Currently, all 3 are driven in  phase,
via a L network.  ( 50 ohm to 16.66 ohms, consisting of a   shunt  317.7 pf 
cap  from input  50 ohm connector to chassis, then
a series .2646 uh coil. Coil goes from input connector...to the 3 x 
paralleled output connectors)   Its just a mess of  5 kv NPO  doorknob caps
in parallel + some cu tubing.   Pretty straight forward.   In actuality, 
325 pf was used... and slightly less coil.

The plan was to install some relays, and  then be able to switch top, 
middle, and bottom.... and all 3 in phase.   We can pull that off
with just  3 x  SPST  relays...and  1 x  SPDT relay.

Then we thought, why not be able to use any 2 x yagis at a time, like  top + 
middle... middle + bottom.... and also  top and bottom.
That could be done with a 2nd L network +  1 x additional SPDT relay.

Ok, is it even worth it to be able to use any  2 yagis ??   For  DX, all 3 
in phase work pretty good.   For local, say within 3000 miles, perhaps
the lowest yagi alone would suffice?     I cant see  the top and bottom 
buying him anything..... vs  all  3 in phase.  I cant see the top and middle
outperforming all  3 in phase.   That only leaves the middle and bottom..and 
even that is dubious... but we have zero experience with this.

Even with the 4 x relays and just one L network box,  we could still easily 
select any 2 yagis..and use the 50: 16.66 ohm L network... however
the swr  will not be dead flat, but it would be <  2: 1      25 / 16.66 = 
1.5:1  swr.... which is still useable.

Are we wasting our time ?   On a side note, the pair of 40m yagis, 180 + 89 
feet, are also driven in phase.... with no provisions  for top + bottom
switching.  However,  BOP  was added to the BIP.   Easily done with a 
switchable  1/2 wave of coax in either leg.  Then countless  hrs spent 
switching between
BIP...and BOP.   BOP was a disaster.  Only once  was BOP a bit louder... and 
that was on 40M during the daytime..and just one station, aprx  200 miles 
away.
Looking at some notes here and there, it appears that  BOP  has a higher 
take off angle than the lower 40M by itself...which ends up way too high.

Latest plan is to be able to switch  top /bottom /both on the  pair of 40m 
yagis......and ditto with the pair of 15M yagis ( 127  +  79 ft) .  We could 
also add
the BOP function, but after the 40M failed experiment, I think BOP is a 
total write off.

Any thought on any of this  would be greatly appreciated.   BTW, all yagis 
are pointed in the same direction on a rotating tower.   In the original 
config,
non rotable tower, tic rings were used on 40M + 20m.... then all ants could 
be pointed in different directions.  That came in handy at times, but the 
tic rings
were a constant head ache.

Jim  VE7RF 


From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Thu Jul 14 07:25:20 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 07:25:20 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Something new in the air...
In-Reply-To: <5ac74568-a9cd-e0aa-1a94-f1fdc0869405@subich.com>
References: <14709d.b80e7ef.44b6aa5d@aol.com>
	<5ac74568-a9cd-e0aa-1a94-f1fdc0869405@subich.com>
Message-ID: <7DDC60E8B19946FFB3A430E5A37B21D6@RXDesignDell>

no... I believe still not right - it is gxp-antennas.com

and BOY! These are FANTASTIC antennas.... (being facetious here of course) 
... its amazing how they can claim over 8 dbd ... not dbi ... dbd of gain 
from a trapped 3 element on a shortened fixed length (tri-bander) boom... 
and over 15 dbi from a 6 element 20!! Wow ... my M2 15.3M boom 5 element is 
drooling with envy since it only has 10.6 dbi.

Either they're not being honest (and laughing about it) or these numbers are 
including ground reflection in which case they should state what height 
they're assumed to be at. I'd stay away from such a vendor. If they can't be 
forthright and honest upfront - I'd not trust them in any other specs or 
dealings.

I guess they're the Moseley of Europe. As a matter of fact that tribander 
does look like a TA33!

Gary



-----Original Message----- 
From: Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 10:20 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Something new in the air...

> I located the website _www.gpxantennas.com_
> (http://www.gpxantennas.com/) . owner SP7GPX.

The correct website is <http://www.gxp_antennas.com>.
Owner's callsign is SP7GXP

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 7/12/2016 4:17 PM, PAUL924--- via TowerTalk wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
> I recently had a QSO with Amir 4X6TT and even during these  poor
> propagation conditions he was 59+ 20db on 20 meters. I asked him what type 
> of antenna
> he was using and he said a GPX 16-3 which I had never heard of  before. I
> located the website  _www.gpxantennas.com_ (http://www.gpxantennas.com/) .
> owner SP7GPX. After I signed with him several other stateside stations 
> using
> antennas  from this site called him and they were also very loud.
> I wanted share this information  with those members of TowerTalk who may
> not be familiar with these  antennas.
> 73,
> Paul  W2JGQ
> _______________________________________________
>


From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Thu Jul 14 07:26:40 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 07:26:40 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 20m stack switching question
In-Reply-To: <048626A32BD94E7481C9A190EF114B45@JimPC>
References: <048626A32BD94E7481C9A190EF114B45@JimPC>
Message-ID: <9138C507A8F247F49D8F0CDCB116D069@RXDesignDell>

I had a 3 stack of C31's in Arizona and was able using a StackMatch to 
select any combo (no out of phase selection though)... I can tell you on 20 
meters there was never a case where anything other than all 3 was better. On 
15 once in a while there might be a selection, like the bottom antenna, that 
was better... and on 10 it was a little more often with a few rare cases 
where the bottom one was MUCH better... as far as BOP my plans on stacks for 
10,15, 20 (2X) include this ability - but when you model it note that it has 
marginal benefit on 20 as that lobe is pretty darn high - maybe for SS 
stateside contacts close in... on 15 and especially on 10 it starts to model 
quite nicely. As you've seen indeed on 40 it would have no value doing BOP.

Also note for other reference the 'likely' best combinations of a 2 stack 
from best to least best are: BIP, Bottom, BOP. The top alone is never (very 
rarely and then marginally) any better than BIP and just isn't needed as a 
selection.

Gary
K9RX


-----Original Message----- 
From: Jim Thomson
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 12:27 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] 20m stack switching question

A buddy has  3 x 20m monobanders, stacked at   172, 117,  62  ft. 
Currently, all 3 are driven in  phase,
via a L network.  ( 50 ohm to 16.66 ohms, consisting of a   shunt  317.7 pf 
cap  from input  50 ohm connector to chassis, then
a series .2646 uh coil. Coil goes from input connector...to the 3 x 
paralleled output connectors)   Its just a mess of  5 kv NPO  doorknob caps
in parallel + some cu tubing.   Pretty straight forward.   In actuality, 
325 pf was used... and slightly less coil.

The plan was to install some relays, and  then be able to switch top, 
middle, and bottom.... and all 3 in phase.   We can pull that off
with just  3 x  SPST  relays...and  1 x  SPDT relay.

Then we thought, why not be able to use any 2 x yagis at a time, like  top + 
middle... middle + bottom.... and also  top and bottom.
That could be done with a 2nd L network +  1 x additional SPDT relay.

Ok, is it even worth it to be able to use any  2 yagis ??   For  DX, all 3 
in phase work pretty good.   For local, say within 3000 miles, perhaps
the lowest yagi alone would suffice?     I cant see  the top and bottom 
buying him anything..... vs  all  3 in phase.  I cant see the top and middle
outperforming all  3 in phase.   That only leaves the middle and bottom..and 
even that is dubious... but we have zero experience with this.

Even with the 4 x relays and just one L network box,  we could still easily 
select any 2 yagis..and use the 50: 16.66 ohm L network... however
the swr  will not be dead flat, but it would be <  2: 1      25 / 16.66 = 
1.5:1  swr.... which is still useable.

Are we wasting our time ?   On a side note, the pair of 40m yagis, 180 + 89 
feet, are also driven in phase.... with no provisions  for top + bottom
switching.  However,  BOP  was added to the BIP.   Easily done with a 
switchable  1/2 wave of coax in either leg.  Then countless  hrs spent 
switching between
BIP...and BOP.   BOP was a disaster.  Only once  was BOP a bit louder... and 
that was on 40M during the daytime..and just one station, aprx  200 miles 
away.
Looking at some notes here and there, it appears that  BOP  has a higher 
take off angle than the lower 40M by itself...which ends up way too high.

Latest plan is to be able to switch  top /bottom /both on the  pair of 40m 
yagis......and ditto with the pair of 15M yagis ( 127  +  79 ft) .  We could 
also add
the BOP function, but after the 40M failed experiment, I think BOP is a 
total write off.

Any thought on any of this  would be greatly appreciated.   BTW, all yagis 
are pointed in the same direction on a rotating tower.   In the original 
config,
non rotable tower, tic rings were used on 40M + 20m.... then all ants could 
be pointed in different directions.  That came in handy at times, but the 
tic rings
were a constant head ache.

Jim  VE7RF 


From john at kk9a.com  Thu Jul 14 07:56:45 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 07:56:45 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 20m stack switching question
Message-ID: <4a88207945c20d0ab51e4015af41c313.squirrel@www11.qth.com>

I typically use the whole stack of antennas all the time unless I am
pointing in multiple directions. I have all individual rotators, some
people with rotating towers add a rotator to one of the antennas and
somehow calculate its direction.

I have BOP on my 40m beams and I would not buy it again. I operate mostly
DX contests where BIP is always better but even for an occasional domestic
contest I never use it.  It rarely improves the signal and I think I
benefit more in domestic contests by spraying two directions.

John KK9A - W4AAA


To:	<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject:	[TowerTalk] 20m stack switching question
From:	"Jim Thomson" <jim.thom at telus.net>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:27:13 -0700

A buddy has  3 x 20m monobanders, stacked at   172, 117,  62  ft.  
Currently,


Ok, is it even worth it to be able to use any  2 yagis ??   For  DX, all 3 in
phase work pretty good.   For local, say within 3000 miles, perhaps
the lowest yagi alone would suffice?     I cant see  the top and bottom
buying
him anything..... vs  all  3 in phase.  I cant see the top and middle
outperforming all  3 in phase.   That only leaves the middle and bottom..and
even that is dubious... but we have zero experience with this.


Are we wasting our time ?   On a side note, the pair of 40m yagis, 180 + 89
feet, are also driven in phase.... with no provisions  for top + bottom
switching.  However,  BOP  was added to the BIP.   Easily done with a
switchable  1/2 wave of coax in either leg.  Then countless  hrs spent
switching between
BIP...and BOP.   BOP was a disaster.  Only once  was BOP a bit louder... and
that was on 40M during the daytime..and just one station, aprx  200 miles
away.
Looking at some notes here and there, it appears that  BOP  has a higher take
off angle than the lower 40M by itself...which ends up way too high.

Latest plan is to be able to switch  top /bottom /both on the  pair of 40m
yagis......and ditto with the pair of 15M yagis ( 127  +  79 ft) .  We could
also add
the BOP function, but after the 40M failed experiment, I think BOP is a total
write off.

Any thought on any of this  would be greatly appreciated.   BTW, all yagis
are
pointed in the same direction on a rotating tower.

Jim  VE7RF


From john at kk9a.com  Thu Jul 14 08:07:58 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 08:07:58 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Something new in the air...
Message-ID: <574d6f3c958f6782075fe3c2306d52c0.squirrel@www11.qth.com>

Apparently there is no shortage of antenna companies! The 4X6 must have
had better propagation, and enhanced location or QRO, I doubt that the 33'
boom antenna can defy physics.

John KK9A


To:	towertalk at contesting.com
Subject:	[TowerTalk] Something new in the air...
From:	PAUL924--- via TowerTalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Reply-to:	PAUL924 at aol.com
Date:	Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:17:34 -0400


Hi Guys,
I recently had a QSO with Amir 4X6TT and even during these  poor
propagation conditions he was 59+ 20db on 20 meters. I asked him what type
 of
antenna
he was using and he said a GPX 16-3 which I had never heard of  before. I
located the website  _www.gpxantennas.com_ (http://www.gpxantennas.com/) .
owner SP7GPX. After I signed with him several other stateside stations using
antennas  from this site called him and they were also very loud.
I wanted share this information  with those members of TowerTalk who may
not be familiar with these  antennas.
73,
Paul  W2JGQ
____________


From xdavid at cis-broadband.com  Thu Jul 14 14:03:18 2016
From: xdavid at cis-broadband.com (David Gilbert)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:03:18 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Something new in the air...
In-Reply-To: <C3AB7FE7238E4FD78AC556256A1C2171@RXDesignDell>
References: <14709d.b80e7ef.44b6aa5d@aol.com>
	<C3AB7FE7238E4FD78AC556256A1C2171@RXDesignDell>
Message-ID: <800ebe58-3e91-1826-83ab-243594f5c000@cis-broadband.com>


I'm here to confirm everything that Gary just said.  I would often 
listen to Gary (who lived maybe 30 miles from me at the time) work VK/ZL 
one after another, giving them S9+20 reports while I couldn't hear them 
at all .... and I have a K3 at a very quiet location.  On the other 
hand, I've been in major contests where I was able to work Europe a full 
hour before anyone else west of Texas.  As Gary says, the difference 
between a huge antenna and a simple one is a very few db, whereas the 
difference created by terrain or propagation can be several tens of db.

The HFTA plots of my QTH at http://www.ab7e.com/HFTA/AB7E_HFTA.html tell 
the tale.  The dark blue lines represent Europe, while the light green 
ones represent Oceania (aka my dummy load).  It's amazing what a primary 
lobe less than 2 degrees can do ....

73,

Dave AB7E


On 7/13/2016 8:18 AM, StellarCAT wrote:
> not to thread on your enthusiasm, and I'm sure you know this, but the 
> reason why he (or anyone for that matter) is above the rest of the 
> stations isn't the antenna - or at least its just a factor in the 
> overall scheme of things ... propagation is a key factor as is 
> location, location location.
>
> Before I recently moved to South Carolina I used HFTA extensively to 
> vet every home we were looking at .... in 6 months found zero that met 
> all our criteria - so instead I found 11+ acres that was great re HFTA 
> (and ok for most other things) and bought it - built a house and am 
> now assembling a station ... angle is the most important factor 
> (assuming propagation is there - or compared to another station 
> nearby) in that it can make an average antenna - even a dipole - out 
> perform a large array ... HFTA will tell you this and I personally 
> know - when I was in Arizona Dave, AB7E, was on the side of a mountain 
> with a gentle slope towards EU out for miles - when modeled his 
> location equipped with a dipole at 40' would outperform my 3/3/3 on 20 
> meters - towards EU .... and I'd hear VK's 20 over that he couldn't 
> tell were there!
>
> I only write this because it appears you're suggesting that it is this 
> antenna that makes all these stations above the pack. Generally 
> speaking the difference between an average 3 element beam on a 
> compromised boom (length) and a monobander is only 2 or 3 db...
>
> Gary
> K9RX
>
> -----Original Message----- From: PAUL924 at aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:17 PM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Something new in the air...
>
>
> Hi Guys,
> I recently had a QSO with Amir 4X6TT and even during these  poor
> propagation conditions he was 59+ 20db on 20 meters. I asked him what 
> type of antenna
> he was using and he said a GPX 16-3 which I had never heard of before. I
> located the website  _www.gpxantennas.com_ 
> (http://www.gpxantennas.com/) .
> owner SP7GPX. After I signed with him several other stateside stations 
> using
> antennas  from this site called him and they were also very loud.
> I wanted share this information  with those members of TowerTalk who may
> not be familiar with these  antennas.
> 73,
> Paul  W2JGQ


From w2ttt at att.net  Thu Jul 14 15:21:26 2016
From: w2ttt at att.net (James Gordon Beattie, Jr.)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 12:21:26 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Engineering
In-Reply-To: <155e5514add-36de-298c9@webprd-m63.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <1468524086.92173.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web185303.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Hans,

I have seen many with career challenges such as what you describe. ?Early in my career I even had a dose of that business model. ?Even with space projects and other marquee endeavors there were always periodic layoffs to "meet budget".


Even in private industry, most deployments of computer and communications hardware and software had to be done at nights, weekends and holidays. ?Not exactly ideal for a personal and family life.


Having said that, I have been very blessed with a wonderful career at AT&T since the age of 29 when I started as a Bell Labs consultant for 7+ years. ? In 1994 I was converted as a full Member of Technical Staff, and now I am a Principal Systems Engineer. ?The breadth and depth of opportunities and experiences has been awesome. ?These opportunities are partially reflected in a patent portfolio which touches a wide area of disciplines. ?Tinkering as a ham and computer hobbiest, serving as a Scoutmaster and other things in our church and community have also contributed to a rich collaborative approach to life in general. ?Balance that with a wonderful wife and three great sons, you end up with much to offer.


Currently, the company is systematically offering educational opportunities to all employees and paying for it. ?Further, they are mandating it, so that they can leverage the vast pools of existing domain knowledge as it evolves into an increasingly software and data-driven world. ?It is both good for the business as well as for the employees, but it is, as you inferred, not as pervasive a personnel approach as we all might like.


Finally, I was once given a compliment by my boss at the time. ?She said that, "I was the solution to the problem waiting for the problem to show up." ?My advice to everyone is to?

"Be that person" in whatever career or avocation you pursue. ?No one is indispensible, but it makes it less likely to be downsized if you have proven value across skillets and it doesn't hurt to be helpful and nice.?

73,

Gordon Beattie?

Sent from AT&T Mail on Android

From:"Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk" <towertalk at contesting.com>
Date:Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 22:30
Subject:[TowerTalk] Fwd: AES SK

Hi Grant,


Let me through in a penny here.


I have been "working" in this country for 30 years. When I went to engineering school (more than 50 years ago) we were a proud bunch of student that were going to provide the country (and the world) with the best engineered products available. Working in this country I found that engineers are commodities that were used "as efficient as possible". Way too many times have I been offered a "permanent" position just to be told after I finished a project (frequently ahead of schedule) that they had no more projects for me and I had to go.


With that in mind I truly understand students that don't want to pursue an engineering career. They will have student loans to pay plus they want to make a living beyond barely "getting around". The day these "fast buck artists" that role our economy today, understand that the USA cannot continue to promote non-producing industries such as "Wall Streeters", the engineers will be appreciated and we will get a quality engineering corp again. USA needs a new "Put-a-man-on-the-Moon" incentive. The Apollo project was just sooo good for the country.


With a high heart rate for the moment. 73 de,


Hans - N2JFS


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Saviers <grants2 at pacbell.net>
To: Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>; towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Wed, Jul 13, 2016 9:30 am
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK


Engineering as a profession is "too hard" for many US students, PolySci 
is easy but then graduates wonder why their jobs are in retail or food 
service.? A recent major magazine article was about the "crushing 
college debt" of many students and their inability to pay.? NOT ONCE did 
it mention the career choice of the students profiled - DUH. 



_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From KH6LC at hotmail.com  Thu Jul 14 20:22:42 2016
From: KH6LC at hotmail.com (Lloyd Cabral)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:22:42 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
Message-ID: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

I'm looking for a CD of HFTA.      I went to grab mine today and found it cracked.

Anyone have a copy I can beg, borrow or steal?


                              Thanks & Aloha,

                                Lloyd   KH6LC

From jimlux at earthlink.net  Thu Jul 14 20:48:10 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:48:10 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
In-Reply-To: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <f44f75b7-dc94-2fa2-8cdb-2a1fa1b4506f@earthlink.net>

On 7/14/16 5:22 PM, Lloyd Cabral wrote:
> I'm looking for a CD of HFTA.      I went to grab mine today and found it cracked.
>
> Anyone have a copy I can beg, borrow or steal?
>
>

You might be able to get a replacement copy from ARRL by sending them 
your broken copy.


From r_bakalov at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 14 21:08:14 2016
From: r_bakalov at yahoo.com (Rudy Bakalov)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 01:08:14 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
In-Reply-To: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <1359082880.23476.1468544894572.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

This would be a great program to open source.
Rudy N2WQ
      From: Lloyd Cabral <KH6LC at hotmail.com>
 To: "towertalk at contesting.com" <towertalk at contesting.com> 
 Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:22 PM
 Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
   
I'm looking for a CD of HFTA.? ? ? I went to grab mine today and found it cracked.

Anyone have a copy I can beg, borrow or steal?


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Thanks & Aloha,

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Lloyd? KH6LC
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


  

From w9ac at arrl.net  Thu Jul 14 22:48:14 2016
From: w9ac at arrl.net (Paul Christensen)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 22:48:14 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
Message-ID: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>

It's looking more probable that the remote Internet site built last year by
N4CC and myself will require a complete move about a half-mile down the
road.  Assuming this is the case, I want to pay particular attention this
time to Ufer grounding of the two tower bases.  These are large Pirod
self-supporting towers with substantial concrete piers.  The relevant
portion of Motorola's R56 standard is copied and pasted below.  The soil in
this area is very sandy and at the current site, we ended up having to drive
down a total of four 24 ft. rods to get adequately low earthing resistance.
That was a rough day of work even with a hammer drill. 

My thought is to "spiral wind" solid #2 AWG wire, beginning the bottom rebar
layer.  Cadweld it at the start point, and then periodically Cadweld at
random points where the wire crosses other rebar sections.  The wire would
exit at the top of the pier using a small-diameter PVC pipe as shown in one
of the R56 diagrams.  As the wire nears the top, possibly it could branch
out into two additional directions for bonding to the tower base and
perimeter ring.  

Any issues with this plan?   

Paul, W9AC

Motorola R56 Ufer Guidelines:

. Concrete-encased electrodes shall be encased by at least 51 mm (2 in.) of
concrete, located within
and near the bottom of a concrete foundation or footing that is in direct
contact with the earth.

. Concrete-encased electrodes shall be at least 6.1 m (20 ft.) of bare
copper conductor not smaller
than 25 mm2 csa (#4 AWG) or at least 6.1 m (20 ft.) of one or more bare or
zinc galvanized or other
conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods at least 12.7 mm (0.5 in.)
in diameter.

. Concrete-encased electrodes shall be bonded to any other grounding
electrode system at the site.
See "Common Grounding (Earthing)" on page 4-5.


From grants2 at pacbell.net  Thu Jul 14 23:27:14 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:27:14 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
In-Reply-To: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>
References: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <57885812.6030207@pacbell.net>

If you Cadweld to the rods, I think you need to use weldable rebar, 
otherwise the exothermic reaction temperature is going to create a weak 
spot.

IMO, the wire ought to route directly to and tied to perimeter rods, and 
welding probably isn't needed. The difference in conductivity of the 
larger diameter rebar vs #2 copper probably doesn't matter. Multiple 
straight parallel paths from every tower leg to the perimeter rods may 
be a better way to spend the wire, lowering inductance and spreading the 
current more evenly inside the concrete.

Adding rods and wire in a radial pattern would also improve the RF 
properties.  Since you needed 24 ft deep rods in the prior installation 
that would allow one rod per radial, maybe two with the recommended 
separation and usual maximum radial length.

Lay #2 in every trench below every conduit run to the shack.  I have 
more or less "average soil" and could measure 110' of bare wire in the 
trench as helpful as well as it is needed to tie each tower to the entry 
panel ground.

My favorite guide is at 
https://www.timesmicrowave.com/documents/resources/protectbrochure.pdf
I think it is the best written with solid engineering explanations.

Just my thoughts, haven't been "hit".

Grant KZ1W

On 7/14/2016 19:48 PM, Paul Christensen wrote:
> It's looking more probable that the remote Internet site built last year by
> N4CC and myself will require a complete move about a half-mile down the
> road.  Assuming this is the case, I want to pay particular attention this
> time to Ufer grounding of the two tower bases.  These are large Pirod
> self-supporting towers with substantial concrete piers.  The relevant
> portion of Motorola's R56 standard is copied and pasted below.  The soil in
> this area is very sandy and at the current site, we ended up having to drive
> down a total of four 24 ft. rods to get adequately low earthing resistance.
> That was a rough day of work even with a hammer drill.
>
> My thought is to "spiral wind" solid #2 AWG wire, beginning the bottom rebar
> layer.  Cadweld it at the start point, and then periodically Cadweld at
> random points where the wire crosses other rebar sections.  The wire would
> exit at the top of the pier using a small-diameter PVC pipe as shown in one
> of the R56 diagrams.  As the wire nears the top, possibly it could branch
> out into two additional directions for bonding to the tower base and
> perimeter ring.
>
> Any issues with this plan?
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> Motorola R56 Ufer Guidelines:
>
> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be encased by at least 51 mm (2 in.) of
> concrete, located within
> and near the bottom of a concrete foundation or footing that is in direct
> contact with the earth.
>
> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be at least 6.1 m (20 ft.) of bare
> copper conductor not smaller
> than 25 mm2 csa (#4 AWG) or at least 6.1 m (20 ft.) of one or more bare or
> zinc galvanized or other
> conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods at least 12.7 mm (0.5 in.)
> in diameter.
>
> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be bonded to any other grounding
> electrode system at the site.
> See "Common Grounding (Earthing)" on page 4-5.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Thu Jul 14 23:38:10 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:38:10 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
In-Reply-To: <1359082880.23476.1468544894572.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
	<1359082880.23476.1468544894572.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c1d494b2-0c2c-87bc-ee5c-879f91de71e6@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Thu,7/14/2016 6:08 PM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
> This would be a great program to open source.

Well, ARRL paid N6BV's salary when he was writing it, and the two of 
them have chosen to distribute it with the Antenna Book. That's a great 
reference, well worth owning.

73, Jim K9YC


From maflukey at gmail.com  Fri Jul 15 02:24:30 2016
From: maflukey at gmail.com (Matt)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 01:24:30 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] FW:  question about a matching transformer
In-Reply-To: <7F2A3A0508A34A72902A05557EB5B5DC@RXDesignDell>
References: <7F2A3A0508A34A72902A05557EB5B5DC@RXDesignDell>
Message-ID: <007001d1de61$8bdb3cd0$a391b670$@gmail.com>

Hi Gary,

I know you are looking at the quintifilar design but thought I would share this report.   I once built W2FMI 2:1 un-un based on his trifilar coaxial design using homemade 14 ohm coax on an FT240K - reference Figures 7-12(c) & 7-13 in the 4th edition.  I installed this un-un in a prototype stackmatch box similar to CN2R design except with etched circuit board.   I tested it behind an AL1500 at legal limit.   The transformer ran very cool on power soak test and SWR was flat up to 15m indicating very good transformer efficiency.   At 10m the SWR was up just a bit and the transformer ran slightly warm - but not hot.   Constructing the 14 ohm coax was a real pain, as was winding the un-un because it is so stiff.  As I was needing 3 sets of stack boxes I ultimately decided that the home-brew approach was more trouble that it was worth and abandoned the prototype for a set of WX0B boxes.  2.25:1 ratio is not an issue.   Incidentally the applications are all for double stacks - not triples.

Hope this info helps & good luck on your project!

Matt
KM5VI



-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of StellarCAT
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:21 PM
To: tower <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] question about a matching transformer

Hello, 

this is to those experts out there familiar with toroidal transformers. 

The common one used in boxes like the ?StackMatch? is a 2.25:1 transformer. it is tri-filiar wound on a 2.4? core. So it provides, when seeing 2 50 ohm loads (2 monobanders for example) an SWR of about 1.14:1. 

So in the WX0B version, shown in the ARRL AB, there are 4 turns. In the W2FMI version there are 6 turns. In either case the transformation is clear: 3 ?coils? divided down to 2 coils or a turns ratio of 1.5:1 so the impedance ratio would be 2.25:1 (1.5^2). 

But there is a version of it ? shown in W2FMI?s book, that provides for a 2:1 match. And my initial thoughts are ? if I am using 2 monobanders and I can do 2:1 why would I not do it? 

W2FMI shows again a tri-filiar wound coil ? with 6 turns and the ?top? or end coil, that which is going to the source, is tapped down 1 turn from the source end. Thus you have essentially (5/6 + 2)/2 = 1.416:1 or an impedance ratio of 2:1! 

That all is straight forward. I?ve never seen someone do this ? but it seems again straight forward. 

So I have been TRYING to get it to work without any success. 

I start with a 240 core (tested both K and 61 material) ... and I have attached to it ? short leads, 2 50 ohm resistors with a measured resistance of 25.3. And an SO239. I?ve checked it using a SARK110. This is not on a PCB ? no relays, no board traces ? just short leads on a transformer, 2 resistors and comp cap. 

So wound with 5 turns I can establish, using the K material, a relatively good response for the 2.25:1 version. (The 61 material is not quite as good). I have to use a compensation capacitor at the load input and have tested various values. The best ?fit?, using the 2.25:1 ratio (trying to duplicate its results first) is to use a value of 75pf. That gives me an SWR of 1.14:1 on 20 and 15 and 1.15:1 on 20. 

So I then tap down ~1 turn (for 5 turns tapped down 1 turn it should still be, in theory, 1.96:1 or an SWR of 1.02:1) ... and I cannot for the live of me get any kind of what seems like proper results. It is quite high on 10 meters ? approaching 2:1 and typically 1.2:1 or worse on 20 depending on the comp cap. I?ve tested anywhere from no comp cap to 200pf in small increments ... it just doesn?t work. [note any comment about the choice of the resistor load, which are metal film, has to be considered under the light of ? it works using the 2.25:1 version!]

Can an expert perhaps write to me directly, not burdening others here, and hopefully point me in the correct direction please? This SHOULD work! 

Gary
K9RX at arrl dot net

[ref: The SARK has been OSL calibrated with the cable in use ? and the resistor load has been checked at the end of that independent of the transformer and reads 2.00:1 from 14 through 29Mhz with 0 ohms reactance[ _______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From r_bakalov at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 15 05:23:46 2016
From: r_bakalov at yahoo.com (Rudy Bakalov)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 05:23:46 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
In-Reply-To: <c1d494b2-0c2c-87bc-ee5c-879f91de71e6@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
	<1359082880.23476.1468544894572.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<c1d494b2-0c2c-87bc-ee5c-879f91de71e6@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <D73AD613-5A27-485F-B59C-608C3729DA22@yahoo.com>

Well, all this has been funded by the ARRL dues.  We members have all paid for it.

It's not about the funding though. I have purchased 3 copies of the book and have the software. But by locking it in the book the software has seen no further development.

Rudy N2WQ

Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.


> On Jul 14, 2016, at 11:38 PM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu,7/14/2016 6:08 PM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
>> This would be a great program to open source.
> 
> Well, ARRL paid N6BV's salary when he was writing it, and the two of them have chosen to distribute it with the Antenna Book. That's a great reference, well worth owning.
> 
> 73, Jim K9YC
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From w3yy at cox.net  Fri Jul 15 06:51:21 2016
From: w3yy at cox.net (W3YY)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:51:21 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
In-Reply-To: <JxSz1t00G32TbLd01xTDgm>
References: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>	<1359082880.23476.1468544894572.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>	<c1d494b2-0c2c-87bc-ee5c-879f91de71e6@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<JxSz1t00G32TbLd01xTDgm>
Message-ID: <002101d1de86$d3f46c10$7bdd4430$@cox.net>

No, you haven't paid for the source code.  You paid to use the program.

I know of no agreement to open-sourcing the code in any agreement between
N6BV and the ARRL.

As hams, we've been blessed to have many exceptional PC programs provided
and supported free of charge or included with ARRL publications.  But those
programs are not open-sourced and we can't expect programmers to give away
their code for free.

73 , Bob - W3YY   

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rudy
Bakalov via TowerTalk
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 5:24 AM
To: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com
Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....

Well, all this has been funded by the ARRL dues.  We members have all paid
for it.

It's not about the funding though. I have purchased 3 copies of the book and
have the software. But by locking it in the book the software has seen no
further development.

Rudy N2WQ

Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
autocorrect.


> On Jul 14, 2016, at 11:38 PM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu,7/14/2016 6:08 PM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
>> This would be a great program to open source.
> 
> Well, ARRL paid N6BV's salary when he was writing it, and the two of them
have chosen to distribute it with the Antenna Book. That's a great
reference, well worth owning.
> 
> 73, Jim K9YC
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From r_bakalov at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 15 07:15:56 2016
From: r_bakalov at yahoo.com (Rudy Bakalov)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:15:56 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
In-Reply-To: <002101d1de86$d3f46c10$7bdd4430$@cox.net>
References: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
	<1359082880.23476.1468544894572.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<c1d494b2-0c2c-87bc-ee5c-879f91de71e6@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<JxSz1t00G32TbLd01xTDgm> <002101d1de86$d3f46c10$7bdd4430$@cox.net>
Message-ID: <E2E91DB7-B7DD-4D68-91AD-EAE32FC91100@yahoo.com>

First off, this was a proposal, not a statement. Quite the difference.

Second, the thought behind the proposal is to further development of otherwise stale software.

With respect to the ownership of the intellectual property, by and large the US law states is that whoever paid for the development owns the IP. If the code was developed during someone's ARRL employment, it is the ARRL that owns the IP unless the ARRL explicitly waived its rights.

By the way, the statement about paying for the right to use the software is a slippery slope too. The issue is lack of support. In the past I did have problems with the software and there was nobody to provide support.

Again, the proposal is not about avoiding paying for the software, but about its further development. I have 3 copies of the software.

Rudy N2WQ

Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.


> On Jul 15, 2016, at 6:51 AM, W3YY <w3yy at cox.net> wrote:
> 
> No, you haven't paid for the source code.  You paid to use the program.
> 
> I know of no agreement to open-sourcing the code in any agreement between
> N6BV and the ARRL.
> 
> As hams, we've been blessed to have many exceptional PC programs provided
> and supported free of charge or included with ARRL publications.  But those
> programs are not open-sourced and we can't expect programmers to give away
> their code for free.
> 
> 73 , Bob - W3YY   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rudy
> Bakalov via TowerTalk
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 5:24 AM
> To: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com
> Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
> 
> Well, all this has been funded by the ARRL dues.  We members have all paid
> for it.
> 
> It's not about the funding though. I have purchased 3 copies of the book and
> have the software. But by locking it in the book the software has seen no
> further development.
> 
> Rudy N2WQ
> 
> Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
> autocorrect.
> 
> 
>>> On Jul 14, 2016, at 11:38 PM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu,7/14/2016 6:08 PM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
>>> This would be a great program to open source.
>> 
>> Well, ARRL paid N6BV's salary when he was writing it, and the two of them
> have chosen to distribute it with the Antenna Book. That's a great
> reference, well worth owning.
>> 
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From kz8e at wt.net  Fri Jul 15 10:26:43 2016
From: kz8e at wt.net (Earl Morse)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:26:43 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Engineering
Message-ID: <20160715072643.761292E1@m0087796.ppops.net>

If given these opportunities for real education (not that crap education that HR requires you to take so you can be politically correct or remember to wear your safety glasses) jump on them.

There is a big push to model everything these days (virtual engineering), and if you have been in the work force for 25 years then you probably don't have those skills from your college days.  We hadn't invented a personal computer yet that would run modelling software when I was in college.  I have yet to have an employer send me out to learn any of the modelling tools.  Good thing I have some of my own and have modeled my own stuff because of this hobby.  Still would be nice if I had some formal training and access to the multi kilobuck tools.

Funny how the guys that modeled all this stuff up front disappear after the prototypes show up and the real performance doesn't match the model.  That's when my phone rings and we have to go back to how we used to do it in order to get the product into production.

I agree with Hans that many companies treat engineers as cannon fodder.  My current company thinks that you can write a process and any nimrod can follow it and end up with a functioning product at the end.  Unfortunately, there seem to be a few blocks in that flow chart that say "Magic Happens". 

I have been fortunate in my career managing to stay at companies for 5+ years before jumping ship.  Catching the last life boat to a new company.  Those changes were usually facilitated by a changing business structure (computer industry).  Making yourself indispensable (not by being responsible for the bathroom key) but by being knowledgeable and can-do will help ensure you land on your feet during corporate changes.

Earl
N8SS

--- towertalk-request at contesting.com wrote:



Currently, the company is systematically offering educational opportunities to all employees and paying for it. ?Further, they are mandating it, so that they can leverage the vast pools of existing domain knowledge as it evolves into an increasingly software and data-driven world. ?It is both good for the business as well as for the employees, but it is, as you inferred, not as pervasive a personnel approach as we all might like.



_______________________________________________






From fishflorida at gmail.com  Fri Jul 15 11:03:18 2016
From: fishflorida at gmail.com (Mickey Baker)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:03:18 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Engineering
In-Reply-To: <20160715072643.761292E1@m0087796.ppops.net>
References: <20160715072643.761292E1@m0087796.ppops.net>
Message-ID: <CAOB+T5Y4nuCdO-ExW2gmXJW8F29kZML07-aURTx8M3AsjehV+A@mail.gmail.com>

Earl, and all,

Modeling is getting easier all the time. There are a lot of places that you
can get free trial software - Solidworks and Nastran, for example - and buy
it if you have a real project where you can use it for profit.

There are a even more packages available with Gnu Public License (GPL) or
in the public domain that are better than calculating everything with
forspreadsheet for FEA. -
http://wiki.developspace.net/Open_Source_Engineering_Tools as an example,

So take advantage of your company education opportunities, talk to some of
the software vendors and get eval software and perhaps online training! You
won't know if they're useful to you unless you try them, and if you try
something that's germane to your work environment, your company might
purchase it.

73,

Mickey N4MB

From rcblumen at centurylink.net  Fri Jul 15 11:58:52 2016
From: rcblumen at centurylink.net (Dick Blumenstein)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:58:52 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
In-Reply-To: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>
References: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <2c73e8d6-67de-ec1f-ffab-4f41a283e1ef@centurylink.net>

Hi Paul-

I thought that one is NOT supposed to ever weld to the rebar, unless the 
rebar is spec'd for welding, which most are not; that all grounding wire 
should be clamped to the rebar and then when the wire leaves the area of 
the tower base, you should/could cad weld it to the ground rod system.  
Am I wrong here? (I'm about to build a concrete tower base with a 5' x 
5' x 8' deep hole and a lot of rebar).

Dick, K0CAT

============================


Paul Christensen wrote on 7/14/2016 10:48 PM:
> It's looking more probable that the remote Internet site built last year by
> N4CC and myself will require a complete move about a half-mile down the
> road.  Assuming this is the case, I want to pay particular attention this
> time to Ufer grounding of the two tower bases.  These are large Pirod
> self-supporting towers with substantial concrete piers.  The relevant
> portion of Motorola's R56 standard is copied and pasted below.  The soil in
> this area is very sandy and at the current site, we ended up having to drive
> down a total of four 24 ft. rods to get adequately low earthing resistance.
> That was a rough day of work even with a hammer drill.
>
> My thought is to "spiral wind" solid #2 AWG wire, beginning the bottom rebar
> layer.  Cadweld it at the start point, and then periodically Cadweld at
> random points where the wire crosses other rebar sections.  The wire would
> exit at the top of the pier using a small-diameter PVC pipe as shown in one
> of the R56 diagrams.  As the wire nears the top, possibly it could branch
> out into two additional directions for bonding to the tower base and
> perimeter ring.
>
> Any issues with this plan?
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> Motorola R56 Ufer Guidelines:
>
> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be encased by at least 51 mm (2 in.) of
> concrete, located within
> and near the bottom of a concrete foundation or footing that is in direct
> contact with the earth.
>
> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be at least 6.1 m (20 ft.) of bare
> copper conductor not smaller
> than 25 mm2 csa (#4 AWG) or at least 6.1 m (20 ft.) of one or more bare or
> zinc galvanized or other
> conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods at least 12.7 mm (0.5 in.)
> in diameter.
>
> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be bonded to any other grounding
> electrode system at the site.
> See "Common Grounding (Earthing)" on page 4-5.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From w9ac at arrl.net  Fri Jul 15 12:03:59 2016
From: w9ac at arrl.net (Paul Christensen)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:03:59 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
In-Reply-To: <2c73e8d6-67de-ec1f-ffab-4f41a283e1ef@centurylink.net>
References: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>
	<2c73e8d6-67de-ec1f-ffab-4f41a283e1ef@centurylink.net>
Message-ID: <000801d1deb2$7feb3140$7fc193c0$@arrl.net>

>"I thought that one is NOT supposed to ever weld to the rebar, unless the
rebar is spec'd for welding, which most are not"

No idea, but Erico sells many forms of Cadweld shots that are designed to
bond coper wire with rebar.  Anyone know the answer?  Is there a special
form of rebar that can only be used with an exothermic weld?

Paul, W9AC

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dick
Blumenstein
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 11:59 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding

Hi Paul-

I thought that one is NOT supposed to ever weld to the rebar, unless the
rebar is spec'd for welding, which most are not; that all grounding wire
should be clamped to the rebar and then when the wire leaves the area of the
tower base, you should/could cad weld it to the ground rod system.  
Am I wrong here? (I'm about to build a concrete tower base with a 5' x 5' x
8' deep hole and a lot of rebar).

Dick, K0CAT

============================


Paul Christensen wrote on 7/14/2016 10:48 PM:
> It's looking more probable that the remote Internet site built last 
> year by N4CC and myself will require a complete move about a half-mile 
> down the road.  Assuming this is the case, I want to pay particular 
> attention this time to Ufer grounding of the two tower bases.  These 
> are large Pirod self-supporting towers with substantial concrete 
> piers.  The relevant portion of Motorola's R56 standard is copied and 
> pasted below.  The soil in this area is very sandy and at the current 
> site, we ended up having to drive down a total of four 24 ft. rods to get
adequately low earthing resistance.
> That was a rough day of work even with a hammer drill.
>
> My thought is to "spiral wind" solid #2 AWG wire, beginning the bottom 
> rebar layer.  Cadweld it at the start point, and then periodically 
> Cadweld at random points where the wire crosses other rebar sections.  
> The wire would exit at the top of the pier using a small-diameter PVC 
> pipe as shown in one of the R56 diagrams.  As the wire nears the top, 
> possibly it could branch out into two additional directions for 
> bonding to the tower base and perimeter ring.
>
> Any issues with this plan?
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> Motorola R56 Ufer Guidelines:
>
> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be encased by at least 51 mm (2 
> in.) of concrete, located within and near the bottom of a concrete 
> foundation or footing that is in direct contact with the earth.
>
> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be at least 6.1 m (20 ft.) of bare 
> copper conductor not smaller than 25 mm2 csa (#4 AWG) or at least 6.1 
> m (20 ft.) of one or more bare or zinc galvanized or other conductive 
> coated steel reinforcing bars or rods at least 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) in 
> diameter.
>
> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be bonded to any other grounding 
> electrode system at the site.
> See "Common Grounding (Earthing)" on page 4-5.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Fri Jul 15 12:25:10 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:25:10 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
In-Reply-To: <E2E91DB7-B7DD-4D68-91AD-EAE32FC91100@yahoo.com>
References: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
	<1359082880.23476.1468544894572.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<c1d494b2-0c2c-87bc-ee5c-879f91de71e6@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<JxSz1t00G32TbLd01xTDgm> <002101d1de86$d3f46c10$7bdd4430$@cox.net>
	<E2E91DB7-B7DD-4D68-91AD-EAE32FC91100@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4044f89a-c08b-bab1-9769-b275ea4cb042@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Fri,7/15/2016 4:15 AM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
> Second, the thought behind the proposal is to further development of otherwise stale software.
-- 
> By the way, the statement about paying for the right to use the software is a slippery slope too. The issue is lack of support. In the past I did have problems with the software and there was nobody to provide support.

I don't think I would describe HFTA as "stale" -- the issues with using 
it are largely related to obtaining the data for it, which are the 
result of how agencies of governments, including the US, provide the 
data online. That has required support, and N6BV and ARRL have provided 
it in the form of updates to the procedures that are posted on the ARRL 
website. Also, N6BV has done at least one online tutorial on use of the 
software. It was hosted by PVRC, a major contest club roughly centered 
around DC.

Yes, it could be a bit more automated, perhaps in the manner that AC6LA 
has done for W7EL's EZNEC.

What I'd really like to see is a program like HFTA for vertically 
polarized antennas. When I suggested it to Dean several years ago, he 
told me that Parkinson's had begun some deterioration, so that he no 
longer felt able to work at the needed level of detail. I've suggested 
that project to another engineer with the math and antenna chops to do 
it. We'll see.

73, Jim K9YC

From grants2 at pacbell.net  Fri Jul 15 12:43:47 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:43:47 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
In-Reply-To: <E2E91DB7-B7DD-4D68-91AD-EAE32FC91100@yahoo.com>
References: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
	<1359082880.23476.1468544894572.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<c1d494b2-0c2c-87bc-ee5c-879f91de71e6@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<JxSz1t00G32TbLd01xTDgm> <002101d1de86$d3f46c10$7bdd4430$@cox.net>
	<E2E91DB7-B7DD-4D68-91AD-EAE32FC91100@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <578912C3.5070706@pacbell.net>

Rudy,

That is a great idea to develop HFTA further, or replace it entirely.  
If I understood N6BV's  comments at a conference last year it is an old 
mainframe Fortran card deck program with all the memory limitations that 
implies. IRRC he has no inclination to revisit it either.  So, he and 
the ARRL may welcome a major upgrade.  Besides GUI tweaking, I think 
there could be a lot more functionality added given the supercomputer 
capabilities of current PCs.

The GUI upgrades for driving VOACAP  are pretty interesting and the 
Fortran source is in the public domain.  Lots of data at voacap.com.

Grant KZ1W



On 7/15/2016 4:15 AM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
> First off, this was a proposal, not a statement. Quite the difference.
>
> Second, the thought behind the proposal is to further development of otherwise stale software.
>
> With respect to the ownership of the intellectual property, by and large the US law states is that whoever paid for the development owns the IP. If the code was developed during someone's ARRL employment, it is the ARRL that owns the IP unless the ARRL explicitly waived its rights.
>
> By the way, the statement about paying for the right to use the software is a slippery slope too. The issue is lack of support. In the past I did have problems with the software and there was nobody to provide support.
>
> Again, the proposal is not about avoiding paying for the software, but about its further development. I have 3 copies of the software.
>
> Rudy N2WQ
>
> Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.
>
>
>> On Jul 15, 2016, at 6:51 AM, W3YY <w3yy at cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> No, you haven't paid for the source code.  You paid to use the program.
>>
>> I know of no agreement to open-sourcing the code in any agreement between
>> N6BV and the ARRL.
>>
>> As hams, we've been blessed to have many exceptional PC programs provided
>> and supported free of charge or included with ARRL publications.  But those
>> programs are not open-sourced and we can't expect programmers to give away
>> their code for free.
>>
>> 73 , Bob - W3YY
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rudy
>> Bakalov via TowerTalk
>> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 5:24 AM
>> To: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com
>> Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
>>
>> Well, all this has been funded by the ARRL dues.  We members have all paid
>> for it.
>>
>> It's not about the funding though. I have purchased 3 copies of the book and
>> have the software. But by locking it in the book the software has seen no
>> further development.
>>
>> Rudy N2WQ
>>
>> Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
>> autocorrect.
>>
>>
>>>> On Jul 14, 2016, at 11:38 PM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu,7/14/2016 6:08 PM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
>>>> This would be a great program to open source.
>>> Well, ARRL paid N6BV's salary when he was writing it, and the two of them
>> have chosen to distribute it with the Antenna Book. That's a great
>> reference, well worth owning.
>>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


From mspencer12345 at yahoo.ca  Fri Jul 15 14:02:11 2016
From: mspencer12345 at yahoo.ca (Mark Spencer)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:02:11 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Engineering
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5691.1468545071.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
References: <mailman.5691.1468545071.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <254046C5-CD71-4B98-AD37-BC1E41953B0C@yahoo.ca>

Sorry for the off topic post but as a successful holder of a BA in political science (at least in my view (:  ) who was able to stop working on a full time basis as a technology professional before I was 50 I believe I received value from that degree.  I found out after I was hired into my first real job in the technology sector that my BA played a major role in my selection.

Subsequently I got a 2 year technical diploma and later an MBA, along with getting married, buying real estate, starting my own business, helping my wife raise a family, etc...  I'll skip the details of my career other than to say before I turned 40 I was able to meet and then surpass the initial goals I set for myself after graduation.

I agree with the comments made by others that the technology profession (at least in my experience) demands a lot of effort (as well as results.)  

Have I encountered people who have questioned my choice of my first degree, yes.  

In hindsight I believe the extra efforts I chose to make to prove my abilities in a technical field played a major role in my career.  At times I felt I had to work a bit harder and dig a bit deeper into issues and in hindsight I believe it paid off for me. 

73 
Mark S
VE7AFZ

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Saviers <grants2 at pacbell.net>
> To: Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>; towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Sent: Wed, Jul 13, 2016 9:30 am
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AES SK
> 
> 
> Engineering as a profession is "too hard" for many US students, PolySci 
> is easy but then graduates wonder why their jobs are in retail or food 
> service.? 

From xdavid at cis-broadband.com  Fri Jul 15 14:06:30 2016
From: xdavid at cis-broadband.com (David Gilbert)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:06:30 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
In-Reply-To: <000801d1deb2$7feb3140$7fc193c0$@arrl.net>
References: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>
	<2c73e8d6-67de-ec1f-ffab-4f41a283e1ef@centurylink.net>
	<000801d1deb2$7feb3140$7fc193c0$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <2f66c7fa-09fc-8b85-75ca-385022317bd3@cis-broadband.com>


Normal rebar is made from random composition steel melted down from old 
car chassis, bed springs, washing machine frames, older reclaimed rebar, 
etc.  Welds made to it have completely indeterminate strength.

Weldable rebar has controlled content and is spec'd where the rebar 
joints need to be structurally strong.  I think rebar cages for bridge 
pylons and large building columns might be an example.

I don't see any problem cadwelding copper wire to normal rebar since we 
aren't looking for structural strength anyway.  The materials (copper 
and iron/steel) are inherently different in the first place.

Dave   AB7E


On 7/15/2016 9:03 AM, Paul Christensen wrote:
>> "I thought that one is NOT supposed to ever weld to the rebar, unless the
> rebar is spec'd for welding, which most are not"
>
> No idea, but Erico sells many forms of Cadweld shots that are designed to
> bond coper wire with rebar.  Anyone know the answer?  Is there a special
> form of rebar that can only be used with an exothermic weld?
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dick
> Blumenstein
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 11:59 AM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
>
> Hi Paul-
>
> I thought that one is NOT supposed to ever weld to the rebar, unless the
> rebar is spec'd for welding, which most are not; that all grounding wire
> should be clamped to the rebar and then when the wire leaves the area of the
> tower base, you should/could cad weld it to the ground rod system.
> Am I wrong here? (I'm about to build a concrete tower base with a 5' x 5' x
> 8' deep hole and a lot of rebar).
>
> Dick, K0CAT
>
> ============================
>
>
> Paul Christensen wrote on 7/14/2016 10:48 PM:
>> It's looking more probable that the remote Internet site built last
>> year by N4CC and myself will require a complete move about a half-mile
>> down the road.  Assuming this is the case, I want to pay particular
>> attention this time to Ufer grounding of the two tower bases.  These
>> are large Pirod self-supporting towers with substantial concrete
>> piers.  The relevant portion of Motorola's R56 standard is copied and
>> pasted below.  The soil in this area is very sandy and at the current
>> site, we ended up having to drive down a total of four 24 ft. rods to get
> adequately low earthing resistance.
>> That was a rough day of work even with a hammer drill.
>>
>> My thought is to "spiral wind" solid #2 AWG wire, beginning the bottom
>> rebar layer.  Cadweld it at the start point, and then periodically
>> Cadweld at random points where the wire crosses other rebar sections.
>> The wire would exit at the top of the pier using a small-diameter PVC
>> pipe as shown in one of the R56 diagrams.  As the wire nears the top,
>> possibly it could branch out into two additional directions for
>> bonding to the tower base and perimeter ring.
>>
>> Any issues with this plan?
>>
>> Paul, W9AC
>>
>> Motorola R56 Ufer Guidelines:
>>
>> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be encased by at least 51 mm (2
>> in.) of concrete, located within and near the bottom of a concrete
>> foundation or footing that is in direct contact with the earth.
>>
>> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be at least 6.1 m (20 ft.) of bare
>> copper conductor not smaller than 25 mm2 csa (#4 AWG) or at least 6.1
>> m (20 ft.) of one or more bare or zinc galvanized or other conductive
>> coated steel reinforcing bars or rods at least 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) in
>> diameter.
>>
>> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be bonded to any other grounding
>> electrode system at the site.
>> See "Common Grounding (Earthing)" on page 4-5.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From jimlux at earthlink.net  Fri Jul 15 14:14:07 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:14:07 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
In-Reply-To: <2f66c7fa-09fc-8b85-75ca-385022317bd3@cis-broadband.com>
References: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>
	<2c73e8d6-67de-ec1f-ffab-4f41a283e1ef@centurylink.net>
	<000801d1deb2$7feb3140$7fc193c0$@arrl.net>
	<2f66c7fa-09fc-8b85-75ca-385022317bd3@cis-broadband.com>
Message-ID: <05f62846-7b60-a6ab-1f12-117701c3155e@earthlink.net>

On 7/15/16 11:06 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
>
> Normal rebar is made from random composition steel melted down from old
> car chassis, bed springs, washing machine frames, older reclaimed rebar,
> etc.  Welds made to it have completely indeterminate strength.
>
> Weldable rebar has controlled content and is spec'd where the rebar
> joints need to be structurally strong.  I think rebar cages for bridge
> pylons and large building columns might be an example.
>
> I don't see any problem cadwelding copper wire to normal rebar since we
> aren't looking for structural strength anyway.  The materials (copper
> and iron/steel) are inherently different in the first place.
>

It's unclear why you would feel compelled  weld the wire to the rebar 
(inside the concrete) in any case. The Ufer design doesn't require it. 
It's more about getting the appropriate length of metal into the concrete.

That said, if you're doing the "piece of rebar sticking up through the 
top" as the connection point, then some sort of welding of your copper 
wire to the rebar at that point would be useful.


From dickw1ksz at gmail.com  Fri Jul 15 14:18:31 2016
From: dickw1ksz at gmail.com (Richard Solomon)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:18:31 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
In-Reply-To: <4044f89a-c08b-bab1-9769-b275ea4cb042@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
	<1359082880.23476.1468544894572.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<c1d494b2-0c2c-87bc-ee5c-879f91de71e6@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<002101d1de86$d3f46c10$7bdd4430$@cox.net>
	<E2E91DB7-B7DD-4D68-91AD-EAE32FC91100@yahoo.com>
	<4044f89a-c08b-bab1-9769-b275ea4cb042@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <CAC5FBO_TDg1uAxWRad69ErRyvFncD_nLy2p3j819pT=nxXw8FQ@mail.gmail.com>

I was wondering if HFTA would be
of use if one had Vertical Antennas.

Guess not.

Thanks, you saved me a lot of
useless work.

73, Dick, W1KSZ

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
wrote:

> On Fri,7/15/2016 4:15 AM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
>
>> Second, the thought behind the proposal is to further development of
>> otherwise stale software.
>>
> --
>
>> By the way, the statement about paying for the right to use the software
>> is a slippery slope too. The issue is lack of support. In the past I did
>> have problems with the software and there was nobody to provide support.
>>
>
> I don't think I would describe HFTA as "stale" -- the issues with using it
> are largely related to obtaining the data for it, which are the result of
> how agencies of governments, including the US, provide the data online.
> That has required support, and N6BV and ARRL have provided it in the form
> of updates to the procedures that are posted on the ARRL website. Also,
> N6BV has done at least one online tutorial on use of the software. It was
> hosted by PVRC, a major contest club roughly centered around DC.
>
> Yes, it could be a bit more automated, perhaps in the manner that AC6LA
> has done for W7EL's EZNEC.
>
> What I'd really like to see is a program like HFTA for vertically
> polarized antennas. When I suggested it to Dean several years ago, he told
> me that Parkinson's had begun some deterioration, so that he no longer felt
> able to work at the needed level of detail. I've suggested that project to
> another engineer with the math and antenna chops to do it. We'll see.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From patrick_g at windstream.net  Fri Jul 15 14:20:16 2016
From: patrick_g at windstream.net (Patrick Greenlee)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:20:16 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
In-Reply-To: <000801d1deb2$7feb3140$7fc193c0$@arrl.net>
References: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>
	<2c73e8d6-67de-ec1f-ffab-4f41a283e1ef@centurylink.net>
	<000801d1deb2$7feb3140$7fc193c0$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <34b691e0-90fb-d8e8-45ab-a3d8a4fe408d@windstream.net>

"Regular" rebar vs weldable rebar.   You don't weld regular rebar 
because of strength issues.  With regular rebar you wouldn't weld 
anywhere strength is an issue due to embrittlement etc.  However, 
welding something onto the end of a piece of rebar which is not going to 
be mechanically challenged at the weld should not be a problem.

For example: You want to attach a ground wire to the end of a piece of 
rebar.  You can weld a nut to the rebar and then use a bolt to attach an 
electrical terminal to the end of the rebar. The nut (and bolt) can be 
stainless steel if you prefer. You should waterproof the above 
connection.  Wrap with good tape and cover with silicon rubber or use 
your favorite weatherproofing process. A good electrical compound such 
as no-alox or equivalent can also be used in addition to the 
weatherproofing..

Cad-welding to the end of a piece of rebar that is not going to be 
heavily stressed mechanically should not pose a problem (issue for the 
younger set.)

Patrick        NJ5G


On 7/15/2016 11:03 AM, Paul Christensen wrote:
>> "I thought that one is NOT supposed to ever weld to the rebar, unless the
> rebar is spec'd for welding, which most are not"
>
> No idea, but Erico sells many forms of Cadweld shots that are designed to
> bond coper wire with rebar.  Anyone know the answer?  Is there a special
> form of rebar that can only be used with an exothermic weld?
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dick
> Blumenstein
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 11:59 AM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
>
> Hi Paul-
>
> I thought that one is NOT supposed to ever weld to the rebar, unless the
> rebar is spec'd for welding, which most are not; that all grounding wire
> should be clamped to the rebar and then when the wire leaves the area of the
> tower base, you should/could cad weld it to the ground rod system.
> Am I wrong here? (I'm about to build a concrete tower base with a 5' x 5' x
> 8' deep hole and a lot of rebar).
>
> Dick, K0CAT
>
> ============================
>
>
> Paul Christensen wrote on 7/14/2016 10:48 PM:
>> It's looking more probable that the remote Internet site built last
>> year by N4CC and myself will require a complete move about a half-mile
>> down the road.  Assuming this is the case, I want to pay particular
>> attention this time to Ufer grounding of the two tower bases.  These
>> are large Pirod self-supporting towers with substantial concrete
>> piers.  The relevant portion of Motorola's R56 standard is copied and
>> pasted below.  The soil in this area is very sandy and at the current
>> site, we ended up having to drive down a total of four 24 ft. rods to get
> adequately low earthing resistance.
>> That was a rough day of work even with a hammer drill.
>>
>> My thought is to "spiral wind" solid #2 AWG wire, beginning the bottom
>> rebar layer.  Cadweld it at the start point, and then periodically
>> Cadweld at random points where the wire crosses other rebar sections.
>> The wire would exit at the top of the pier using a small-diameter PVC
>> pipe as shown in one of the R56 diagrams.  As the wire nears the top,
>> possibly it could branch out into two additional directions for
>> bonding to the tower base and perimeter ring.
>>
>> Any issues with this plan?
>>
>> Paul, W9AC
>>
>> Motorola R56 Ufer Guidelines:
>>
>> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be encased by at least 51 mm (2
>> in.) of concrete, located within and near the bottom of a concrete
>> foundation or footing that is in direct contact with the earth.
>>
>> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be at least 6.1 m (20 ft.) of bare
>> copper conductor not smaller than 25 mm2 csa (#4 AWG) or at least 6.1
>> m (20 ft.) of one or more bare or zinc galvanized or other conductive
>> coated steel reinforcing bars or rods at least 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) in
>> diameter.
>>
>> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be bonded to any other grounding
>> electrode system at the site.
>> See "Common Grounding (Earthing)" on page 4-5.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From hwardsil at gmail.com  Fri Jul 15 14:19:52 2016
From: hwardsil at gmail.com (Ward Silver)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:19:52 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5712.1468606026.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
References: <mailman.5712.1468606026.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <7a42a264-a34c-aec5-963b-742b3fc3547a@gmail.com>

Stu K6TU has put together a very nice web service for obtaining the data 
- see the Antenna Book's supplemental web page: 
http://www.arrl.org/arrl-antenna-book-reference.  The instructions for 
HFTA point you to K6TU's service and how to make use of the data.

73, Ward N0AX

 >  I don't think I would describe HFTA as "stale" -- the issues with 
using it are largely related to obtaining the data for it, which are the 
result of how agencies of governments, including the US, provide the 
data online.

From patrick_g at windstream.net  Fri Jul 15 14:22:30 2016
From: patrick_g at windstream.net (Patrick Greenlee)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:22:30 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
In-Reply-To: <05f62846-7b60-a6ab-1f12-117701c3155e@earthlink.net>
References: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>
	<2c73e8d6-67de-ec1f-ffab-4f41a283e1ef@centurylink.net>
	<000801d1deb2$7feb3140$7fc193c0$@arrl.net>
	<2f66c7fa-09fc-8b85-75ca-385022317bd3@cis-broadband.com>
	<05f62846-7b60-a6ab-1f12-117701c3155e@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <feae79d1-d34e-3424-93c3-419fe8be5dc7@windstream.net>

Rebar cages for Tashjian Tower Corp (ex Tri-Ex) are welded, not tied, 
and then hot dipped galvanized.

Patrick        NJ5G


On 7/15/2016 1:14 PM, jimlux wrote:
> On 7/15/16 11:06 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> Normal rebar is made from random composition steel melted down from old
>> car chassis, bed springs, washing machine frames, older reclaimed rebar,
>> etc.  Welds made to it have completely indeterminate strength.
>>
>> Weldable rebar has controlled content and is spec'd where the rebar
>> joints need to be structurally strong.  I think rebar cages for bridge
>> pylons and large building columns might be an example.
>>
>> I don't see any problem cadwelding copper wire to normal rebar since we
>> aren't looking for structural strength anyway.  The materials (copper
>> and iron/steel) are inherently different in the first place.
>>
>
> It's unclear why you would feel compelled  weld the wire to the rebar 
> (inside the concrete) in any case. The Ufer design doesn't require it. 
> It's more about getting the appropriate length of metal into the 
> concrete.
>
> That said, if you're doing the "piece of rebar sticking up through the 
> top" as the connection point, then some sort of welding of your copper 
> wire to the rebar at that point would be useful.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Fri Jul 15 14:28:11 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:28:11 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Engineering
In-Reply-To: <254046C5-CD71-4B98-AD37-BC1E41953B0C@yahoo.ca>
References: <mailman.5691.1468545071.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
	<254046C5-CD71-4B98-AD37-BC1E41953B0C@yahoo.ca>
Message-ID: <954c5679-4984-b42d-eadb-55c2d2616927@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Fri,7/15/2016 11:02 AM, Mark Spencer via TowerTalk wrote:
> Sorry for the off topic post but as a successful holder of a BA in political science (at least in my view (:  ) who was able to stop working on a full time basis as a technology professional before I was 50 I believe I received value from that degree.  I found out after I was hired into my first real job in the technology sector that my BA played a major role in my selection.

Several thoughts here. First, as the holder of a BSEE who has worked in 
pro sales and run my own (very) small business, I consider the extremely 
narrow education that was part of my EE courses to be a huge limitation. 
Thanks to the wide range of jobs I held over my working years, 
especially the early and middle years, I was lucky enough to learn 
enough about business, finance, and marketing to be successful at a 
level that made me happy and allowed me a happy retirement. Extensive 
reading and some participation in politics at the grass roots level 
contributed to my education in history and the way we govern ourselves 
contributed to making me a better citizen.

I'm told that a common shortcoming of engineers is that we don't write 
well. I'm thankful that my EE curriculum included two history courses 
and one on "english," where the prof did his best to teach us to write. 
I recall one pop quiz where the assignment was to write about "hats." 
Five years teaching (at DeVry) taught me to organize my thoughts and 
present them. When began selling (pro audio to broadcasters and other 
tech professionals), that teaching experience helped a lot. When I began 
a consulting job, it also helped me communicate with my clients, and the 
writing experience was equally important.

I'm also quite bothered by the concept taught in biz schools that you 
don't need to know anything about a business to run it well. Nothing 
could be farther from the truth. Dolby Labs is a great example. Ray 
Dolby was an EE, and his business was successful BECAUSE of his solid 
education in EE and physics, and his actual WORK on projects, Dolby Labs 
stuck with long R&D projects that most MBAs would have scrapped years 
earlier, and that eventually sent the company into the stratosphere. I 
had the good fortune to hear him talk about that in an invited lecture 
to the Audio Engineering Society.

Bottom line -- all of us, not only engineers, need the broadest possible 
education to reach our highest potential. Narrow is bad.

73, Jim K9YC


From jimlux at earthlink.net  Fri Jul 15 14:49:45 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:49:45 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
In-Reply-To: <CAC5FBO_TDg1uAxWRad69ErRyvFncD_nLy2p3j819pT=nxXw8FQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
	<1359082880.23476.1468544894572.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<c1d494b2-0c2c-87bc-ee5c-879f91de71e6@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<002101d1de86$d3f46c10$7bdd4430$@cox.net>
	<E2E91DB7-B7DD-4D68-91AD-EAE32FC91100@yahoo.com>
	<4044f89a-c08b-bab1-9769-b275ea4cb042@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<CAC5FBO_TDg1uAxWRad69ErRyvFncD_nLy2p3j819pT=nxXw8FQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <96b84b15-783e-af8e-7e6e-570e703eb56e@earthlink.net>

On 7/15/16 11:18 AM, Richard Solomon wrote:
> I was wondering if HFTA would be
> of use if one had Vertical Antennas.
>
>> What I'd really like to see is a program like HFTA for vertically
>> polarized antennas. When I suggested it to Dean several years ago, he told
>> me that Parkinson's had begun some deterioration, so that he no longer felt
>> able to work at the needed level of detail. I've suggested that project to
>> another engineer with the math and antenna chops to do it. We'll see.
>>
>>


The calculations for vertical polarization are much tougher to 
implement.  For H-pol, you can make the "soil is a nearly perfect 
reflector with 180 degree phase shift" assumption. For vertical pol, you 
can't.

The other thing is that for V-pol, the soil properties (resistivity, 
permittivity) have a larger effect.






From n7rt at cox.net  Fri Jul 15 15:14:58 2016
From: n7rt at cox.net (Hardy Landskov)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:14:58 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
In-Reply-To: <K6q31t00K32TbLd016qHcL>
References: <BL2PR14MB09130F570A40EC12EB6BDAADF5330@BL2PR14MB0913.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>	<1359082880.23476.1468544894572.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>	<c1d494b2-0c2c-87bc-ee5c-879f91de71e6@audiosystemsgroup.com>	<002101d1de86$d3f46c10$7bdd4430$@cox.net>	<E2E91DB7-B7DD-4D68-91AD-EAE32FC91100@yahoo.com>	<4044f89a-c08b-bab1-9769-b275ea4cb042@audiosystemsgroup.com>	<CAC5FBO_TDg1uAxWRad69ErRyvFncD_nLy2p3j819pT=nxXw8FQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<K6q31t00K32TbLd016qHcL>
Message-ID: <00dd01d1decd$2e3bada0$8ab308e0$@net>

HFTA was written for horizontal polarization only.
Hardy N7RT

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
jimlux
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 2:50 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....

On 7/15/16 11:18 AM, Richard Solomon wrote:
> I was wondering if HFTA would be
> of use if one had Vertical Antennas.
>
>> What I'd really like to see is a program like HFTA for vertically 
>> polarized antennas. When I suggested it to Dean several years ago, he 
>> told me that Parkinson's had begun some deterioration, so that he no 
>> longer felt able to work at the needed level of detail. I've 
>> suggested that project to another engineer with the math and antenna
chops to do it. We'll see.
>>
>>


The calculations for vertical polarization are much tougher to implement.
For H-pol, you can make the "soil is a nearly perfect reflector with 180
degree phase shift" assumption. For vertical pol, you can't.

The other thing is that for V-pol, the soil properties (resistivity,
permittivity) have a larger effect.





_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From k2xx at swva.net  Fri Jul 15 15:16:36 2016
From: k2xx at swva.net (Joe Giacobello, K2XX)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:16:36 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA disc....
In-Reply-To: <7a42a264-a34c-aec5-963b-742b3fc3547a@gmail.com>
References: <mailman.5712.1468606026.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
	<7a42a264-a34c-aec5-963b-742b3fc3547a@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57893694.2090405@swva.net>

Stu's website and terrain service are worth their weight in gold....

> Ward Silver <mailto:hwardsil at gmail.com>
> Friday, July 15, 2016 2:19 PM
> Stu K6TU has put together a very nice web service for obtaining the 
> data - see the Antenna Book's supplemental web page: 
> http://www.arrl.org/arrl-antenna-book-reference.  The instructions for 
> HFTA point you to K6TU's service and how to make use of the data.
>
> 73, Ward N0AX
>
> >  I don't think I would describe HFTA as "stale" -- the issues with 
> using it are largely related to obtaining the data for it, which are 
> the result of how agencies of governments, including the US, provide 
> the data online.
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>

From lstoskopf at cox.net  Fri Jul 15 17:55:44 2016
From: lstoskopf at cox.net (lstoskopf at cox.net)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 17:55:44 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA and other neat programs we use
In-Reply-To: <K67M1t01i32TbLd0167Phl>
Message-ID: <20160715175544.H8TNH.82062.imail@eastrmwml114>

We've all been blessed by fellow Hams who took their time and perhaps advantage of their job duties to bring us all sorts of goodies.  CQ Magazine for years had a propagation column that none of us could have afforded on our own.

Dean worked up to HFTA over the years.  Whether just translating from Fortran or doing a complete rewrite makes no difference.  It gives us at least a good place to start.  Moxon the same.  Cebik apparently took a big leap in learning and investigating.

There has been some comment on verticals on slopes.  Read Moxon's book.

Time and personal thought processes  move on.  Sometimes the source code gets lost one way or another.  But as with one propagation program I use....often if a program gets sold the price goes way up and the code still isn't there to examine.

Thanks to all those guys who don't remember what they did for us.

N0UU

From garyschafer at largeriver.net  Fri Jul 15 18:07:09 2016
From: garyschafer at largeriver.net (Gary Schafer)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 17:07:09 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
In-Reply-To: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>
References: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <0265EF85C64D488981EB1937CB969C93@garyPC>

Paul,

The portion of R56 that you quoted has more to do with individual or
building footings used as a UFER.

With the tower foundation I would assume that you will have substantial
rebar in it. If all that rebar is tied together that will make a good UFER
ground on its own. No need to run a wire inside and or up to the top. You
will already have the pier pin connected with J bolts in the concrete or
otherwise. Just make sure that the rebar in the foundation is tied to the J
bolts or whatever is supporting the pier pin. All auxiliary ground rods can
be bonded to the pier pin or J bolts or tower legs.

73
Gary  K4FMX

> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Paul Christensen
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 9:48 PM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
> 
> It's looking more probable that the remote Internet site built last year
> by
> N4CC and myself will require a complete move about a half-mile down the
> road.  Assuming this is the case, I want to pay particular attention
> this
> time to Ufer grounding of the two tower bases.  These are large Pirod
> self-supporting towers with substantial concrete piers.  The relevant
> portion of Motorola's R56 standard is copied and pasted below.  The soil
> in
> this area is very sandy and at the current site, we ended up having to
> drive
> down a total of four 24 ft. rods to get adequately low earthing
> resistance.
> That was a rough day of work even with a hammer drill.
> 
> My thought is to "spiral wind" solid #2 AWG wire, beginning the bottom
> rebar
> layer.  Cadweld it at the start point, and then periodically Cadweld at
> random points where the wire crosses other rebar sections.  The wire
> would
> exit at the top of the pier using a small-diameter PVC pipe as shown in
> one
> of the R56 diagrams.  As the wire nears the top, possibly it could
> branch
> out into two additional directions for bonding to the tower base and
> perimeter ring.
> 
> Any issues with this plan?
> 
> Paul, W9AC
> 
> Motorola R56 Ufer Guidelines:
> 
> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be encased by at least 51 mm (2 in.)
> of
> concrete, located within
> and near the bottom of a concrete foundation or footing that is in
> direct
> contact with the earth.
> 
> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be at least 6.1 m (20 ft.) of bare
> copper conductor not smaller
> than 25 mm2 csa (#4 AWG) or at least 6.1 m (20 ft.) of one or more bare
> or
> zinc galvanized or other
> conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods at least 12.7 mm (0.5
> in.)
> in diameter.
> 
> . Concrete-encased electrodes shall be bonded to any other grounding
> electrode system at the site.
> See "Common Grounding (Earthing)" on page 4-5.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From xdavid at cis-broadband.com  Fri Jul 15 21:48:41 2016
From: xdavid at cis-broadband.com (David Gilbert)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 18:48:41 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
In-Reply-To: <05f62846-7b60-a6ab-1f12-117701c3155e@earthlink.net>
References: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>
	<2c73e8d6-67de-ec1f-ffab-4f41a283e1ef@centurylink.net>
	<000801d1deb2$7feb3140$7fc193c0$@arrl.net>
	<2f66c7fa-09fc-8b85-75ca-385022317bd3@cis-broadband.com>
	<05f62846-7b60-a6ab-1f12-117701c3155e@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <6c4c00ff-d677-5fde-4878-393b2088f086@cis-broadband.com>


In my case, I cadwelded #4 wire between the legs of my tower base 
(embedded in the concrete) and the rebar cage.  I'm not saying that I 
needed to do that ... only that I see no point at all in buying weldable 
rebar if someone wants to cadweld to it.

Dave  AB7E



On 7/15/2016 11:14 AM, jimlux wrote:
> On 7/15/16 11:06 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> Normal rebar is made from random composition steel melted down from old
>> car chassis, bed springs, washing machine frames, older reclaimed rebar,
>> etc.  Welds made to it have completely indeterminate strength.
>>
>> Weldable rebar has controlled content and is spec'd where the rebar
>> joints need to be structurally strong.  I think rebar cages for bridge
>> pylons and large building columns might be an example.
>>
>> I don't see any problem cadwelding copper wire to normal rebar since we
>> aren't looking for structural strength anyway.  The materials (copper
>> and iron/steel) are inherently different in the first place.
>>
>
> It's unclear why you would feel compelled  weld the wire to the rebar 
> (inside the concrete) in any case. The Ufer design doesn't require it. 
> It's more about getting the appropriate length of metal into the 
> concrete.
>
> That said, if you're doing the "piece of rebar sticking up through the 
> top" as the connection point, then some sort of welding of your copper 
> wire to the rebar at that point would be useful.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From n4lg at qx.net  Fri Jul 15 22:09:05 2016
From: n4lg at qx.net (Bill Cotter)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 22:09:05 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Brian Beezley,
	K6STI: HFTA and other neat programs we use
Message-ID: <20160716020912.F3C99AC8024@mx.contesting.com>

While we are looking back, a major contributor we should remember 
is Brian Beezley, K6STI, who pioneered much of the NEC code and 
produced Yagi Optimizer, Antenna Optimizer, and Terrain Analyzer in 
the 1990s on early DOS machines. These programs placed 
sophisticated computer design of antenna systems in the hands of 
amateurs long before ELNEC, EXNEC and HTFA.

73 Bill N4LG


At 05:55 PM 7/15/2016, you wrote:
>We've all been blessed by fellow Hams who took their time and 
>perhaps advantage of their job duties to bring us all sorts of 
>goodies.  CQ Magazine for years had a propagation column that none 
>of us could have afforded on our own.
>
>Dean worked up to HFTA over the years.  Whether just translating 
>from Fortran or doing a complete rewrite makes no difference.  It 
>gives us at least a good place to start.  Moxon the same.  Cebik 
>apparently took a big leap in learning and investigating.
>
>There has been some comment on verticals on slopes.  Read Moxon's 
>book.
>
>Time and personal thought processes  move on.  Sometimes the 
>source code gets lost one way or another.  But as with one 
>propagation program I use....often if a program gets sold the 
>price goes way up and the code still isn't there to examine.
>
>Thanks to all those guys who don't remember what they did for us.
>
>N0UU
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Fri Jul 15 23:17:37 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 23:17:37 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Engineering
In-Reply-To: <20160715072643.761292E1@m0087796.ppops.net>
References: <20160715072643.761292E1@m0087796.ppops.net>
Message-ID: <6c979c90-4ec0-4aca-f6ac-cfd90b8d83b1@tm.net>

We're off on another tangent here, but not all companies use the "Burn 
'em and Turn 'em" philosophies.
In my working days, I spent6 literally thousands of hours rewriting code 
written by people who were ne4ither CS, or CIS educated.  Much of it was 
excellent code, but difficult to read for a professional, and impossible 
other engineers to read.

Most, or I should emphasize "almost all" programs you have, you ONLY 
purchased the "license" to use that code. In most cases you are 
prohibited from reverse engineering, decompiling, or MODIFYING that 
code.  Read those, sometimes many pages of fine print, in the license to 
see what you can legally do with and/or to that software.  Don't forget, 
"look and feel" of that software also belong to the software owner.
Often the restrictions are not because of monetary reasons, but are for 
the protection of the software and programmer's reputation. Typically 
you need to contact either the software owner and/or programmer

Modeling is not necessarily difficult, or expensive, depending on the 
known and unknown variables as well as any assumptions and the level of 
accuracy required. Many times you are working with probabilities rather 
than fixed quantities. Propagation and desired antenna heights in 
wavelengths to get the strongest signal into an area vary continually.  
The normal, desired antenna height under normal conditions are when 
conditions favor that height and distance the highest percent of time.  
Hence the reason for stacks and diversity reception.

I have more computing power (capacity, speed, and storage) on (or under) 
this desk than the entire corporation had, that I worked for in 1997 and 
we had a lot!
I was in the workforce for over 26 years, quit, earned a degree and went 
back to work.  There are few my age with 4 year degrees in CS

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/15/2016 Friday 10:26 AM, Earl Morse wrote:
> If given these opportunities for real education (not that crap education that HR requires you to take so you can be politically correct or remember to wear your safety glasses) jump on them.
>
> There is a big push to model everything these days (virtual engineering), and if you have been in the work force for 25 years then you probably don't have those skills from your college days.  We hadn't invented a personal computer yet that would run modelling software when I was in college.  I have yet to have an employer send me out to learn any of the modelling tools.  Good thing I have some of my own and have modeled my own stuff because of this hobby.  Still would be nice if I had some formal training and access to the multi kilobuck tools.
>
> Funny how the guys that modeled all this stuff up front disappear after the prototypes show up and the real performance doesn't match the model.  That's when my phone rings and we have to go back to how we used to do it in order to get the product into production.
>
> I agree with Hans that many companies treat engineers as cannon fodder.  My current company thinks that you can write a process and any nimrod can follow it and end up with a functioning product at the end.  Unfortunately, there seem to be a few blocks in that flow chart that say "Magic Happens".
>
> I have been fortunate in my career managing to stay at companies for 5+ years before jumping ship.  Catching the last life boat to a new company.  Those changes were usually facilitated by a changing business structure (computer industry).  Making yourself indispensable (not by being responsible for the bathroom key) but by being knowledgeable and can-do will help ensure you land on your feet during corporate changes.
>
> Earl
> N8SS
>
> --- towertalk-request at contesting.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Currently, the company is systematically offering educational opportunities to all employees and paying for it. ?Further, they are mandating it, so that they can leverage the vast pools of existing domain knowledge as it evolves into an increasingly software and data-driven world. ?It is both good for the business as well as for the employees, but it is, as you inferred, not as pervasive a personnel approach as we all might like.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Fri Jul 15 23:53:35 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 23:53:35 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Ufer Grounding
In-Reply-To: <000801d1deb2$7feb3140$7fc193c0$@arrl.net>
References: <001701d1de43$55f13020$01d39060$@arrl.net>
	<2c73e8d6-67de-ec1f-ffab-4f41a283e1ef@centurylink.net>
	<000801d1deb2$7feb3140$7fc193c0$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <fe3b2d93-7b4e-a006-db29-2f7962a11074@tm.net>

It's the reverse. There is rerod that can be welded, be ti stick, MIG, 
or exothermic and there is rerod not meant to be welded (which is most).

Rerod's primary purpose is to keep the concrete together. Becoming part 
of a UFER ground is "relatively" new.

73

Roger (K8RI)

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From taholmes160 at gmail.com  Sat Jul 16 12:37:41 2016
From: taholmes160 at gmail.com (Timothy Holmes)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 16:37:41 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] Additional email lists
Message-ID: <CAGdWYj+JwtpBgYcUiAY8+FSkxsrb9zT7w2BFRqsSwgm86YTKWg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi folks:

I am wondering if you all can recommend some more good email lists for me
cq contest and tower talk are both excellent.  I would love to find some
additional lists for dxing , 6 meters, digital and general ham stuff.

Thanks
Tim
W8TAH

From mskobier at charter.net  Sat Jul 16 14:44:08 2016
From: mskobier at charter.net (Mitch)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 11:44:08 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
Message-ID: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net>

All, 

                I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.  H.R.636 - Federal Aviation
Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by the
President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of erecting
my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me. At
this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on the
document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt

 

 

Mitch KJ7JA


From dickw1ksz at gmail.com  Sat Jul 16 14:49:01 2016
From: dickw1ksz at gmail.com (Richard Solomon)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 11:49:01 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net>
References: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net>
Message-ID: <CAC5FBO-g+0RTjUuMPgo1CG7Gzp=RPNaQk9QhUxgobp68nk=EfA@mail.gmail.com>

There is an "exclusion" ... any
"covered" tower "adjacent" to a
house is excluded.

Couldn't find a definition for
"adjacent" in the Bill.

73, Dick, W1KSZ

On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mitch <mskobier at charter.net> wrote:

> All,
>
>                 I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
> the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.  H.R.636 - Federal Aviation
> Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by
> the
> President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
> 50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
> may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
> developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of erecting
> my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me. At
> this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
> link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on
> the
> document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.
>
>
>
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt
>
>
>
>
>
> Mitch KJ7JA
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From akozak at hourglass.com  Sat Jul 16 15:04:51 2016
From: akozak at hourglass.com (Al Kozakiewicz)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 19:04:51 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <CAC5FBO-g+0RTjUuMPgo1CG7Gzp=RPNaQk9QhUxgobp68nk=EfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net>
	<CAC5FBO-g+0RTjUuMPgo1CG7Gzp=RPNaQk9QhUxgobp68nk=EfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <261c41cd47bb430baa0a665268cea252@S05-MBX04-18.S05.local>

Based on the definition below, the purpose appears to be deaingl with structures that are in otherwise unoccupied areas where aircraft might legally operate below 500 feet outside the immediate vicinity of an airport.

Crop dusting comes immediately to mind. Perhaps medevac helicopters as well.

Al
AB2ZY

(VI) is located--

                        (aa) outside the boundaries of an incorporated 
                    city or town; or
                        (bb) on land that is--
                            (AA) undeveloped; or
                            (BB) used for agricultural purposes.

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Richard Solomon
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 2:49 PM
To: towertalk
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

There is an "exclusion" ... any
"covered" tower "adjacent" to a
house is excluded.

Couldn't find a definition for
"adjacent" in the Bill.

73, Dick, W1KSZ


From navydude1962 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 16 16:29:35 2016
From: navydude1962 at yahoo.com (Ed)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 13:29:35 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <CAC5FBO-g+0RTjUuMPgo1CG7Gzp=RPNaQk9QhUxgobp68nk=EfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net>
	<CAC5FBO-g+0RTjUuMPgo1CG7Gzp=RPNaQk9QhUxgobp68nk=EfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4536431F-1742-4484-9F7C-40E6FF4E228C@yahoo.com>

I imagine this won't affect crank-up towers, correct?  

> On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:49, Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There is an "exclusion" ... any
> "covered" tower "adjacent" to a
> house is excluded.
> 
> Couldn't find a definition for
> "adjacent" in the Bill.
> 
> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
> 
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mitch <mskobier at charter.net> wrote:
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>>                I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
>> the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.  H.R.636 - Federal Aviation
>> Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by
>> the
>> President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
>> 50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
>> may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
>> developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of erecting
>> my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me. At
>> this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
>> link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on
>> the
>> document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mitch KJ7JA
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From n3ae at comcast.net  Sat Jul 16 16:59:21 2016
From: n3ae at comcast.net (N3AE)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 20:59:21 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
In-Reply-To: <293796497.9909297.1468695680192.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1985176637.9970575.1468702761285.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>

Since a discussion has been started on HFTA, I'll throw in a few observations. 

The terrain around my QTH is complex, with many steep gullies and rapidly changing elevations. We're not talking cliffs or mountains, but rolling terrain intersected by many 30 to 50 ft deep gullies. 

I once downloaded terrain data from the USGS web site. I download both DEM and 3rd arc-second NED data and generated terrain profiles for both using MICRODEM. When plotting these two elevation profiles, they essentially lay on top of each other. But if you look closely, there are differences of up to 4 feet at various distances from the tower. 

When I generate the HFTA takeoff profiles, however, there are large differences between these two "essentially identical" elevation profiles. Some 14 MHz examples: 7.5 db difference at a 6 deg takeoff angle for a 30 ft antenna height (3 element Yagi) and 8 db difference at a 2.5 deg takeoff angle for a 40 ft antenna height. 

Sort of a butterfly effect ... small changes in elevation profiles cause large changes in computed takeoff angle. 

Interestingly, however, the HFTA Figure of Merit for these two elevation profiles isn't very different. 

I've had discussions with Dean on these observation and the preliminary conclusion is that my terrain may cause a lot of spacial aliasing in the HFTA algorithms. As we know, one must sample a sinusoid at a sample rate at least twice the sinusoid's frequency (Nyquist rate). Similarly, when you sample spacial variations (elevations along a radial, for example) one needs to sample more frequently in range if the elevation changes a lot and quickly with range. In my case, the 30 meter "range sample" may be too large to capture the "high frequency" terrain variations between sample points. Or there could be artifacts introduced by the terrain smoothing algorithms within the HFTA code. 

USGS now has 10 meter range resolution data available for many locations, but unfortunately HFTA can only accept 150 range points (including the tower coordinate) along a given azimuth radial. So 10 meter data doesn't "reach out" far enough in range to make a comparison of results with 30m and 10m range sets. 

I think HFTA is a wonderful program, but like any modelling code, it's important to understand the limitations of that code and situations were problems may arise. As Dean mentions in his HFTA instructions, trust the results to +/- 3db. And if something looks funny or unrealistic. make a small change in antenna height (a foot or two). If this small change in antenna height causes large differences in takeoff angle plots, there's probably some spacial aliasing and /or unrealistic diffraction going on along that azimuth radial. Change the antenna height until you find one where a +/- 1 ft change in height doesn't significantly change results. 

I do think it's time for someone to pick up the cloak and try to improve on HFTA. Being able to use 10m resolution data would be one improvement, and perhaps some adjustments of the internal terrain profile smoothing filters. 

As a practicing engineer, I prefer to know what's going on "under the hood" of a model before I fully trust the results, or alternatively have its results compared with a widely accepted model code's output. I don't know if there is a "professional grade" electromagnetic ray tracing code out there one could use for verification, but I'd love to see how HFTA stacks up against one so we can avoid any pitfalls. Any takers? 

The Navy's Advanced Refractive Effects Prediction System (AREPS) package may be such an animal. See http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pacific/AP/Documents/sofAREPS_36.pdf and 
http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pacific/AP/Pages/SoftwarePrograms.aspx I'm not sure since my professional area of expertise is not electromagnetic modelling codes. 

If anyone wants to see my HFTA results and elevation profiles behind this discussion, send me an email off-reflector. 

N3AE 

From lovewell at gmail.com  Sat Jul 16 17:28:48 2016
From: lovewell at gmail.com (Matt Lovewell)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 16:28:48 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <4536431F-1742-4484-9F7C-40E6FF4E228C@yahoo.com>
References: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net>
	<CAC5FBO-g+0RTjUuMPgo1CG7Gzp=RPNaQk9QhUxgobp68nk=EfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4536431F-1742-4484-9F7C-40E6FF4E228C@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <234967D0-8623-49BC-A542-C476A7E1BEE7@gmail.com>

I'm sure it will if you ever plan to crank it past 50'.  They have a year to finalize their new regulation, so we shall see what our masters have decided for us.

Matt W0MLD

> On Jul 16, 2016, at 3:29 PM, Ed via TowerTalk <towertalk at contesting.com> wrote:
> 
> I imagine this won't affect crank-up towers, correct?  
> 
>> On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:49, Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> There is an "exclusion" ... any
>> "covered" tower "adjacent" to a
>> house is excluded.
>> 
>> Couldn't find a definition for
>> "adjacent" in the Bill.
>> 
>> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
>> 
>>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mitch <mskobier at charter.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>>               I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
>>> the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.  H.R.636 - Federal Aviation
>>> Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by
>>> the
>>> President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
>>> 50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
>>> may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
>>> developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of erecting
>>> my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me. At
>>> this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
>>> link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on
>>> the
>>> document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mitch KJ7JA
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Sat Jul 16 18:03:10 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 18:03:10 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
In-Reply-To: <1985176637.9970575.1468702761285.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
References: <1985176637.9970575.1468702761285.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <AAE27B998D9E4E85AD26AB2FA24CAA11@RXDesignDell>

I use the 10M range data with HFTA exclusively! The 30 is far too long of a 
sample point. I'd prefer even smaller if available. I set up microdem at 5? 
increments and never have a problem getting the full data set. Works great.

Gary
K9RX


-----Original Message----- 
From: N3AE
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 4:59 PM
To: TowerTalk
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....

Since a discussion has been started on HFTA, I'll throw in a few 
observations.

The terrain around my QTH is complex, with many steep gullies and rapidly 
changing elevations. We're not talking cliffs or mountains, but rolling 
terrain intersected by many 30 to 50 ft deep gullies.

I once downloaded terrain data from the USGS web site. I download both DEM 
and 3rd arc-second NED data and generated terrain profiles for both using 
MICRODEM. When plotting these two elevation profiles, they essentially lay 
on top of each other. But if you look closely, there are differences of up 
to 4 feet at various distances from the tower.

When I generate the HFTA takeoff profiles, however, there are large 
differences between these two "essentially identical" elevation profiles. 
Some 14 MHz examples: 7.5 db difference at a 6 deg takeoff angle for a 30 ft 
antenna height (3 element Yagi) and 8 db difference at a 2.5 deg takeoff 
angle for a 40 ft antenna height.

Sort of a butterfly effect ... small changes in elevation profiles cause 
large changes in computed takeoff angle.

Interestingly, however, the HFTA Figure of Merit for these two elevation 
profiles isn't very different.

I've had discussions with Dean on these observation and the preliminary 
conclusion is that my terrain may cause a lot of spacial aliasing in the 
HFTA algorithms. As we know, one must sample a sinusoid at a sample rate at 
least twice the sinusoid's frequency (Nyquist rate). Similarly, when you 
sample spacial variations (elevations along a radial, for example) one needs 
to sample more frequently in range if the elevation changes a lot and 
quickly with range. In my case, the 30 meter "range sample" may be too large 
to capture the "high frequency" terrain variations between sample points. Or 
there could be artifacts introduced by the terrain smoothing algorithms 
within the HFTA code.

USGS now has 10 meter range resolution data available for many locations, 
but unfortunately HFTA can only accept 150 range points (including the tower 
coordinate) along a given azimuth radial. So 10 meter data doesn't "reach 
out" far enough in range to make a comparison of results with 30m and 10m 
range sets.

I think HFTA is a wonderful program, but like any modelling code, it's 
important to understand the limitations of that code and situations were 
problems may arise. As Dean mentions in his HFTA instructions, trust the 
results to +/- 3db. And if something looks funny or unrealistic. make a 
small change in antenna height (a foot or two). If this small change in 
antenna height causes large differences in takeoff angle plots, there's 
probably some spacial aliasing and /or unrealistic diffraction going on 
along that azimuth radial. Change the antenna height until you find one 
where a +/- 1 ft change in height doesn't significantly change results.

I do think it's time for someone to pick up the cloak and try to improve on 
HFTA. Being able to use 10m resolution data would be one improvement, and 
perhaps some adjustments of the internal terrain profile smoothing filters.

As a practicing engineer, I prefer to know what's going on "under the hood" 
of a model before I fully trust the results, or alternatively have its 
results compared with a widely accepted model code's output. I don't know if 
there is a "professional grade" electromagnetic ray tracing code out there 
one could use for verification, but I'd love to see how HFTA stacks up 
against one so we can avoid any pitfalls. Any takers?

The Navy's Advanced Refractive Effects Prediction System (AREPS) package may 
be such an animal. See 
http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pacific/AP/Documents/sofAREPS_36.pdf and
http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pacific/AP/Pages/SoftwarePrograms.aspx I'm 
not sure since my professional area of expertise is not electromagnetic 
modelling codes.

If anyone wants to see my HFTA results and elevation profiles behind this 
discussion, send me an email off-reflector.

N3AE


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sat Jul 16 18:55:08 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 18:55:08 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <261c41cd47bb430baa0a665268cea252@S05-MBX04-18.S05.local>
References: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net>
	<CAC5FBO-g+0RTjUuMPgo1CG7Gzp=RPNaQk9QhUxgobp68nk=EfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<261c41cd47bb430baa0a665268cea252@S05-MBX04-18.S05.local>
Message-ID: <62d96e1e-90fd-b37b-fa98-d93feb48e08d@tm.net>

There are many populated areas where aircraft flu just above the tops of 
the trees.  I never managed to be up on thee tower when they were 
spraying/dusting for mosquitoes, Gypsie Moths, and other critters, but, 
I've seen them alter course to go "around" my antennas that topped out 
at 130 feet.  The top of the tower, without antennas is 100 feet and 
they are often below that.

Both my 100' 45G with or without antennas and the LM470 crank-up are 
adjacent to structures (House and shop).  Towers several jundred feet 
out?  If they are in your yard

The key word is "curtilage"
"noun, Law.

1.
the area of land occupied by a dwelling and its yard and outbuildings, 
actually enclosed or considered as enclosed."
BUT  note the word, "farmstead"

There is also a "blank check" clause Section B, subsection 2 (other 
definitions)

Much of this area is wooded with few trees topping 80 feet.  When on top 
of the 100' 45G, I never noticed a tree within sight that was near that 
height.  We are near the edge of a wooded area with no homes in it (one 
home to the N of us with a vacant, wooded lot in between.)  OTOH  That 
wooded area is less than 0.5 sq miles.

"The way "I read this" towers more than a few hundred feet from the 
buildings would not be exempt. What distance they would use? Probably 
what ever suits their purposes.  Certainly an antenna farm, not right in 
your yard would not be considered exempt.

This certainly is an over reaction to the outcry cause by a crop duster 
hitting a meteorological tower under 200 feet in an open field.
Towers of almost any kind other than the really large, self supporting 
towers, regardless of the paint scheme are almost impossible to see.  
Something student pilots learn when they use towers as visual waypoints 
for VFR flight planning.

When flying low with a bright sky behind the tower, let alone the sun in 
that direction makes them invisible.

It's "my belief" this was an intentional, catch all to eliminate the 
under 200' elimination for all tower including hams.  Taller towers are 
likely to be far enough from buildings to not be excluded.  Just to the 
S of us is flat land farming country with little of it falling under the 
definitions of pasture or range land, but a great deal of it uses aerial 
spraying/dusting.  The land elevation for entire counties may vary less 
than 20 feet, or so.  (The Saginaw Valley area) of lower MI.

EXCLUSIONS:

"(ii) Exclusions.--The term ``covered tower'' does not

             include any structure that--

                     (I) is adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility
                 station, or other building;
                   ___/*(II) is within the curtilage of a farmstead;*/_
                     (III) supports electric utility transmission or
                 distribution lines;
                     (IV) is a wind-powered electrical generator with a
                 rotor blade radius that exceeds 6 feet; or
                     (V) is a street light erected or maintained by a
                 Federal, State, local, or tribal entity.

             (B) Undeveloped.--The term ``undeveloped'' means a defined
         geographic area where the Administrator determines low-flying
         aircraft are operated on a routine basis, such as low-lying
         forested areas with predominant tree cover under 200 feet and
         pasture and range land.
       ///__//_*(2) Other definitions.--The Administrator shall define such other 
terms as may be necessary to carry out this section.*_/*"*

__ Make of it what you will.

73

Roger (K8RI)



On 7/16/2016 Saturday 3:04 PM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
> Based on the definition below, the purpose appears to be deaingl with structures that are in otherwise unoccupied areas where aircraft might legally operate below 500 feet outside the immediate vicinity of an airport.
>
> Crop dusting comes immediately to mind. Perhaps medevac helicopters as well.
>
> Al
> AB2ZY
>
> (VI) is located--
>
>                          (aa) outside the boundaries of an incorporated
>                      city or town; or
>                          (bb) on land that is--
>                              (AA) undeveloped; or
>                              (BB) used for agricultural purposes.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Richard Solomon
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 2:49 PM
> To: towertalk
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
>
> There is an "exclusion" ... any
> "covered" tower "adjacent" to a
> house is excluded.
>
> Couldn't find a definition for
> "adjacent" in the Bill.
>
> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From w2ttt at att.net  Sat Jul 16 19:20:27 2016
From: w2ttt at att.net (James Gordon Beattie, Jr.)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 16:20:27 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <4536431F-1742-4484-9F7C-40E6FF4E228C@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1468711227.79407.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web185301.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Hi Foljs,

A couple of concerns...

What is the definition of "adjacent"?

This lets the FAA bureaucrats decide.


Why is the FAA going below its traditional 200' or airport runway proximity rules?


FAA approved lighting isn't cheap...better put goats or chickens under your towers as farms are excluded.

Painting in approved red and white requires even more maintenance.


Any thoughts as to how this snuck up on us?

73,

Gordon Beattie, W2TTT

201.314.6964


Sent from AT&T Mail on Android

From:"Ed via TowerTalk" <towertalk at contesting.com>
Date:Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 16:29
Subject:Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

I imagine this won't affect crank-up towers, correct?? 

> On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:49, Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There is an "exclusion" ... any
> "covered" tower "adjacent" to a
> house is excluded.
> 
> Couldn't find a definition for
> "adjacent" in the Bill.
> 
> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
> 
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mitch <mskobier at charter.net> wrote:
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
>> the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.? H.R.636 - Federal Aviation
>> Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by
>> the
>> President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
>> 50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
>> may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
>> developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of erecting
>> my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me. At
>> this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
>> link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on
>> the
>> document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mitch KJ7JA
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From w7wll at arrl.net  Sat Jul 16 19:22:22 2016
From: w7wll at arrl.net (Don W7WLL)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 16:22:22 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <4536431F-1742-4484-9F7C-40E6FF4E228C@yahoo.com>
References: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net><CAC5FBO-g+0RTjUuMPgo1CG7Gzp=RPNaQk9QhUxgobp68nk=EfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4536431F-1742-4484-9F7C-40E6FF4E228C@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1A1B298A18CB424785CB9CA1F613238B@DonPC>

Tempest in a teapotl. If you live in a house on with towers nearby that are 
from 50 to 200 feet it is reasonable that you are in a developed area by 
most zoning standards. A question might exist if your tower is on acreage 
deemed or considered 'undeveloped' under local zoning regulations. I'd bet 
99.9 % of us are still only subject to the existing marking and height 
requirements relative to your proximity to any airports. Unlikely my garden 
will be considered as used for agricultural purposes. Here is a cut of the 
area of concern in that laws.

Don W7WLL

"The term ?covered tower? means a structure that?
(I)is self-standing or supported by guy wires and ground anchors;

(II)is 10 feet or less in diameter at the above-ground base, excluding 
concrete footing;

(III)at the highest point of the structure is at least 50 feet above ground 
level;

(IV)at the highest point of the structure is not more than 200 feet above 
ground level;

(V)has accessory facilities on which an antenna, sensor, camera, 
meteorological instrument, or other equipment is mounted; and

(VI)is located?
(aa)outside the boundaries of an incorporated city or town; or

(bb)on land that is?
(AA)undeveloped; or

(BB)used for agricultural purposes.

(ii)Exclusions.?
The term ?covered tower? does not include any structure that?
(I)is adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility station, or other 
building;

(II)is within the curtilage of a farmstead;

(III)supports electric utility transmission or distribution lines;

(IV)is a wind-powered electrical generator with a rotor blade radius that 
exceeds 6 feet; or

(V)is a street light erected or maintained by a Federal, State, local, or 
tribal entity.

(B)Undeveloped.?

The term ?undeveloped? means a defined geographic area where the 
Administrator determines low-flying aircraft are operated on a routine 
basis, such as low-lying forested areas with predominant tree cover under 
200 feet and pasture and range land."

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ed via TowerTalk
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 1:29 PM
To: Richard Solomon
Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

I imagine this won't affect crank-up towers, correct?

> On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:49, Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is an "exclusion" ... any
> "covered" tower "adjacent" to a
> house is excluded.
>
> Couldn't find a definition for
> "adjacent" in the Bill.
>
> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
>
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mitch <mskobier at charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>>                I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
>> the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.  H.R.636 - Federal 
>> Aviation
>> Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by
>> the
>> President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
>> 50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
>> may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
>> developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of 
>> erecting
>> my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me. 
>> At
>> this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
>> link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on
>> the
>> document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mitch KJ7JA
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



From w2ttt at att.net  Sat Jul 16 19:25:28 2016
From: w2ttt at att.net (James Gordon Beattie, Jr.)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 16:25:28 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <4536431F-1742-4484-9F7C-40E6FF4E228C@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1468711528.2269.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web185306.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Dick,

The REGULATORS WILL DECIDE.

There is no exclusion for crank up towers in the law...the the bureaucrats can do what they want.?

73,

Gordon Beattie, W2TTT

201.314.6964

Sent from AT&T Mail on Android

From:"Ed via TowerTalk" <towertalk at contesting.com>
Date:Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 16:29
Subject:Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

I imagine this won't affect crank-up towers, correct?? 

> On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:49, Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There is an "exclusion" ... any
> "covered" tower "adjacent" to a
> house is excluded.
> 
> Couldn't find a definition for
> "adjacent" in the Bill.
> 
> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
> 
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mitch <mskobier at charter.net> wrote:
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
>> the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.? H.R.636 - Federal Aviation
>> Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by
>> the
>> President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
>> 50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
>> may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
>> developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of erecting
>> my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me. At
>> this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
>> link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on
>> the
>> document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mitch KJ7JA
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Sat Jul 16 19:28:16 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 16:28:16 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
In-Reply-To: <AAE27B998D9E4E85AD26AB2FA24CAA11@RXDesignDell>
References: <1985176637.9970575.1468702761285.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
	<AAE27B998D9E4E85AD26AB2FA24CAA11@RXDesignDell>
Message-ID: <3686aae6-3b98-92db-5f59-5d1fa361a7cd@audiosystemsgroup.com>

Gary,

When I was running HFTA on my QTH in the Santa Cruz mountains, Dean 
advised me to to out to 10-15 miles. This ignores small variations, like 
the gullies being described.  The radial data is a plain text file, and 
it is possible to generate your own data from topo maps. When I started 
using HFTA, I did a few radials this way as an exercise.

73, Jim K9YC

On Sat,7/16/2016 3:03 PM, StellarCAT wrote:
> I use the 10M range data with HFTA exclusively! The 30 is far too long 
> of a sample point. I'd prefer even smaller if available. I set up 
> microdem at 5? increments and never have a problem getting the full 
> data set. Works great. 



From rurie at bajabb.com  Sat Jul 16 20:53:37 2016
From: rurie at bajabb.com (Robb Urie)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 18:53:37 -0600
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
Message-ID: <5CE317D2106D464A9B37AD0F95A9CF7F@GayleneHP>

I work for the FAA and I do not plan to ?Comply? with this.  Same thing regarding the drone registration non-sense.

73,

Robb N?RU
Woodland Park, CO.

From n0ost99 at gmail.com  Sat Jul 16 21:05:52 2016
From: n0ost99 at gmail.com (Jeff Draughn)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 20:05:52 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tower loading
Message-ID: <CAK0vX_HA-f2XuYxARw9rjdA3tCvdsWJG1H33qddtisgEL=aBxw@mail.gmail.com>

I have a US Towers HDX-555 and am not sure how to figure the load on the
tower from antennas placed at different heights above the tower.
I know as I go up it further reduces the max. For the tower but not sure by
how much.
I'm thinking about a Force 12 C-31XR (10 sq ft) and 2 element 40 mtr yagi
(5-6 sq ft)
I'm Located in KS. So we have some wind to contend with but the tower is
usually lowered to about 30 feet and stays there if the wind is high.
Any thoughts on how to figure the loads or software to use?
Thanks
Jeff, N0OST

From n3ae at comcast.net  Sat Jul 16 21:38:30 2016
From: n3ae at comcast.net (N3AE)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 01:38:30 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
In-Reply-To: <AAE27B998D9E4E85AD26AB2FA24CAA11@RXDesignDell>
References: <1985176637.9970575.1468702761285.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
	<AAE27B998D9E4E85AD26AB2FA24CAA11@RXDesignDell>
Message-ID: <343712185.10075360.1468719510871.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>

Gary, 

When I have more than 149 range and elevation pairs in a .pro file, my V1.04 HFTA reports that it is truncating to 149 points but in fact blows up with an error message when I try to run the takeoff angle computation. HFTA is unhappy with more than 149 range-elevation pairs along a given azimuth radial. 

So if you are successfully using equally spaced 10 meter resolution range data, then your max range from the tower must be 10*149 = 1490 meters. But when using equally spaced 30 meter range data, then the max range is 30*149 = 4470 meters. Perhaps if your terrain beyond 1490 meters doesn't vary too much, it doesn't make a difference that you're only looking out to 1490 meters. Am I missing something? 

The HFTA instructions shows that you can deal with a distant mountain beyond the typical 4400 max range by deleting a few of the last few range-elevation pairs and replacing with the distant mountain's range and elevations. 

As an experiment this afternoon, I took a 30 meter resolution DEM data file and truncated it beyond 1470 meters so I could compare the results with 149 pairs of 10 meter resolution data that ended at 1490 meters from the tower. Once again, the two elevation profile plots were essentially on top of each other, differing by less than 2 ft at any range. But the takeoff angle plots still differed quite a bit. Not sure what's going on inside HFTA that causes this "butterfly effect" sensitivity to differences in terrain elevations, at least in the elevation profiles for my QTH. 

Shawn 
N3AE 

----- Original Message -----

From: "StellarCAT" <rxdesign at ssvecnet.com> 
To: "N3AE" <n3ae at comcast.net>, "TowerTalk" <towertalk at contesting.com> 
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 6:03:10 PM 
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc.... 

I use the 10M range data with HFTA exclusively! The 30 is far too long of a 
sample point. I'd prefer even smaller if available. I set up microdem at 5? 
increments and never have a problem getting the full data set. Works great. 

Gary 
K9RX 


-----Original Message----- 
From: N3AE 
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 4:59 PM 
To: TowerTalk 
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc.... 

Since a discussion has been started on HFTA, I'll throw in a few 
observations. 

The terrain around my QTH is complex, with many steep gullies and rapidly 
changing elevations. We're not talking cliffs or mountains, but rolling 
terrain intersected by many 30 to 50 ft deep gullies. 

I once downloaded terrain data from the USGS web site. I download both DEM 
and 3rd arc-second NED data and generated terrain profiles for both using 
MICRODEM. When plotting these two elevation profiles, they essentially lay 
on top of each other. But if you look closely, there are differences of up 
to 4 feet at various distances from the tower. 

When I generate the HFTA takeoff profiles, however, there are large 
differences between these two "essentially identical" elevation profiles. 
Some 14 MHz examples: 7.5 db difference at a 6 deg takeoff angle for a 30 ft 
antenna height (3 element Yagi) and 8 db difference at a 2.5 deg takeoff 
angle for a 40 ft antenna height. 

Sort of a butterfly effect ... small changes in elevation profiles cause 
large changes in computed takeoff angle. 

Interestingly, however, the HFTA Figure of Merit for these two elevation 
profiles isn't very different. 

I've had discussions with Dean on these observation and the preliminary 
conclusion is that my terrain may cause a lot of spacial aliasing in the 
HFTA algorithms. As we know, one must sample a sinusoid at a sample rate at 
least twice the sinusoid's frequency (Nyquist rate). Similarly, when you 
sample spacial variations (elevations along a radial, for example) one needs 
to sample more frequently in range if the elevation changes a lot and 
quickly with range. In my case, the 30 meter "range sample" may be too large 
to capture the "high frequency" terrain variations between sample points. Or 
there could be artifacts introduced by the terrain smoothing algorithms 
within the HFTA code. 

USGS now has 10 meter range resolution data available for many locations, 
but unfortunately HFTA can only accept 150 range points (including the tower 
coordinate) along a given azimuth radial. So 10 meter data doesn't "reach 
out" far enough in range to make a comparison of results with 30m and 10m 
range sets. 

I think HFTA is a wonderful program, but like any modelling code, it's 
important to understand the limitations of that code and situations were 
problems may arise. As Dean mentions in his HFTA instructions, trust the 
results to +/- 3db. And if something looks funny or unrealistic. make a 
small change in antenna height (a foot or two). If this small change in 
antenna height causes large differences in takeoff angle plots, there's 
probably some spacial aliasing and /or unrealistic diffraction going on 
along that azimuth radial. Change the antenna height until you find one 
where a +/- 1 ft change in height doesn't significantly change results. 

I do think it's time for someone to pick up the cloak and try to improve on 
HFTA. Being able to use 10m resolution data would be one improvement, and 
perhaps some adjustments of the internal terrain profile smoothing filters. 

As a practicing engineer, I prefer to know what's going on "under the hood" 
of a model before I fully trust the results, or alternatively have its 
results compared with a widely accepted model code's output. I don't know if 
there is a "professional grade" electromagnetic ray tracing code out there 
one could use for verification, but I'd love to see how HFTA stacks up 
against one so we can avoid any pitfalls. Any takers? 

The Navy's Advanced Refractive Effects Prediction System (AREPS) package may 
be such an animal. See 
http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pacific/AP/Documents/sofAREPS_36.pdf and 
http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pacific/AP/Pages/SoftwarePrograms.aspx I'm 
not sure since my professional area of expertise is not electromagnetic 
modelling codes. 

If anyone wants to see my HFTA results and elevation profiles behind this 
discussion, send me an email off-reflector. 

N3AE 



From hanslg at aol.com  Sat Jul 16 22:23:54 2016
From: hanslg at aol.com (Hans Hammarquist)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 22:23:54 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net>
References: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net>
Message-ID: <155f6aac59f-1398-70a1@webprd-m63.mail.aol.com>

Well, the regulation says:



SEC. 2110. TOWER MARKING.
    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
shall issue regulations to require the marking of covered towers.
    (b) Marking Required.--The regulations under subsection (a) shall 
require that a covered tower be clearly marked in a manner that is 
consistent with applicable guidance under the Federal Aviation 
Administration Advisory Circular issued December 4, 2015 (AC 70/7460-
1L), or other relevant safety guidance, as determined by the 
Administrator.
    (c) Application.--The regulations issued under subsection (a) shall 
ensure that--
        (1) all covered towers constructed on or after the date on 
    which such regulations take effect are marked in accordance with 
    subsection (b); and
        (2) a covered tower constructed before the date on which such 
    regulations take effect is marked in accordance with subsection (b) 
    not later than 1 year after such effective date.
    (d) Definitions.--
        (1) In general.--In this section, the following definitions 
    apply:
            (A) Covered tower.--
                (i) In general.--The term ``covered tower'' means a 
            structure that--

                    (I) is self-standing or supported by guy wires and 
                ground anchors;
                    (II) is 10 feet or less in diameter at the above-
                ground base, excluding concrete footing;
                    (III) at the highest point of the structure is at 
                least 50 feet above ground level;
                    (IV) at the highest point of the structure is not 
                more than 200 feet above ground level;
                    (V) has accessory facilities on which an antenna, 
                sensor, camera, meteorological instrument, or other 
                equipment is mounted; and
                    (VI) is located--

                        (aa) outside the boundaries of an incorporated 
                    city or town; or
                        (bb) on land that is--
                            (AA) undeveloped; or
                            (BB) used for agricultural purposes.
                (ii) Exclusions.--The term ``covered tower'' does not 
            include any structure that--

                    (I) is adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility 
                station, or other building;
                    (II) is within the curtilage of a farmstead;
                    (III) supports electric utility transmission or 
                distribution lines;
                    (IV) is a wind-powered electrical generator with a 
                rotor blade radius that exceeds 6 feet; or
                    (V) is a street light erected or maintained by a 
                Federal, State, local, or tribal entity.

            (B) Undeveloped.--The term ``undeveloped'' means a defined 
        geographic area where the Administrator determines low-flying 
        aircraft are operated on a routine basis, such as low-lying 
        forested areas with predominant tree cover under 200 feet and 
        pasture and range land.
        (2) Other definitions.--The Administrator shall define such 
    other terms as may be necessary to carry out this section.
    (e) Database.--The Administrator shall--
        (1) develop a database that contains the location and height of 
    each covered tower;
        (2) keep the database current to the extent practicable;
        (3) ensure that any proprietary information in the database is 
    protected from disclosure in accordance with law; and
        (4) ensure that, by virtue of accessing the database, users 
    agree and acknowledge that information in the database--
            (A) may only be used for aviation safety purposes; and
            (B) may not be disclosed for purposes other than aviation 
        safety, regardless of whether or not the information is marked 
        or labeled as proprietary or with a similar designation.

Reading it you find that towers that are:



(ii) Exclusions.--The term ``covered tower'' does not 
            include any structure that--

                    (I) is adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility 
                station, or other building;
                    (II) is within the curtilage of a farmstead;


I think most of us are safe. Just wonder how far from the house it can be and still is considered "adjacent".



-----Original Message-----
From: Mitch <mskobier at charter.net>
To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Sat, Jul 16, 2016 2:45 pm
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

All, 

                I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.  H.R.636 - Federal Aviation
Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by the
President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of erecting
my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me. At
this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on the
document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt

 

 

Mitch KJ7JA

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From n0nb at n0nb.us  Sat Jul 16 22:59:36 2016
From: n0nb at n0nb.us (Nate Bargmann)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 21:59:36 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <155f6aac59f-1398-70a1@webprd-m63.mail.aol.com>
References: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net>
	<155f6aac59f-1398-70a1@webprd-m63.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <20160717025936.GZ22814@n0nb.us>

* On 2016 16 Jul 21:25 -0500, Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk wrote:
> Well, the regulation says:

No, you're quoting the law as passed by congress and signed by the
president.  The regulations are yet to be written and the bureaucrats
will expand, explain, clarify, and obfuscate the law as they see fit.
That will be the interesting part.

73, Nate

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us

From xdavid at cis-broadband.com  Sat Jul 16 23:32:21 2016
From: xdavid at cis-broadband.com (David Gilbert)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 20:32:21 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
In-Reply-To: <3686aae6-3b98-92db-5f59-5d1fa361a7cd@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <1985176637.9970575.1468702761285.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
	<AAE27B998D9E4E85AD26AB2FA24CAA11@RXDesignDell>
	<3686aae6-3b98-92db-5f59-5d1fa361a7cd@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <cc81a846-b18b-062e-62ec-ca03c0079767@cis-broadband.com>


Hi, Jim.

I did pretty much the same thing for the key azimuth points I was 
interested in.  I used Delorme's 3D-Topo Maps program (which no longer 
works on Windows 8 or 10, by the way).   I simply drew a line in the 
desired direction and manually read the elevation and distance figures 
off the terrain plot.  By doing that I was able to pick data points 
determined by the change in elevation instead of the change in 
distance.  So my text files looks more like:

0, 5000
15, 4990
35, 4980
70, 4970
85, 4960
etc (numbers above for illustration only)

instead of:

0, 5000
10, 4993
20, 4987
30, 4982
40, 4978
etc

HFTA simply draws lines between the data points, so in my opinion it 
gives more accurate rendering of the terrain profile with a relatively 
fixed increment of elevation than with a fixed increment of distance.  
It also allows 150 data points to extend out much further unless the 
terrain profile is very choppy.  In my case here in southern Arizona, 
HFTA can recognize the effect of a mountain range some 15 miles distant 
so the extra distance from the method I used was useful to me.

73,
Dave   AB7E




On 7/16/2016 4:28 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> Gary,
>
> When I was running HFTA on my QTH in the Santa Cruz mountains, Dean 
> advised me to to out to 10-15 miles. This ignores small variations, 
> like the gullies being described.  The radial data is a plain text 
> file, and it is possible to generate your own data from topo maps. 
> When I started using HFTA, I did a few radials this way as an exercise.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> On Sat,7/16/2016 3:03 PM, StellarCAT wrote:
>> I use the 10M range data with HFTA exclusively! The 30 is far too 
>> long of a sample point. I'd prefer even smaller if available. I set 
>> up microdem at 5? increments and never have a problem getting the 
>> full data set. Works great. 
>


From xdavid at cis-broadband.com  Sat Jul 16 23:42:40 2016
From: xdavid at cis-broadband.com (David Gilbert)
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 20:42:40 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
In-Reply-To: <343712185.10075360.1468719510871.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
References: <1985176637.9970575.1468702761285.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
	<AAE27B998D9E4E85AD26AB2FA24CAA11@RXDesignDell>
	<343712185.10075360.1468719510871.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <db0e3d86-4581-cd2c-dcb7-2defdf85a3b5@cis-broadband.com>


HFTA has a feature allowing you to actually plot your terrain file, and 
maybe that is indeed how you compared the two.  I'd bet that there is a 
difference in the "choppiness" of the two plots.  HFTA calculates 
dispersion and refraction of the various rays, as well as the secondary 
dispersion and reflection of those dispersed/refracted rays.  The 
combinations can get pretty intricate.  Sharper edges in the plots would 
give different results than smoother transitions ... perhaps 
significantly so if the transitions are appreciably sharp relative to a 
wavelength.

73,
Dave AB7E


On 7/16/2016 6:38 PM, N3AE wrote:
>
> As an experiment this afternoon, I took a 30 meter resolution DEM data file and truncated it beyond 1470 meters so I could compare the results with 149 pairs of 10 meter resolution data that ended at 1490 meters from the tower. Once again, the two elevation profile plots were essentially on top of each other, differing by less than 2 ft at any range. But the takeoff angle plots still differed quite a bit. Not sure what's going on inside HFTA that causes this "butterfly effect" sensitivity to differences in terrain elevations, at least in the elevation profiles for my QTH.
>
> Shawn
> N3AE
>


From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Sun Jul 17 07:51:07 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 07:51:07 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
In-Reply-To: <3686aae6-3b98-92db-5f59-5d1fa361a7cd@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <1985176637.9970575.1468702761285.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net><AAE27B998D9E4E85AD26AB2FA24CAA11@RXDesignDell>
	<3686aae6-3b98-92db-5f59-5d1fa361a7cd@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <3925A9466DBA412B9328EC87899D4043@RXDesignDell>

Yes but to Shawn's point there is an arbitrary limit to the number of points 
allowed. I had a  friend in CO ask me to do a plot for him using MicroDEM 
and the 10 meter points (1/3 arcsec) ... he had distant mountains that 
didn't show in the normal 14,000' range ... but when I tried to go out 
further, using this with HFTA it told me there was a limit to 149 points. I 
had never seen that before in my use - using 10 meter and 5 deg 
increments... but to Shawn's point in a reply today, something I hadn't 
thought about with my runs, 4400M (14K' roughly) would be 440 points if it 
was 10 meters and 147 if 30 meters... so it might very well be that it 
truncated the data using only every third one and all this time I had been 
believing I was using 10 meter points!

My plots look quite undulated and match a topo map  ... but I can now easily 
see that it could very well be 30 meters since the major demarcation points 
are 1000'!

This would be the first thing I'd like to see changed - take it, change it 
so that it can use the 10 meter data out to the full extent.

Gary

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jim Brown
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 7:28 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....

Gary,

When I was running HFTA on my QTH in the Santa Cruz mountains, Dean
advised me to to out to 10-15 miles. This ignores small variations, like
the gullies being described.  The radial data is a plain text file, and
it is possible to generate your own data from topo maps. When I started
using HFTA, I did a few radials this way as an exercise.

73, Jim K9YC

On Sat,7/16/2016 3:03 PM, StellarCAT wrote:
> I use the 10M range data with HFTA exclusively! The 30 is far too long of 
> a sample point. I'd prefer even smaller if available. I set up microdem at 
> 5? increments and never have a problem getting the full data set. Works 
> great.




From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Sun Jul 17 07:56:09 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 07:56:09 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <1A1B298A18CB424785CB9CA1F613238B@DonPC>
References: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net><CAC5FBO-g+0RTjUuMPgo1CG7Gzp=RPNaQk9QhUxgobp68nk=EfA@mail.gmail.com><4536431F-17
	42-4484-9F7C-40E6FF4E228C@yahoo.com>
	<1A1B298A18CB424785CB9CA1F613238B@DonPC>
Message-ID: <8CF0C968E575413E8C8DFBFE9C52CA9C@RXDesignDell>

an exclusion is an exclusion I'd think - if it has a home on it would mean 
its excluded independent of whether or not its in an undeveloped area of the 
county. At least I hope that is correct. It sounds like this is a direct 
attempt to exclude amateur radio towers without specifically using the term 
just to be sure to cover any other similar tower.

It will be several months before I finish my 147' ... sure don't want MORE 
costs involved and definitely no additional maintenance. Also I'd have to 
believe this could not be retroactive - all existing towers would be grand 
fathered in I'd hope.

g.



-----Original Message----- 
From: Don W7WLL
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 7:22 PM
To: Towertalk
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

Tempest in a teapotl. If you live in a house on with towers nearby that are
from 50 to 200 feet it is reasonable that you are in a developed area by
most zoning standards. A question might exist if your tower is on acreage
deemed or considered 'undeveloped' under local zoning regulations. I'd bet
99.9 % of us are still only subject to the existing marking and height
requirements relative to your proximity to any airports. Unlikely my garden
will be considered as used for agricultural purposes. Here is a cut of the
area of concern in that laws.

Don W7WLL

"The term ?covered tower? means a structure that?
(I)is self-standing or supported by guy wires and ground anchors;

(II)is 10 feet or less in diameter at the above-ground base, excluding
concrete footing;

(III)at the highest point of the structure is at least 50 feet above ground
level;

(IV)at the highest point of the structure is not more than 200 feet above
ground level;

(V)has accessory facilities on which an antenna, sensor, camera,
meteorological instrument, or other equipment is mounted; and

(VI)is located?
(aa)outside the boundaries of an incorporated city or town; or

(bb)on land that is?
(AA)undeveloped; or

(BB)used for agricultural purposes.

(ii)Exclusions.?
The term ?covered tower? does not include any structure that?
(I)is adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility station, or other
building;

(II)is within the curtilage of a farmstead;

(III)supports electric utility transmission or distribution lines;

(IV)is a wind-powered electrical generator with a rotor blade radius that
exceeds 6 feet; or

(V)is a street light erected or maintained by a Federal, State, local, or
tribal entity.

(B)Undeveloped.?

The term ?undeveloped? means a defined geographic area where the
Administrator determines low-flying aircraft are operated on a routine
basis, such as low-lying forested areas with predominant tree cover under
200 feet and pasture and range land."

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ed via TowerTalk
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 1:29 PM
To: Richard Solomon
Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

I imagine this won't affect crank-up towers, correct?

> On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:49, Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is an "exclusion" ... any
> "covered" tower "adjacent" to a
> house is excluded.
>
> Couldn't find a definition for
> "adjacent" in the Bill.
>
> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
>
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mitch <mskobier at charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>>                I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
>> the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.  H.R.636 - Federal 
>> Aviation
>> Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by
>> the
>> President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
>> 50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
>> may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
>> developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of 
>> erecting
>> my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me. 
>> At
>> this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
>> link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on
>> the
>> document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mitch KJ7JA
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk




From k1ttt at arrl.net  Sun Jul 17 08:37:54 2016
From: k1ttt at arrl.net (David Robbins)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 12:37:54 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <8CF0C968E575413E8C8DFBFE9C52CA9C@RXDesignDell>
References: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net><CAC5FBO-g+0RTjUuMPgo1CG7Gzp=RPNaQk9QhUxgobp68nk=EfA@mail.gmail.com><4536431F-17
	42-4484-9F7C-40E6FF4E228C@yahoo.com>	<1A1B298A18CB424785CB9CA1F613238B@DonPC>
	<8CF0C968E575413E8C8DFBFE9C52CA9C@RXDesignDell>
Message-ID: <005501d1e028$0af46ec0$20dd4c40$@arrl.net>

It sounds more like trying to get cell towers in undeveloped areas marked and cataloged.    I think the biggest question is what 'adjacent' means.  And secondarily what is 'undeveloped'.  

It specifically gives existing structures 1 year to get compliant, so no grandfathering in this one.

David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
web: http://wiki.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://k1ttt.net:7373



-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of StellarCAT
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 11:56
To: Don W7WLL; Towertalk
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

an exclusion is an exclusion I'd think - if it has a home on it would mean its excluded independent of whether or not its in an undeveloped area of the county. At least I hope that is correct. It sounds like this is a direct attempt to exclude amateur radio towers without specifically using the term just to be sure to cover any other similar tower.

It will be several months before I finish my 147' ... sure don't want MORE costs involved and definitely no additional maintenance. Also I'd have to believe this could not be retroactive - all existing towers would be grand fathered in I'd hope.

g.



-----Original Message----- 
From: Don W7WLL
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 7:22 PM
To: Towertalk
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

Tempest in a teapotl. If you live in a house on with towers nearby that are
from 50 to 200 feet it is reasonable that you are in a developed area by
most zoning standards. A question might exist if your tower is on acreage
deemed or considered 'undeveloped' under local zoning regulations. I'd bet
99.9 % of us are still only subject to the existing marking and height
requirements relative to your proximity to any airports. Unlikely my garden
will be considered as used for agricultural purposes. Here is a cut of the
area of concern in that laws.

Don W7WLL

"The term ?covered tower? means a structure that?
(I)is self-standing or supported by guy wires and ground anchors;

(II)is 10 feet or less in diameter at the above-ground base, excluding
concrete footing;

(III)at the highest point of the structure is at least 50 feet above ground
level;

(IV)at the highest point of the structure is not more than 200 feet above
ground level;

(V)has accessory facilities on which an antenna, sensor, camera,
meteorological instrument, or other equipment is mounted; and

(VI)is located?
(aa)outside the boundaries of an incorporated city or town; or

(bb)on land that is?
(AA)undeveloped; or

(BB)used for agricultural purposes.

(ii)Exclusions.?
The term ?covered tower? does not include any structure that?
(I)is adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility station, or other
building;

(II)is within the curtilage of a farmstead;

(III)supports electric utility transmission or distribution lines;

(IV)is a wind-powered electrical generator with a rotor blade radius that
exceeds 6 feet; or

(V)is a street light erected or maintained by a Federal, State, local, or
tribal entity.

(B)Undeveloped.?

The term ?undeveloped? means a defined geographic area where the
Administrator determines low-flying aircraft are operated on a routine
basis, such as low-lying forested areas with predominant tree cover under
200 feet and pasture and range land."

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ed via TowerTalk
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 1:29 PM
To: Richard Solomon
Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

I imagine this won't affect crank-up towers, correct?

> On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:49, Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is an "exclusion" ... any
> "covered" tower "adjacent" to a
> house is excluded.
>
> Couldn't find a definition for
> "adjacent" in the Bill.
>
> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
>
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mitch <mskobier at charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>>                I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
>> the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.  H.R.636 - Federal 
>> Aviation
>> Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by
>> the
>> President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
>> 50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
>> may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
>> developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of 
>> erecting
>> my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me. 
>> At
>> this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
>> link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on
>> the
>> document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mitch KJ7JA
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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


From n8hm at arrl.net  Sun Jul 17 08:42:22 2016
From: n8hm at arrl.net (Paul Stoetzer)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 08:42:22 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <005501d1e028$0af46ec0$20dd4c40$@arrl.net>
References: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net>
	<CAC5FBO-g+0RTjUuMPgo1CG7Gzp=RPNaQk9QhUxgobp68nk=EfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1A1B298A18CB424785CB9CA1F613238B@DonPC>
	<8CF0C968E575413E8C8DFBFE9C52CA9C@RXDesignDell>
	<005501d1e028$0af46ec0$20dd4c40$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <CABzOSOoXcQ_j3bj0ndA-Wm9=x1yyP+d3CfkS0iL0xW85QAajzw@mail.gmail.com>

I don't think this will be a big deal, but the ARRL should definitely
monitor the rulemaking process and file comments if necessary after
the FAA issues it's NPRM.

73,

Paul, N8HM

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 8:37 AM, David Robbins <k1ttt at arrl.net> wrote:
> It sounds more like trying to get cell towers in undeveloped areas marked and cataloged.    I think the biggest question is what 'adjacent' means.  And secondarily what is 'undeveloped'.
>
> It specifically gives existing structures 1 year to get compliant, so no grandfathering in this one.
>
> David Robbins K1TTT
> e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
> web: http://wiki.k1ttt.net
> AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://k1ttt.net:7373
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of StellarCAT
> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 11:56
> To: Don W7WLL; Towertalk
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
>
> an exclusion is an exclusion I'd think - if it has a home on it would mean its excluded independent of whether or not its in an undeveloped area of the county. At least I hope that is correct. It sounds like this is a direct attempt to exclude amateur radio towers without specifically using the term just to be sure to cover any other similar tower.
>
> It will be several months before I finish my 147' ... sure don't want MORE costs involved and definitely no additional maintenance. Also I'd have to believe this could not be retroactive - all existing towers would be grand fathered in I'd hope.
>
> g.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don W7WLL
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 7:22 PM
> To: Towertalk
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
>
> Tempest in a teapotl. If you live in a house on with towers nearby that are
> from 50 to 200 feet it is reasonable that you are in a developed area by
> most zoning standards. A question might exist if your tower is on acreage
> deemed or considered 'undeveloped' under local zoning regulations. I'd bet
> 99.9 % of us are still only subject to the existing marking and height
> requirements relative to your proximity to any airports. Unlikely my garden
> will be considered as used for agricultural purposes. Here is a cut of the
> area of concern in that laws.
>
> Don W7WLL
>
> "The term ?covered tower? means a structure that?
> (I)is self-standing or supported by guy wires and ground anchors;
>
> (II)is 10 feet or less in diameter at the above-ground base, excluding
> concrete footing;
>
> (III)at the highest point of the structure is at least 50 feet above ground
> level;
>
> (IV)at the highest point of the structure is not more than 200 feet above
> ground level;
>
> (V)has accessory facilities on which an antenna, sensor, camera,
> meteorological instrument, or other equipment is mounted; and
>
> (VI)is located?
> (aa)outside the boundaries of an incorporated city or town; or
>
> (bb)on land that is?
> (AA)undeveloped; or
>
> (BB)used for agricultural purposes.
>
> (ii)Exclusions.?
> The term ?covered tower? does not include any structure that?
> (I)is adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility station, or other
> building;
>
> (II)is within the curtilage of a farmstead;
>
> (III)supports electric utility transmission or distribution lines;
>
> (IV)is a wind-powered electrical generator with a rotor blade radius that
> exceeds 6 feet; or
>
> (V)is a street light erected or maintained by a Federal, State, local, or
> tribal entity.
>
> (B)Undeveloped.?
>
> The term ?undeveloped? means a defined geographic area where the
> Administrator determines low-flying aircraft are operated on a routine
> basis, such as low-lying forested areas with predominant tree cover under
> 200 feet and pasture and range land."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed via TowerTalk
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 1:29 PM
> To: Richard Solomon
> Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
>
> I imagine this won't affect crank-up towers, correct?
>
>> On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:49, Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is an "exclusion" ... any
>> "covered" tower "adjacent" to a
>> house is excluded.
>>
>> Couldn't find a definition for
>> "adjacent" in the Bill.
>>
>> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mitch <mskobier at charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>>                I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
>>> the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.  H.R.636 - Federal
>>> Aviation
>>> Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by
>>> the
>>> President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
>>> 50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
>>> may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
>>> developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of
>>> erecting
>>> my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me.
>>> At
>>> this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
>>> link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on
>>> the
>>> document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mitch KJ7JA
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From gm3sek at ifwtech.co.uk  Sun Jul 17 08:43:35 2016
From: gm3sek at ifwtech.co.uk (Ian White)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 13:43:35 +0100
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
In-Reply-To: <3925A9466DBA412B9328EC87899D4043@RXDesignDell>
References: <1985176637.9970575.1468702761285.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net><AAE27B998D9E4E85AD26AB2FA24CAA11@RXDesignDell>	<3686aae6-3b98-92db-5f59-5d1fa361a7cd@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<3925A9466DBA412B9328EC87899D4043@RXDesignDell>
Message-ID: <00d201d1e028$da580410$8f080c30$@co.uk>



HFTA does not require evenly spaced data points, so the 149-point limit in the data file is not the problem it might seem. If you are prepared to remove some redundant data from the computer-generated file, you can often reclaim space to insert important local detail that the satellite surveys had missed.

Redundant data includes:

* All but the first and last points from a string of data showing the same height (so a large body of water can be represented by just two points near the opposite shores, and HFTA will interpolate as needed).

* All intermediate data points on a uniform slope (these opportunities are harder to notice in the file, but they may well be there)

* Excessively dense data at great distances (it makes no sense to use the same point spacing at the far horizon that you're using close in). 

* Everything beyond the horizon (it is advisable to leave a few points in just beyond the ridge line to allow for diffraction, but distant locations in 'deep shadow' can be safely ignored).

Always keep back-copies, of course, and always check for the effects of your editing on the computed results.

And having done that, you can then insert some new data points close-in where it matters, based on your own local knowledge. For example, I deleted a 'hill' which was actually a clump of tall trees (replacing that data point with the true ground level) and inserted new data points to represent a sharp drop-off which the satellite data had missed.


73 from Ian GM3SEK


>-----Original Message-----
>From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>StellarCAT
>Sent: 17 July 2016 12:51
>To: towertalk at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
>
>Yes but to Shawn's point there is an arbitrary limit to the number of points
>allowed. I had a  friend in CO ask me to do a plot for him using MicroDEM
>and the 10 meter points (1/3 arcsec) ... he had distant mountains that
>didn't show in the normal 14,000' range ... but when I tried to go out
>further, using this with HFTA it told me there was a limit to 149 points. I
>had never seen that before in my use - using 10 meter and 5 deg
>increments... but to Shawn's point in a reply today, something I hadn't
>thought about with my runs, 4400M (14K' roughly) would be 440 points if it
>was 10 meters and 147 if 30 meters... so it might very well be that it
>truncated the data using only every third one and all this time I had been
>believing I was using 10 meter points!
>
>My plots look quite undulated and match a topo map  ... but I can now easily
>see that it could very well be 30 meters since the major demarcation points
>are 1000'!
>
>This would be the first thing I'd like to see changed - take it, change it
>so that it can use the 10 meter data out to the full extent.
>
>Gary
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Brown
>Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 7:28 PM
>To: towertalk at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
>
>Gary,
>
>When I was running HFTA on my QTH in the Santa Cruz mountains, Dean
>advised me to to out to 10-15 miles. This ignores small variations, like
>the gullies being described.  The radial data is a plain text file, and
>it is possible to generate your own data from topo maps. When I started
>using HFTA, I did a few radials this way as an exercise.
>
>73, Jim K9YC
>
>On Sat,7/16/2016 3:03 PM, StellarCAT wrote:
>> I use the 10M range data with HFTA exclusively! The 30 is far too long of
>> a sample point. I'd prefer even smaller if available. I set up microdem at
>> 5? increments and never have a problem getting the full data set. Works
>> great.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Sun Jul 17 10:06:46 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 10:06:46 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
In-Reply-To: <00d201d1e028$da580410$8f080c30$@co.uk>
References: <1985176637.9970575.1468702761285.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net><AAE27B998D9E4E85AD26AB2FA24CAA11@RXDesignDell>
	<3686aae6-3b98-92db-5f59-5d1fa361a7cd@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<3925A9466DBA412B9328EC87899D4043@RXDesignDell>
	<00d201d1e028$da580410$8f080c30$@co.uk>
Message-ID: <A955E7F96C8C4B7B933FE323196ED519@RXDesignDell>

yes - I'm aware you can remove oversampled flat regions or shadow points as 
long as they're far enough away and/or they're far enough down from the 
previous high point to avoid removing defraction effects ... but where I'm 
at now is - I created 10 m point plots - and I used those with HFTA... so -

actually looking at the PRO files I can see that indeed somewhere something 
changed the steps to 30M! So first my apologies Shawn for saying otherwise!

I know I downloaded the 1/3arcsec file ... and thought I had used Microdem 
correctly ... how then does it end up not using this data and 'crashing'? 
Either Microdem didn't create 10m steps (I screwed up or it has its own 
limitations that I wasn't aware of nor saw in the help file) or HFTA 
massaged the data files somehow changing them to 30M by using every third 
point. The latter is extremely unlikely as I'm sure it would say it was 
doing this to avoid confusion.

Does Stu, TU, do this for you in his plots that his site creates?

Gary



-----Original Message----- 
From: Ian White
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 8:43 AM
To: 'StellarCAT' ; towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....



HFTA does not require evenly spaced data points, so the 149-point limit in 
the data file is not the problem it might seem. If you are prepared to 
remove some redundant data from the computer-generated file, you can often 
reclaim space to insert important local detail that the satellite surveys 
had missed.

Redundant data includes:

* All but the first and last points from a string of data showing the same 
height (so a large body of water can be represented by just two points near 
the opposite shores, and HFTA will interpolate as needed).

* All intermediate data points on a uniform slope (these opportunities are 
harder to notice in the file, but they may well be there)

* Excessively dense data at great distances (it makes no sense to use the 
same point spacing at the far horizon that you're using close in).

* Everything beyond the horizon (it is advisable to leave a few points in 
just beyond the ridge line to allow for diffraction, but distant locations 
in 'deep shadow' can be safely ignored).

Always keep back-copies, of course, and always check for the effects of your 
editing on the computed results.

And having done that, you can then insert some new data points close-in 
where it matters, based on your own local knowledge. For example, I deleted 
a 'hill' which was actually a clump of tall trees (replacing that data point 
with the true ground level) and inserted new data points to represent a 
sharp drop-off which the satellite data had missed.


73 from Ian GM3SEK


>-----Original Message-----
>From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>StellarCAT
>Sent: 17 July 2016 12:51
>To: towertalk at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
>
>Yes but to Shawn's point there is an arbitrary limit to the number of 
>points
>allowed. I had a  friend in CO ask me to do a plot for him using MicroDEM
>and the 10 meter points (1/3 arcsec) ... he had distant mountains that
>didn't show in the normal 14,000' range ... but when I tried to go out
>further, using this with HFTA it told me there was a limit to 149 points. I
>had never seen that before in my use - using 10 meter and 5 deg
>increments... but to Shawn's point in a reply today, something I hadn't
>thought about with my runs, 4400M (14K' roughly) would be 440 points if it
>was 10 meters and 147 if 30 meters... so it might very well be that it
>truncated the data using only every third one and all this time I had been
>believing I was using 10 meter points!
>
>My plots look quite undulated and match a topo map  ... but I can now 
>easily
>see that it could very well be 30 meters since the major demarcation points
>are 1000'!
>
>This would be the first thing I'd like to see changed - take it, change it
>so that it can use the 10 meter data out to the full extent.
>
>Gary
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Brown
>Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 7:28 PM
>To: towertalk at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
>
>Gary,
>
>When I was running HFTA on my QTH in the Santa Cruz mountains, Dean
>advised me to to out to 10-15 miles. This ignores small variations, like
>the gullies being described.  The radial data is a plain text file, and
>it is possible to generate your own data from topo maps. When I started
>using HFTA, I did a few radials this way as an exercise.
>
>73, Jim K9YC
>
>On Sat,7/16/2016 3:03 PM, StellarCAT wrote:
>> I use the 10M range data with HFTA exclusively! The 30 is far too long of
>> a sample point. I'd prefer even smaller if available. I set up microdem 
>> at
>> 5? increments and never have a problem getting the full data set. Works
>> great.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 


From billp at wwpc.com  Sun Jul 17 12:16:40 2016
From: billp at wwpc.com (Bill Putney)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 09:16:40 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <005501d1e028$0af46ec0$20dd4c40$@arrl.net>
References: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net>
	<CAC5FBO-g+0RTjUuMPgo1CG7Gzp=RPNaQk9QhUxgobp68nk=EfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4536431F-17 42-4484-9F7C-40E6FF4E228C@yahoo.com>
	<1A1B298A18CB424785CB9CA1F613238B@DonPC>
	<8CF0C968E575413E8C8DFBFE9C52CA9C@RXDesignDell>
	<005501d1e028$0af46ec0$20dd4c40$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <2f041d68-c925-ec7a-686d-44432752c801@wwpc.com>

The problem that prompts this rule making is the towers that pop up in 
the middle of nowhere without warning. The ones that have killed people 
have been erected by cellular or wind surveyors so far. They put them up 
for a few days and they are gone. But a new ham or utility tower could 
be just as deadly. What has killed a few spray pilots is that they scout 
an area the are going to spray a few days in advance to make sure it's 
clear of obstructions. Then they get up at dawn to go spray an area in 
the dim light when the winds are calm. Then they find that there is a 
tower at the end of their spray run and don't see it in time to avoid it 
where there wasn't one a few days before.

It is a real problem but as usual the government has used a back hoe 
where a garden spade would have done. Simply registering the location of 
a tower accurately in a data base 30 days in advance of construction is 
all that is needed.

A free cellphone app that just lets you stand in the spot the tower is 
going to be built (or already exists in the case of preexisting towers) 
entering the tower height, type (guyed, freestanding or monopole), your 
contact email and a press the register button. You get a registration 
number back and the tower gets mapped on a Google Earth overlay for 
spray pilots to use in their planning. Problem over.

All the painting and lighting is just a waist of money. Just after dawn 
the tower lights are going to go off and the natural lighting will be 
bad enough or there will be just enough ground fog that a spray pilot 
won't see it unless they know it's there regardless of how it's painted. 
As far as I know all the deaths have been at dawn or dusk when the winds 
are calm.

Bill Putney - WB6RFW
Chief Engineer
KPTZ - Port Townsend, WA

PP-SEL/A&P-IA

"...you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd know it?" -Sheldon Cooper



From ct1ilt at gmail.com  Sun Jul 17 12:50:29 2016
From: ct1ilt at gmail.com (Filipe Lopes)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 18:50:29 +0200
Subject: [TowerTalk]  Tribander Stacking
Message-ID: <CAFQcihQRT6SQssp6uN7Sd_heQrvQsoiRyzyfsZVK=U6MiRZ3Xw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello guys,

I have read quite a few posts here but I still am not sure about the
distances I should use to stack my tribanders.

I am rebuilding my contest station CR6K in Portugal from scratch, meaning
all antenas are gone, new antennas are being constructed and also a new
self supporting cranck up tower 20m high is being built by my dad CT1CJJ.

For this new tower I want to make a stack of 3 x tribanders (10 15 20m) 11
elements each. I tried a few simulations with MMANA and HFTA and what I
found is that my stacking distances are best at 5.4m (+- 17 feet) from each
antenna, meaning I would have the 3 antennas at 11.4 m / 16.8 m / 22.2 m (
37 / 55 / 73 feet). I then read one post from someone who says that HFTA
has some sort of bug that considers maximums at < than 0.5 wl.

For info the top antenna will rotate when necessary and the other 2 will be
fixed to USA and my QTH slopes down a lot towards USA. Also this is mainlly
a USA tower because there is another tower dedicated to EU/ASIA.

So my questions are:

   - Is a stack of 2 tribanders @ 60/90 feet enough?
   - If I consider the 3 tribanders the top one might be a lot towards EU
   and so the other 2 towards USA
   - Is 9 m (30 feet) the optimum stacking distance for tribanders?
   - Will it hurt having for example 30 feet stacking between the 2 bottom
   antennas and 17 feet between the second one and top one?
   - I know the coax lines between the antennas and the power splitter need
   to be electrically the same but does it matter how long they are, for
   example 3x 25m is ok?


All comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thank you so much.

73's Filipe Lopes
CT1ILT - CR6K
F4VPX - TM3M

From r_bakalov at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 17 14:06:33 2016
From: r_bakalov at yahoo.com (Rudy Bakalov)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 14:06:33 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tribander Stacking
In-Reply-To: <CAFQcihQRT6SQssp6uN7Sd_heQrvQsoiRyzyfsZVK=U6MiRZ3Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFQcihQRT6SQssp6uN7Sd_heQrvQsoiRyzyfsZVK=U6MiRZ3Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3C3A6364-70B2-4829-90D5-97F0475EE696@yahoo.com>

This is for a different type of tribanders- KT36XA. Upon consultation with M2 and HFTA, I came up with 105' and 68', for a stacking distance of 37'.  My terrain is completely flat and at about 1200' above sea level.

Rudy N2WQ

Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.


> On Jul 17, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Filipe Lopes <ct1ilt at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello guys,
> 
> I have read quite a few posts here but I still am not sure about the
> distances I should use to stack my tribanders.
> 
> I am rebuilding my contest station CR6K in Portugal from scratch, meaning
> all antenas are gone, new antennas are being constructed and also a new
> self supporting cranck up tower 20m high is being built by my dad CT1CJJ.
> 
> For this new tower I want to make a stack of 3 x tribanders (10 15 20m) 11
> elements each. I tried a few simulations with MMANA and HFTA and what I
> found is that my stacking distances are best at 5.4m (+- 17 feet) from each
> antenna, meaning I would have the 3 antennas at 11.4 m / 16.8 m / 22.2 m (
> 37 / 55 / 73 feet). I then read one post from someone who says that HFTA
> has some sort of bug that considers maximums at < than 0.5 wl.
> 
> For info the top antenna will rotate when necessary and the other 2 will be
> fixed to USA and my QTH slopes down a lot towards USA. Also this is mainlly
> a USA tower because there is another tower dedicated to EU/ASIA.
> 
> So my questions are:
> 
>   - Is a stack of 2 tribanders @ 60/90 feet enough?
>   - If I consider the 3 tribanders the top one might be a lot towards EU
>   and so the other 2 towards USA
>   - Is 9 m (30 feet) the optimum stacking distance for tribanders?
>   - Will it hurt having for example 30 feet stacking between the 2 bottom
>   antennas and 17 feet between the second one and top one?
>   - I know the coax lines between the antennas and the power splitter need
>   to be electrically the same but does it matter how long they are, for
>   example 3x 25m is ok?
> 
> 
> All comments and suggestions are welcome.
> 
> Thank you so much.
> 
> 73's Filipe Lopes
> CT1ILT - CR6K
> F4VPX - TM3M
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From n3ae at comcast.net  Sun Jul 17 14:28:46 2016
From: n3ae at comcast.net (N3AE)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 18:28:46 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
In-Reply-To: <558783263.10462049.1468779538889.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <618447692.10466620.1468780126303.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>

Dave, 

According to Dean, HFTA has a terrain pre-smoothing algorithm internally which is applied to the raw elevation profile provided by the user. Unfortunately, HFTA does not give you the opportunity to plot what this smoothing filter has done to your elevation profile. Probably in a great majority of situations, the pre-smoothing algorithm doesn't make the results overly sensitive to the specific elevation profile. But in my case with the terrain bounding up and down like a washboard, what the smoothing algorithm is doing "may" make a big difference. 

Ian suggests getting by the 149 point limit by manually editing out large shadow areas, etc. Good idea if you can be sure they are indeed shadow areas and refracted signals are not getting into them. Personally, I'd be at a loss to come up with rules for such manual editing of elevation profiles except in simple situations like a nearby large body of water with mountainous terrain on the other side. 

Shawn 
N3AE 

From grants2 at pacbell.net  Sun Jul 17 14:53:31 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:53:31 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tribander Stacking
In-Reply-To: <CAFQcihQRT6SQssp6uN7Sd_heQrvQsoiRyzyfsZVK=U6MiRZ3Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFQcihQRT6SQssp6uN7Sd_heQrvQsoiRyzyfsZVK=U6MiRZ3Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <578BD42B.7020802@pacbell.net>

Given the propagation conditions likely in the next few years, a 
stacking strategy may be better if optimized for those conditions. For 
tribanders, "optimal stacking" is where you want the best performance 
and are willing to sacrifice elsewhere.

So my strategy would be to have the fixed US antennas at top and bottom 
with the goal to maximize 20m performance and the EU antenna in the 
middle.  The arrival angles will be lower to/from US and higher to EU.  
To maximize performance, getting the top antenna as high as possible 
perhaps on a fixed mast, and the lower US fixed so that separation is 
45' or greater would optimize for 20m.

As I understand HFTA it does not accurately predict performance at close 
stacking distances, so I would advise using EZNEC to optimize the stack 
patterns and checking for interactions.  With the US direction downslope 
you might make a judgement call about your effective tower height at 
that azimuth.

And with tribanders a three high stack may not be worth the investment 
and complexity.  Another choice might be 2x 20m monobanders as a stack 
and a fixed tribander on US for the times 15 or 10 (ha) open.  Or just a 
15m monobander.

The length of cables to a stack should be physically equal (same reel of 
coax too) from the stackmatch since for a tribander you are covering an 
octave of frequencies, the length only constrained by how much loss you 
can live with.  For monobanders, making the cables electrically the same 
length at the antenna frequency would be the best method.

Grant KZ1W

On 7/17/2016 9:50 AM, Filipe Lopes wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> I have read quite a few posts here but I still am not sure about the
> distances I should use to stack my tribanders.
>
> I am rebuilding my contest station CR6K in Portugal from scratch, meaning
> all antenas are gone, new antennas are being constructed and also a new
> self supporting cranck up tower 20m high is being built by my dad CT1CJJ.
>
> For this new tower I want to make a stack of 3 x tribanders (10 15 20m) 11
> elements each. I tried a few simulations with MMANA and HFTA and what I
> found is that my stacking distances are best at 5.4m (+- 17 feet) from each
> antenna, meaning I would have the 3 antennas at 11.4 m / 16.8 m / 22.2 m (
> 37 / 55 / 73 feet). I then read one post from someone who says that HFTA
> has some sort of bug that considers maximums at < than 0.5 wl.
>
> For info the top antenna will rotate when necessary and the other 2 will be
> fixed to USA and my QTH slopes down a lot towards USA. Also this is mainlly
> a USA tower because there is another tower dedicated to EU/ASIA.
>
> So my questions are:
>
>     - Is a stack of 2 tribanders @ 60/90 feet enough?
>     - If I consider the 3 tribanders the top one might be a lot towards EU
>     and so the other 2 towards USA
>     - Is 9 m (30 feet) the optimum stacking distance for tribanders?
>     - Will it hurt having for example 30 feet stacking between the 2 bottom
>     antennas and 17 feet between the second one and top one?
>     - I know the coax lines between the antennas and the power splitter need
>     to be electrically the same but does it matter how long they are, for
>     example 3x 25m is ok?
>
>
> All comments and suggestions are welcome.
>
> Thank you so much.
>
> 73's Filipe Lopes
> CT1ILT - CR6K
> F4VPX - TM3M
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From r_bakalov at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 17 15:45:51 2016
From: r_bakalov at yahoo.com (Rudy Bakalov)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 15:45:51 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tribander Stacking
In-Reply-To: <578BD42B.7020802@pacbell.net>
References: <CAFQcihQRT6SQssp6uN7Sd_heQrvQsoiRyzyfsZVK=U6MiRZ3Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<578BD42B.7020802@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <BD92D820-0454-4B23-9B3B-50C0082C58D6@yahoo.com>

A third tribander is unnecessary if your stack matching device allows to feed the antennas out of phase.  My first inclination was to stack 3 antennas and then came across the microHam stacking device which does have BOP capability. HFTA determined that I don't need a third tribander low on the tower.

That said, I do plan on having a third tribander, fixed on the USA (my station is in VE3 so working the USA brings me tons of easy points).

Rudy N2WQ

Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.


> On Jul 17, 2016, at 2:53 PM, Grant Saviers <grants2 at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> And with tribanders a three high stack may not be worth the investment and complexity.  Another choice might be 2x 20m monobanders as a stack and a fixed tribander on US for the times 15 or 10 (ha) open.  Or just a 15m monobander.


From akozak at hourglass.com  Sun Jul 17 15:59:44 2016
From: akozak at hourglass.com (Al Kozakiewicz)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 19:59:44 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <2f041d68-c925-ec7a-686d-44432752c801@wwpc.com>
References: <000101d1df92$09c1cc50$1d4564f0$@net>
	<CAC5FBO-g+0RTjUuMPgo1CG7Gzp=RPNaQk9QhUxgobp68nk=EfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4536431F-17 42-4484-9F7C-40E6FF4E228C@yahoo.com>
	<1A1B298A18CB424785CB9CA1F613238B@DonPC>
	<8CF0C968E575413E8C8DFBFE9C52CA9C@RXDesignDell>
	<005501d1e028$0af46ec0$20dd4c40$@arrl.net>
	<2f041d68-c925-ec7a-686d-44432752c801@wwpc.com>
Message-ID: <e51bc20c19684dfaa411bb2a3215ae34@S05-MBX04-18.S05.local>

Which is pretty much what I thought and surmised in my previous reply.

See FAA rules Part 91 > Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Specifically:
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

This is what I recalled and it makes a precise definition of "adjacent" irrelevant since aircraft aren't allowed to operate under 500' altitude near people and structures anyway.

Which is why the law specifically states that it applies to towers in undeveloped or agricultural area.  Places where aircraft can legally operate at altitudes where short towers can present a hazard.

Agree with the overkill aspects of physical marking.

Al
AB2ZY

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Putney
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 12:17 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

The problem that prompts this rule making is the towers that pop up in the middle of nowhere without warning. The ones that have killed people have been erected by cellular or wind surveyors so far. They put them up for a few days and they are gone. But a new ham or utility tower could be just as deadly. What has killed a few spray pilots is that they scout an area the are going to spray a few days in advance to make sure it's clear of obstructions. Then they get up at dawn to go spray an area in the dim light when the winds are calm. Then they find that there is a tower at the end of their spray run and don't see it in time to avoid it where there wasn't one a few days before.

It is a real problem but as usual the government has used a back hoe where a garden spade would have done. Simply registering the location of a tower accurately in a data base 30 days in advance of construction is all that is needed.

A free cellphone app that just lets you stand in the spot the tower is going to be built (or already exists in the case of preexisting towers) entering the tower height, type (guyed, freestanding or monopole), your contact email and a press the register button. You get a registration number back and the tower gets mapped on a Google Earth overlay for spray pilots to use in their planning. Problem over.

All the painting and lighting is just a waist of money. Just after dawn the tower lights are going to go off and the natural lighting will be bad enough or there will be just enough ground fog that a spray pilot won't see it unless they know it's there regardless of how it's painted. 
As far as I know all the deaths have been at dawn or dusk when the winds are calm.

Bill Putney - WB6RFW
Chief Engineer
KPTZ - Port Townsend, WA

PP-SEL/A&P-IA

"...you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd know it?" -Sheldon Cooper


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sun Jul 17 17:33:40 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 17:33:40 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tribander Stacking
In-Reply-To: <BD92D820-0454-4B23-9B3B-50C0082C58D6@yahoo.com>
References: <CAFQcihQRT6SQssp6uN7Sd_heQrvQsoiRyzyfsZVK=U6MiRZ3Xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<578BD42B.7020802@pacbell.net>
	<BD92D820-0454-4B23-9B3B-50C0082C58D6@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <626b5bec-785a-94c7-88f8-bedb532e7913@tm.net>

"As a personal choice", regardless of where you are located in VE3 land, 
a "fixed" tribander will limit access to portions of the US. Im in 
Michigan, and find everything between 90 and 280,  necessary if I 
exclude Alaska and most of Canada, while the stacked pair would take 
care of all.
The single, fixed antenna splitting the difference on the US would be a 
quick switch, but the sides would quickly fall off to be filled in by 
the stack.  Me?  Even with the land and budget, I doubt I'd go for more 
than a stacked pair

Even in NE VE3, you have between 90 and 270 or 20 for the US.

73

Roger (K8RI)

On 7/17/2016 Sunday 3:45 PM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
> A third tribander is unnecessary if your stack matching device allows to feed the antennas out of phase.  My first inclination was to stack 3 antennas and then came across the microHam stacking device which does have BOP capability. HFTA determined that I don't need a third tribander low on the tower.
>
> That said, I do plan on having a third tribander, fixed on the USA (my station is in VE3 so working the USA brings me tons of easy points).
>
> Rudy N2WQ
>
> Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.
>
>
>> On Jul 17, 2016, at 2:53 PM, Grant Saviers <grants2 at pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> And with tribanders a three high stack may not be worth the investment and complexity.  Another choice might be 2x 20m monobanders as a stack and a fixed tribander on US for the times 15 or 10 (ha) open.  Or just a 15m monobander.
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From btippett at alum.mit.edu  Sun Jul 17 17:54:24 2016
From: btippett at alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 17:54:24 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
Message-ID: <CAOH7AOr5wRxpdk1-gcx0e4TwNSdymeCsAuL87jd5Bhw+ypQJGw@mail.gmail.com>

In today's age of precision GPS mapping to a few feet (or less) and
computer augmented displays, why wouldn't GPS location be sufficient?
Looking ahead to thousands of drones delivering packages, I'd think a GPS
database is a better long term answer than painting towers.

73,  Bill  W4ZV

From john at kk9a.com  Sun Jul 17 20:14:03 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:14:03 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tribander Stacking
Message-ID: <000f01d1e089$4acc2810$e0647830$@com>

Have you modeled this in NEC2? The antennas are really close together, even
for 10m.  I think a two stack would be a better option.  Yes they should be
fed with equal length coax.

John KK9A


To:	towertalk at contesting.com
Subject:	[TowerTalk] Tribander Stacking
From:	Filipe Lopes <ct1ilt at gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 17 Jul 2016 18:50:29 +0200
List-post:	<towertalk at contesting.com">mailto:towertalk at contesting.com>
Hello guys,

I have read quite a few posts here but I still am not sure about the
distances I should use to stack my tribanders.

I am rebuilding my contest station CR6K in Portugal from scratch, meaning
all antenas are gone, new antennas are being constructed and also a new
self supporting cranck up tower 20m high is being built by my dad CT1CJJ.

For this new tower I want to make a stack of 3 x tribanders (10 15 20m) 11
elements each. I tried a few simulations with MMANA and HFTA and what I
found is that my stacking distances are best at 5.4m (+- 17 feet) from each
antenna, meaning I would have the 3 antennas at 11.4 m / 16.8 m / 22.2 m (
37 / 55 / 73 feet). I then read one post from someone who says that HFTA
has some sort of bug that considers maximums at < than 0.5 wl.

For info the top antenna will rotate when necessary and the other 2 will be
fixed to USA and my QTH slopes down a lot towards USA. Also this is mainlly
a USA tower because there is another tower dedicated to EU/ASIA.

So my questions are:

   - Is a stack of 2 tribanders @ 60/90 feet enough?
   - If I consider the 3 tribanders the top one might be a lot towards EU
   and so the other 2 towards USA
   - Is 9 m (30 feet) the optimum stacking distance for tribanders?
   - Will it hurt having for example 30 feet stacking between the 2 bottom
   antennas and 17 feet between the second one and top one?
   - I know the coax lines between the antennas and the power splitter need
   to be electrically the same but does it matter how long they are, for
   example 3x 25m is ok?


All comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thank you so much.

73's Filipe Lopes
CT1ILT - CR6K
F4VPX - TM3M


From n4zr at contesting.com  Sun Jul 17 21:29:44 2016
From: n4zr at contesting.com (Pete Smith N4ZR)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 21:29:44 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <CAOH7AOr5wRxpdk1-gcx0e4TwNSdymeCsAuL87jd5Bhw+ypQJGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOH7AOr5wRxpdk1-gcx0e4TwNSdymeCsAuL87jd5Bhw+ypQJGw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f5b1652e-6ae6-ca6b-91f9-90462951d6ff@contesting.com>

I agree that this is pretty close for a period of time when 20M is both 
to be the best target.  A half-wave or either is the standard solution.  
If you can do it, I would try 100 ft xd 50 ft, or 90 x 45

73, Pete N4ZR
Download the new N1MM Logger+ at
<http://N1MM.hamdocs.com>. Check
out the Reverse Beacon Network at
<http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.

On 7/17/2016 5:54 PM, Bill Tippett wrote:
> In today's age of precision GPS mapping to a few feet (or less) and
> computer augmented displays, why wouldn't GPS location be sufficient?
> Looking ahead to thousands of drones delivering packages, I'd think a GPS
> database is a better long term answer than painting towers.
>
> 73,  Bill  W4ZV
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From lstoskopf at cox.net  Sun Jul 17 22:59:39 2016
From: lstoskopf at cox.net (lstoskopf at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 22:59:39 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <Ks0A1t01832TbLd01s0EDW>
Message-ID: <20160717225939.9MX8Z.89456.imail@eastrmwml205>

Waaay back in the early 50s when I was just getting started there was a Ham in central Kansas whose job was keeping oil wells pumping.  He and his wife lived in a very small house right in the middle of a batch of those 90 ft derricks that we all think of when we think of Texas oil.  Anyway, he had a long length of wire running from his 'mud room' to one of the towers, then to another, etc for maybe 5 or 6 towers and back to the shack. The towers were probably 800 ft spaced.   Fed with a open balanced tuner.  I'm not sure what bands he was on, but he could work DX!!!!!!  RF's got to go somewhere!

So wondering how a long wire antenna fits into the regulation?  His would have be a very invisible airplane catcher.

N0UU

From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sun Jul 17 23:38:30 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 23:38:30 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <20160717225939.9MX8Z.89456.imail@eastrmwml205>
References: <20160717225939.9MX8Z.89456.imail@eastrmwml205>
Message-ID: <c3a449bd-afba-d239-f8f7-98ef3f05003b@tm.net>

Sounds like his antenna may have been a Rhombic.  They were very popular 
for those who had the room back then.

Crop dusting aircraft would likely cut a wire antenna or phone line like 
it wasn't there, but a friend (I went to high school with) misjudged the 
height of a power line and neatly removed the vertical stabilizer from 
his Ag Cat.  With no lateral stabilization the torque rolled it over and 
turned it into a lawn dart. It hit the ground going almost straight 
down. killing him instantly.

Those transmission lines are substantial and wound on a steel core.  
That strong steel core is much larger than any typical antenna wire.
The antenna might bring down a light plane but modern crop dusters are 
built like the aeronautical version of a tank.

We flew down to Visit my wife's folks in Florida over the Christmas 
holidays some years back. A layer of ground fog forming at night is 
quite common in the Florida peninsula and may not burn off until 9 or 10 AM.

A piper Cherokee pilot took off one morning, staying really low. He 
apparently forgot about the high tension lines abt 2 miles W of (IIRC) 
Tampa Bay Exec. He apparently panicked when he saw the first set pass 
overhead and pulled up...right into the second power line. The only 
thing left was the engine and prop rolled into a ball. There was a notch 
in the one prop blade a good inch deep where it hit one of the lines.  
AFAIK power was not interrupted.
They probably replaced that span.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/17/2016 Sunday 10:59 PM, lstoskopf at cox.net wrote:
> Waaay back in the early 50s when I was just getting started there was a Ham in central Kansas whose job was keeping oil wells pumping.  He and his wife lived in a very small house right in the middle of a batch of those 90 ft derricks that we all think of when we think of Texas oil.  Anyway, he had a long length of wire running from his 'mud room' to one of the towers, then to another, etc for maybe 5 or 6 towers and back to the shack. The towers were probably 800 ft spaced.   Fed with a open balanced tuner.  I'm not sure what bands he was on, but he could work DX!!!!!!  RF's got to go somewhere!
>
> So wondering how a long wire antenna fits into the regulation?  His would have be a very invisible airplane catcher.
>
> N0UU


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From hanslg at aol.com  Mon Jul 18 00:14:14 2016
From: hanslg at aol.com (Hans Hammarquist)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:14:14 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  Fwd:  New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <000a01d1e010$15d58b70$4180a250$@att.net>
Message-ID: <155fc362364-1398-8f34@webprd-m63.mail.aol.com>

Beats me what this is solving. I think it has to do with a couple of dust plane pilots that were killed by flying in to some temporary weather towers. I pray that ARRL get some say in the actual regulations. I don't see for example why I should have to mark my tower barely making more than a few feet above the treetops and I am sure you can find many examples similar to my situation. I do live in an undeveloped area and many with me. Look at K1TTT's station for example. Do his many towers considered be adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility station, or other building. I don't know and, I'm sure, many with me.


What I don't understand is why curtilage of a farmstead is excluded but not curtilage of a family dwelling is not.


Hans - N2JFS


-----Original Message-----
From: J. Gordon Beattie, Jr. <w2ttt at att.net>
To: 'Hans Hammarquist' <hanslg at aol.com>
Cc: towertalk-bounces <towertalk-bounces at contesting.com>; ny2rf <ny2rf at arrl.org>; n2ybb <n2ybb at arrl.org>; w2ttt <w2ttt at att.net>; jb1589 <jb1589 at att.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 17, 2016 5:46 am
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  New FAA regulations affecting towers

Hans,
1. What problem is this solving?
2. Is this just an expansion of the airspace under Federal control, for its
own sake?
3. Might this be a precursor to rules supporting drones?
4. This is a big deal because unelected Federal bureaucrats get to decide
the rules.
5. FAA-approved lights, paint and inspections aren't cheap, and the FAA gets
to decide what they want.  
6. If you don't think this is a big deal, ask folks with small e.g. 50x50
ponds, about how Federal regulations impacts their backyards or how pushing
some topsoil runs them afoul of the Feds.  Stuff one would never think of
can get into your property rights.
7. There are all sorts of exemptions for power utilities, government,
farmers etc., so I don't know why we aren't on the exemption list.
8.  I still think that K3LR needs to buy a couple of goats as part of his
next antenna or tower upgrade in order to meet the farm exemption.  :-)

73,
Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
201.314.6964


-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Hans
Hammarquist via TowerTalk
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 10:24 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: New FAA regulations affecting towers

Well, the regulation says:



SEC. 2110. TOWER MARKING.
    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
issue regulations to require the marking of covered towers.
    (b) Marking Required.--The regulations under subsection (a) shall
require that a covered tower be clearly marked in a manner that is
consistent with applicable guidance under the Federal Aviation
Administration Advisory Circular issued December 4, 2015 (AC 70/7460- 1L),
or other relevant safety guidance, as determined by the Administrator.
    (c) Application.--The regulations issued under subsection (a) shall
ensure that--
        (1) all covered towers constructed on or after the date on 
    which such regulations take effect are marked in accordance with 
    subsection (b); and
        (2) a covered tower constructed before the date on which such 
    regulations take effect is marked in accordance with subsection (b) 
    not later than 1 year after such effective date.
    (d) Definitions.--
        (1) In general.--In this section, the following definitions 
    apply:
            (A) Covered tower.--
                (i) In general.--The term ``covered tower'' means a 
 structure that--

                    (I) is self-standing or supported by guy wires and 
                ground anchors;
                    (II) is 10 feet or less in diameter at the above-
                ground base, excluding concrete footing;
                    (III) at the highest point of the structure is at 
                least 50 feet above ground level;
            (IV) at the highest point of the structure is not 
                more than 200 feet above ground level;
                    (V) has accessory facilities on which an antenna, 
                sensor, camera, meteorological instrument, or other 
                equipment is mounted; and
               (VI) is located--

                        (aa) outside the boundaries of an incorporated 
                    city or town; or
                        (bb) on land that is--
                            (AA) undeveloped; or
       (BB) used for agricultural purposes.
                (ii) Exclusions.--The term ``covered tower'' does not 
            include any structure that--

        (I) is adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility 
                station, or other building;
                    (II) is within the curtilage of a farmstead;
                    (III) supports electric utility transmission or 
                distribution lines;
                    (IV) is a wind-powered electrical generator with a 
                rotor blade radius that exceeds 6 feet; or
                    (V) is a street light erected or maintained by a 
                Federal, State, local, or tribal entity.

   (B) Undeveloped.--The term ``undeveloped'' means a defined 
        geographic area where the Administrator determines low-flying 
        aircraft are operated on a routine basis, such as low-lying 
        forested areas with predominant tree cover under 200 feet and 
        pasture and range land.
    (2) Other definitions.--The Administrator shall define such 
    other terms as may be necessary to carry out this section.
    (e) Database.--The Administrator shall--
        (1) develop a database that contains the location and height of 
    each covered tower;
        (2) keep the database current to the extent practicable;
        (3) ensure that any proprietary information in the database is 
    protected from disclosure in accordance with law; and
 (4) ensure that, by virtue of accessing the database, users 
    agree and acknowledge that information in the database--
            (A) may only be used for aviation safety purposes; and
            (B) may not be disclosed for purposes other than aviation 
        safety, regardless of whether or not the information is marked 
        or labeled as proprietary or with a similar designation.

Reading it you find that towers that are:



(ii) Exclusions.--The term ``covered tower'' does not 
            include any structure that--

                    (I) is adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility 
                station, or other building;
                 (II) is within the curtilage of a farmstead;


I think most of us are safe. Just wonder how far from the house it can be
and still is considered "adjacent".



-----Original Message-----
From: Mitch <mskobier at charter.net>
To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Sat, Jul 16, 2016 2:45 pm
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

All, 

                I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.  H.R.636 - Federal Aviation
Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by the
President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of erecting
my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me. At
this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on the
document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt

 

 

Mitch KJ7JA

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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



From lwloen at gmail.com  Mon Jul 18 01:24:22 2016
From: lwloen at gmail.com (Larry Loen)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 22:24:22 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Fwd: New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <155fc362364-1398-8f34@webprd-m63.mail.aol.com>
References: <000a01d1e010$15d58b70$4180a250$@att.net>
	<155fc362364-1398-8f34@webprd-m63.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <CAJRedivCimOeADbdun7vmHwMiYNf5an0op8cWNYQ54H09x+zLQ@mail.gmail.com>

Another interesting consideration is that a lot of this out of town
property is likely to be _zoned_ agricultural.  An interesting distinction
for regulators and lawyers to consider.  A lot of farm land is in various
land banks and so on, so it isn't necessarily the case that you can spot a
farm or its land simply by looking for crops even before we consider
grazing land.

I would not try such an interpretation on my own without spending a few
bucks on some learned counsel.  But, depending on how the regulations shake
out, it might matter.


Larry WO7R

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk <
towertalk at contesting.com> wrote:

> Beats me what this is solving. I think it has to do with a couple of dust
> plane pilots that were killed by flying in to some temporary weather
> towers. I pray that ARRL get some say in the actual regulations. I don't
> see for example why I should have to mark my tower barely making more than
> a few feet above the treetops and I am sure you can find many examples
> similar to my situation. I do live in an undeveloped area and many with me.
> Look at K1TTT's station for example. Do his many towers considered be
> adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility station, or other building. I
> don't know and, I'm sure, many with me.
>
>
> What I don't understand is why curtilage of a farmstead is excluded but
> not curtilage of a family dwelling is not.
>
>
> Hans - N2JFS
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Gordon Beattie, Jr. <w2ttt at att.net>
> To: 'Hans Hammarquist' <hanslg at aol.com>
> Cc: towertalk-bounces <towertalk-bounces at contesting.com>; ny2rf <
> ny2rf at arrl.org>; n2ybb <n2ybb at arrl.org>; w2ttt <w2ttt at att.net>; jb1589 <
> jb1589 at att.com>
> Sent: Sun, Jul 17, 2016 5:46 am
> Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  New FAA regulations affecting towers
>
> Hans,
> 1. What problem is this solving?
> 2. Is this just an expansion of the airspace under Federal control, for its
> own sake?
> 3. Might this be a precursor to rules supporting drones?
> 4. This is a big deal because unelected Federal bureaucrats get to decide
> the rules.
> 5. FAA-approved lights, paint and inspections aren't cheap, and the FAA
> gets
> to decide what they want.
> 6. If you don't think this is a big deal, ask folks with small e.g. 50x50
> ponds, about how Federal regulations impacts their backyards or how pushing
> some topsoil runs them afoul of the Feds.  Stuff one would never think of
> can get into your property rights.
> 7. There are all sorts of exemptions for power utilities, government,
> farmers etc., so I don't know why we aren't on the exemption list.
> 8.  I still think that K3LR needs to buy a couple of goats as part of his
> next antenna or tower upgrade in order to meet the farm exemption.  :-)
>
> 73,
> Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
> 201.314.6964
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Hans
> Hammarquist via TowerTalk
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 10:24 PM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: New FAA regulations affecting towers
>
> Well, the regulation says:
>
>
>
> SEC. 2110. TOWER MARKING.
>     (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
> this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
> issue regulations to require the marking of covered towers.
>     (b) Marking Required.--The regulations under subsection (a) shall
> require that a covered tower be clearly marked in a manner that is
> consistent with applicable guidance under the Federal Aviation
> Administration Advisory Circular issued December 4, 2015 (AC 70/7460- 1L),
> or other relevant safety guidance, as determined by the Administrator.
>     (c) Application.--The regulations issued under subsection (a) shall
> ensure that--
>         (1) all covered towers constructed on or after the date on
>     which such regulations take effect are marked in accordance with
>     subsection (b); and
>         (2) a covered tower constructed before the date on which such
>     regulations take effect is marked in accordance with subsection (b)
>     not later than 1 year after such effective date.
>     (d) Definitions.--
>         (1) In general.--In this section, the following definitions
>     apply:
>             (A) Covered tower.--
>                 (i) In general.--The term ``covered tower'' means a
>  structure that--
>
>                     (I) is self-standing or supported by guy wires and
>                 ground anchors;
>                     (II) is 10 feet or less in diameter at the above-
>                 ground base, excluding concrete footing;
>                     (III) at the highest point of the structure is at
>                 least 50 feet above ground level;
>             (IV) at the highest point of the structure is not
>                 more than 200 feet above ground level;
>                     (V) has accessory facilities on which an antenna,
>                 sensor, camera, meteorological instrument, or other
>                 equipment is mounted; and
>                (VI) is located--
>
>                         (aa) outside the boundaries of an incorporated
>                     city or town; or
>                         (bb) on land that is--
>                             (AA) undeveloped; or
>        (BB) used for agricultural purposes.
>                 (ii) Exclusions.--The term ``covered tower'' does not
>             include any structure that--
>
>         (I) is adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility
>                 station, or other building;
>                     (II) is within the curtilage of a farmstead;
>                     (III) supports electric utility transmission or
>                 distribution lines;
>                     (IV) is a wind-powered electrical generator with a
>                 rotor blade radius that exceeds 6 feet; or
>                     (V) is a street light erected or maintained by a
>                 Federal, State, local, or tribal entity.
>
>    (B) Undeveloped.--The term ``undeveloped'' means a defined
>         geographic area where the Administrator determines low-flying
>         aircraft are operated on a routine basis, such as low-lying
>         forested areas with predominant tree cover under 200 feet and
>         pasture and range land.
>     (2) Other definitions.--The Administrator shall define such
>     other terms as may be necessary to carry out this section.
>     (e) Database.--The Administrator shall--
>         (1) develop a database that contains the location and height of
>     each covered tower;
>         (2) keep the database current to the extent practicable;
>         (3) ensure that any proprietary information in the database is
>     protected from disclosure in accordance with law; and
>  (4) ensure that, by virtue of accessing the database, users
>     agree and acknowledge that information in the database--
>             (A) may only be used for aviation safety purposes; and
>             (B) may not be disclosed for purposes other than aviation
>         safety, regardless of whether or not the information is marked
>         or labeled as proprietary or with a similar designation.
>
> Reading it you find that towers that are:
>
>
>
> (ii) Exclusions.--The term ``covered tower'' does not
>             include any structure that--
>
>                     (I) is adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility
>                 station, or other building;
>                  (II) is within the curtilage of a farmstead;
>
>
> I think most of us are safe. Just wonder how far from the house it can be
> and still is considered "adjacent".
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mitch <mskobier at charter.net>
> To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Sent: Sat, Jul 16, 2016 2:45 pm
> Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
>
> All,
>
>                 I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
> the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.  H.R.636 - Federal Aviation
> Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by
> the
> President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
> 50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
> may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
> developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of erecting
> my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me. At
> this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
> link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on
> the
> document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.
>
>
>
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt
>
>
>
>
>
> Mitch KJ7JA
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Mon Jul 18 03:49:09 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:49:09 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Fwd: New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <CAJRedivCimOeADbdun7vmHwMiYNf5an0op8cWNYQ54H09x+zLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000a01d1e010$15d58b70$4180a250$@att.net>
	<155fc362364-1398-8f34@webprd-m63.mail.aol.com>
	<CAJRedivCimOeADbdun7vmHwMiYNf5an0op8cWNYQ54H09x+zLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e1201f2d-ac2f-1540-e0de-b872e8279f7b@tm.net>

1st, this "legislation" was brought about by lobbying after the 
aforementioned collisions with meteorological towers. The tower heights 
were presented in the light that the companies using the towers were 
doing things on the cheap by taking advantage of the 200 ft "loophole" 
in the "regulations". The interested parties presented the tower users 
in the most negative light they could use.

Please note: This is legislation has the power of law directing the FAA 
to enact specific regulations. Plus it gives the FAA the power to add to 
the rules, not subtract.  The FAA "may" choose to add reason to the 
regulations with help from the ARRL. Lets hope so, but these regulatory 
agencies are becoming highly politicized and do their best to please 
their masters. Just look up the FCC and "Light Squared Vs GPS" with 
retiring FCC personnel going directly to light squared.
Congress makes laws, regulatory agencies are required to follow laws, 
not that has reigned in either the executive, or regulatory branches of 
the past few administrations. 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2015/08/31/fccs-lightsquared-scandal-another-solyndra-in-the-making/#33f6425472b6 
Each one has seemed to be testing how far they can push the boundaries

One correction, farm land is farm land, whether it's in a soil bank in, 
or out of production, who or how it is owned. There is range land, 
pasture and crop land, but in most states they are all a form of farm 
land.  The Western states may and probably do handle open range land 
(public/govt land leased by the ranchers) differently.

This area is mostly wood land with some parcels of farm land. Most of 
this soil is not suitable for cash crops, so much of what exists is used 
to raise silage rotated with beans or Hay to put the nutrients back in 
the soil.  There is a pig farm about a half mile to the E of us. 
Thankfully the prevailing winds are from us to them, but not always.  I 
never knew that "stuff" could spoil until Europe exported the "Honey 
Wagon" to the states.  They only have 24, or 48 hours to work it in, but 
there is no doubt which way the wind is blowing.  Real farm land starts 
pretty much with the Southern border of Midland County.  Just look it up 
on Google Earth

Much of lower Michigan including the Saginaw Valley ( a more 360 sq 
miles) is covered by a huge network of drainage ditches. (10' wide by 8 
or 10 feet deep) that require constant dredging to keep them 
operational.  Without them this entire area would revert to wetlands.  
Wet lands? It'd be an everlovin swamp.  Under today's rules, none of 
this land could be developed into farm land.

I was raised on that flatland and still own what is left of the old 
family farm.

Unfortunately, MOST of the crop land in lower Michigan will revert to 
"wetlands" if not properly taken care of. Plants and grasses that define 
the land on which it grows as wet lands.  Just three miles from me there 
was a small farm of 60 to 100 acres.  The county redid the road that 
borders his land on two sides.  In doing so, they cut the major drainage 
pathways for excess water, rendering the land unsuitable for what little 
it did produce.  By the time he managed to get the state and feds 
involved, those plants had sprouted resulting in his land being 
immediately labeled, wetlands, preventing anyone from doing anything to 
change that.  Now, the farm land he had planned on subdividing for 
retirement can not even be properly drained.  It's just a big swamp!

Even if your neighbors on 3 sides have the same land, if it has not 
reverted, they will usually leave them alone.  I forget the family's 
name or state, but there is a prime example where their neighbors on 
either side have the same soil, the same frontage on a lake, and the 
same drainage.. All permits were obtained ahead of time including 
federal, yet after they had done considerable work and spent a lot of 
money, the feds *_changed their minds_* and are leveling huge fines per 
day that the land is not put back into pristine shape. IOW the feds 
changed their friggin minds after giving their blessings and letting 
work proceed.

So how this turns out depends on how much the FAA will listen to the 
ARRL and IF they have the will and the leeway to exempt ham towers.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/18/2016 Monday 1:24 AM, Larry Loen wrote:
> Another interesting consideration is that a lot of this out of town
> property is likely to be _zoned_ agricultural.  An interesting distinction
> for regulators and lawyers to consider.  A lot of farm land is in various
> land banks and so on, so it isn't necessarily the case that you can spot a
> farm or its land simply by looking for crops even before we consider
> grazing land.
>
> I would not try such an interpretation on my own without spending a few
> bucks on some learned counsel.  But, depending on how the regulations shake
> out, it might matter.
>
>
> Larry WO7R


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From marcelocx2dk at gmail.com  Mon Jul 18 05:33:51 2016
From: marcelocx2dk at gmail.com (Marcelo Egues)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:33:51 -0300
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tribander Stacking
In-Reply-To: <000f01d1e089$4acc2810$e0647830$@com>
References: <000f01d1e089$4acc2810$e0647830$@com>
Message-ID: <CADvqWZjMv9HFp7dgYPieTw_1taABwdO_JozVxP=hxBcOu3R98Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hola Filipe.

No es facil stackear multibandas y tener una mejoria constante en
todas las bandas. Alguna banda sera la beneficiada y otras las
perjudicadas. En 20 metros de torre, 3 antenas son demasiadas. Quizas
dos antenas de 11 elementos tipo las ob3-11 a 11m y 22m estara bien.
Mucha suerte!
Marcelo CX2DK/CW4MAX

2016-07-17 21:14 GMT-03:00, john at kk9a.com <john at kk9a.com>:
> Have you modeled this in NEC2? The antennas are really close together, even
> for 10m.  I think a two stack would be a better option.  Yes they should be
> fed with equal length coax.
>
> John KK9A
>
>
> To:	towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject:	[TowerTalk] Tribander Stacking
> From:	Filipe Lopes <ct1ilt at gmail.com>
> Date:	Sun, 17 Jul 2016 18:50:29 +0200
> List-post:	<towertalk at contesting.com">mailto:towertalk at contesting.com>
> Hello guys,
>
> I have read quite a few posts here but I still am not sure about the
> distances I should use to stack my tribanders.
>
> I am rebuilding my contest station CR6K in Portugal from scratch, meaning
> all antenas are gone, new antennas are being constructed and also a new
> self supporting cranck up tower 20m high is being built by my dad CT1CJJ.
>
> For this new tower I want to make a stack of 3 x tribanders (10 15 20m) 11
> elements each. I tried a few simulations with MMANA and HFTA and what I
> found is that my stacking distances are best at 5.4m (+- 17 feet) from each
> antenna, meaning I would have the 3 antennas at 11.4 m / 16.8 m / 22.2 m (
> 37 / 55 / 73 feet). I then read one post from someone who says that HFTA
> has some sort of bug that considers maximums at < than 0.5 wl.
>
> For info the top antenna will rotate when necessary and the other 2 will be
> fixed to USA and my QTH slopes down a lot towards USA. Also this is mainlly
> a USA tower because there is another tower dedicated to EU/ASIA.
>
> So my questions are:
>
>    - Is a stack of 2 tribanders @ 60/90 feet enough?
>    - If I consider the 3 tribanders the top one might be a lot towards EU
>    and so the other 2 towards USA
>    - Is 9 m (30 feet) the optimum stacking distance for tribanders?
>    - Will it hurt having for example 30 feet stacking between the 2 bottom
>    antennas and 17 feet between the second one and top one?
>    - I know the coax lines between the antennas and the power splitter need
>    to be electrically the same but does it matter how long they are, for
>    example 3x 25m is ok?
>
>
> All comments and suggestions are welcome.
>
> Thank you so much.
>
> 73's Filipe Lopes
> CT1ILT - CR6K
> F4VPX - TM3M
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From emailve1dt at gmail.com  Sun Jul 17 23:08:51 2016
From: emailve1dt at gmail.com (emailve1dt at gmail.com)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:08:51 -0300
Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
Message-ID: <000001d1e0a1$b6bc5f50$24351df0$@infinichron.com>

Gary,

Buried in MicroDEM's multi-level Options dialog boxes is where the point
spacing is set. This overrides the resolution of the DEM file. The "default"
is 30 meters.

To change it, navigate through the Options as follows:
Options > Views > Weapons Fans > LOS and fan algorithm > Point Spacing (m)

You can also get there when you are generating a set of fans and get to the
"Viewshed Parameters" window. From there, follow the options as follows;
Color & algorithm > LOS and fan algorithm > Point Spacing (m)

>> Gerald, VE1DT

-----Original Message-----

Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 07:51:07 -0400
From: "StellarCAT" <rxdesign at ssvecnet.com>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HFTA Disc....
Message-ID: <3925A9466DBA412B9328EC87899D4043 at RXDesignDell>
Content-Type:
	text/plain;format=flowed;charset="utf-8";reply-type=response

yes - I'm aware you can remove oversampled flat regions or shadow points as
long as they're far enough away and/or they're far enough down from the
previous high point to avoid removing defraction effects ... but where I'm
at now is - I created 10 m point plots - and I used those with HFTA... so -

actually looking at the PRO files I can see that indeed somewhere something
changed the steps to 30M! So first my apologies Shawn for saying otherwise!

I know I downloaded the 1/3arcsec file ... and thought I had used Microdem
correctly ... how then does it end up not using this data and 'crashing'?
Either Microdem didn't create 10m steps (I screwed up or it has its own
limitations that I wasn't aware of nor saw in the help file) or HFTA
massaged the data files somehow changing them to 30M by using every third
point. The latter is extremely unlikely as I'm sure it would say it was
doing this to avoid confusion.

Does Stu, TU, do this for you in his plots that his site creates?

Gary



From patrick_g at windstream.net  Mon Jul 18 07:44:51 2016
From: patrick_g at windstream.net (Patrick Greenlee)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:44:51 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <c3a449bd-afba-d239-f8f7-98ef3f05003b@tm.net>
References: <20160717225939.9MX8Z.89456.imail@eastrmwml205>
	<c3a449bd-afba-d239-f8f7-98ef3f05003b@tm.net>
Message-ID: <9ab5e1c1-50a2-5f20-e9f6-8aef1b4f4877@windstream.net>

I have seen a few dusters up close ranging from an old Steerman to 
modern purpose built.  The latter had an inclined sharpened blade 
positioned in front of the canopy  to cut wires.  I don't know how 
effective that arrangement was. I never saw it tested.

Patrick        NJ5G


On 7/17/2016 10:38 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
> Sounds like his antenna may have been a Rhombic.  They were very 
> popular for those who had the room back then.
>
> Crop dusting aircraft would likely cut a wire antenna or phone line 
> like it wasn't there, but a friend (I went to high school with) 
> misjudged the height of a power line and neatly removed the vertical 
> stabilizer from his Ag Cat.  With no lateral stabilization the torque 
> rolled it over and turned it into a lawn dart. It hit the ground going 
> almost straight down. killing him instantly.
>
> Those transmission lines are substantial and wound on a steel core.  
> That strong steel core is much larger than any typical antenna wire.
> The antenna might bring down a light plane but modern crop dusters are 
> built like the aeronautical version of a tank.
>
> We flew down to Visit my wife's folks in Florida over the Christmas 
> holidays some years back. A layer of ground fog forming at night is 
> quite common in the Florida peninsula and may not burn off until 9 or 
> 10 AM.
>
> A piper Cherokee pilot took off one morning, staying really low. He 
> apparently forgot about the high tension lines abt 2 miles W of (IIRC) 
> Tampa Bay Exec. He apparently panicked when he saw the first set pass 
> overhead and pulled up...right into the second power line. The only 
> thing left was the engine and prop rolled into a ball. There was a 
> notch in the one prop blade a good inch deep where it hit one of the 
> lines.  AFAIK power was not interrupted.
> They probably replaced that span.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>
> On 7/17/2016 Sunday 10:59 PM, lstoskopf at cox.net wrote:
>> Waaay back in the early 50s when I was just getting started there was 
>> a Ham in central Kansas whose job was keeping oil wells pumping.  He 
>> and his wife lived in a very small house right in the middle of a 
>> batch of those 90 ft derricks that we all think of when we think of 
>> Texas oil. Anyway, he had a long length of wire running from his 'mud 
>> room' to one of the towers, then to another, etc for maybe 5 or 6 
>> towers and back to the shack. The towers were probably 800 ft 
>> spaced.   Fed with a open balanced tuner.  I'm not sure what bands he 
>> was on, but he could work DX!!!!!!  RF's got to go somewhere!
>>
>> So wondering how a long wire antenna fits into the regulation? His 
>> would have be a very invisible airplane catcher.
>>
>> N0UU
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From tom_n2sr at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 18 08:02:07 2016
From: tom_n2sr at yahoo.com (Tom_N2SR)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:02:07 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Tribander Stacking
In-Reply-To: <000f01d1e089$4acc2810$e0647830$@com>
References: <000f01d1e089$4acc2810$e0647830$@com>
Message-ID: <447323214.730125.1468843327854.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>


My 2 C31XRs (14 elements each) are stacked at 40 and 80 feet.?? I added a F12 "custom" 5 element 10 at 23 feet.?? I feed the tribanders with separate feedlines, so I essentially have 3/3 on 20, 4/4 on 15, and 5/5/5/ on 10.? 
Each band has equal length feedlines from the same roll of coax.?? 
This will be the first year I will be using the stacks, so it will be interesting to see a) if it works b) how good the setup is
Tom, N2SR

      From: "john at kk9a.com" <john at kk9a.com>
 To: towertalk at contesting.com 
 Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 8:14 PM
 Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tribander Stacking
   
Have you modeled this in NEC2? The antennas are really close together, even
for 10m.? I think a two stack would be a better option.? Yes they should be
fed with equal length coax.

John KK9A


To:??? towertalk at contesting.com
Subject:??? [TowerTalk] Tribander Stacking
From:??? Filipe Lopes <ct1ilt at gmail.com>
Date:??? Sun, 17 Jul 2016 18:50:29 +0200
List-post:??? <towertalk at contesting.com">mailto:towertalk at contesting.com>
Hello guys,

I have read quite a few posts here but I still am not sure about the
distances I should use to stack my tribanders.

I am rebuilding my contest station CR6K in Portugal from scratch, meaning
all antenas are gone, new antennas are being constructed and also a new
self supporting cranck up tower 20m high is being built by my dad CT1CJJ.

For this new tower I want to make a stack of 3 x tribanders (10 15 20m) 11
elements each. I tried a few simulations with MMANA and HFTA and what I
found is that my stacking distances are best at 5.4m (+- 17 feet) from each
antenna, meaning I would have the 3 antennas at 11.4 m / 16.8 m / 22.2 m (
37 / 55 / 73 feet). I then read one post from someone who says that HFTA
has some sort of bug that considers maximums at < than 0.5 wl.

For info the top antenna will rotate when necessary and the other 2 will be
fixed to USA and my QTH slopes down a lot towards USA. Also this is mainlly
a USA tower because there is another tower dedicated to EU/ASIA.

So my questions are:

? - Is a stack of 2 tribanders @ 60/90 feet enough?
? - If I consider the 3 tribanders the top one might be a lot towards EU
? and so the other 2 towards USA
? - Is 9 m (30 feet) the optimum stacking distance for tribanders?
? - Will it hurt having for example 30 feet stacking between the 2 bottom
? antennas and 17 feet between the second one and top one?
? - I know the coax lines between the antennas and the power splitter need
? to be electrically the same but does it matter how long they are, for
? example 3x 25m is ok?


All comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thank you so much.

73's Filipe Lopes
CT1ILT - CR6K
F4VPX - TM3M

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


  

From btippett at alum.mit.edu  Mon Jul 18 09:15:14 2016
From: btippett at alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:15:14 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 20m stack switching question
Message-ID: <CAOH7AOqnzTcY6GPqKGY_gRCz0O=WusLFRhepL2xWgbepHgc5jw@mail.gmail.com>

10m is not 20m but I suspect the same effect applies:

"Using only the 45 degree azimuth, below is a plot of my takeoff angles for
all 3 antennas (   ), the bottom two (   ) and the bottom only (   ).  I
often find that all 3 are best for early openings (11-14 UTC), then the
bottom two take over and occasionally, very late in the day, the bottom
antenna alone is best.  Note that VOACAP propagation statistics (   )
indicate that 16 degrees is the maximum TOA to EU for my location."

http://users.vnet.net/btippett/terrain_&_toas.htm

Note that HFTA includes the VOACAP takeoff angle statistics mentioned
above.  A little modeling will answer your question far better than
anecdotes.  I discovered my statement above after many DX contests on 10m,
and HFTA confirms my experience.

73,  Bill  W4ZV

From richard at karlquist.com  Mon Jul 18 09:23:28 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:23:28 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <9ab5e1c1-50a2-5f20-e9f6-8aef1b4f4877@windstream.net>
References: <20160717225939.9MX8Z.89456.imail@eastrmwml205>
	<c3a449bd-afba-d239-f8f7-98ef3f05003b@tm.net>
	<9ab5e1c1-50a2-5f20-e9f6-8aef1b4f4877@windstream.net>
Message-ID: <39a7356d-976c-f14b-860d-18d08ddfc090@karlquist.com>

Haven't seen this mentioned:

Why don't they require these low flying planes to
have radar that would "see" power lines and towers?

Rick N6RK

On 7/18/2016 4:44 AM, Patrick Greenlee wrote:
> I have seen a few dusters up close ranging from an old Steerman to
> modern purpose built.  The latter had an inclined sharpened blade
> positioned in front of the canopy  to cut wires.  I don't know how
> effective that arrangement was. I never saw it tested.
>
> Patrick        NJ5G
>
>
> On 7/17/2016 10:38 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
>> Sounds like his antenna may have been a Rhombic.  They were very
>> popular for those who had the room back then.
>>
>> Crop dusting aircraft would likely cut a wire antenna or phone line
>> like it wasn't there, but a friend (I went to high school with)
>> misjudged the height of a power line and neatly removed the vertical
>> stabilizer from his Ag Cat.  With no lateral stabilization the torque
>> rolled it over and turned it into a lawn dart. It hit the ground going
>> almost straight down. killing him instantly.
>>
>> Those transmission lines are substantial and wound on a steel core.
>> That strong steel core is much larger than any typical antenna wire.
>> The antenna might bring down a light plane but modern crop dusters are
>> built like the aeronautical version of a tank.
>>
>> We flew down to Visit my wife's folks in Florida over the Christmas
>> holidays some years back. A layer of ground fog forming at night is
>> quite common in the Florida peninsula and may not burn off until 9 or
>> 10 AM.
>>
>> A piper Cherokee pilot took off one morning, staying really low. He
>> apparently forgot about the high tension lines abt 2 miles W of (IIRC)
>> Tampa Bay Exec. He apparently panicked when he saw the first set pass
>> overhead and pulled up...right into the second power line. The only
>> thing left was the engine and prop rolled into a ball. There was a
>> notch in the one prop blade a good inch deep where it hit one of the
>> lines.  AFAIK power was not interrupted.
>> They probably replaced that span.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>>
>> On 7/17/2016 Sunday 10:59 PM, lstoskopf at cox.net wrote:
>>> Waaay back in the early 50s when I was just getting started there was
>>> a Ham in central Kansas whose job was keeping oil wells pumping.  He
>>> and his wife lived in a very small house right in the middle of a
>>> batch of those 90 ft derricks that we all think of when we think of
>>> Texas oil. Anyway, he had a long length of wire running from his 'mud
>>> room' to one of the towers, then to another, etc for maybe 5 or 6
>>> towers and back to the shack. The towers were probably 800 ft
>>> spaced.   Fed with a open balanced tuner.  I'm not sure what bands he
>>> was on, but he could work DX!!!!!!  RF's got to go somewhere!
>>>
>>> So wondering how a long wire antenna fits into the regulation? His
>>> would have be a very invisible airplane catcher.
>>>
>>> N0UU
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

From jimlux at earthlink.net  Mon Jul 18 10:02:37 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:02:37 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <39a7356d-976c-f14b-860d-18d08ddfc090@karlquist.com>
References: <20160717225939.9MX8Z.89456.imail@eastrmwml205>
	<c3a449bd-afba-d239-f8f7-98ef3f05003b@tm.net>
	<9ab5e1c1-50a2-5f20-e9f6-8aef1b4f4877@windstream.net>
	<39a7356d-976c-f14b-860d-18d08ddfc090@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <867871f9-db8e-6252-0d0a-b3b008a0a531@earthlink.net>

On 7/18/16 6:23 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
> Haven't seen this mentioned:
>
> Why don't they require these low flying planes to
> have radar that would "see" power lines and towers?
>


that's actually a pretty challenging radar design problem: especially if 
you want to do it reasonably inexpensively.   Dept of Defense has been 
studying that problem for decades - they too would like to avoid running 
into wires and poles sticking up unexpectedly.

The geometry of the radar vs the ground clutter (and your target) is 
continuously changing.  How do you distinguish a tower, or wire, from 
the soil surface which has essentially the same range and range rate.

Unlike a air defense (surveillance) radar sweeping out 100 mi radius 
once every few seconds looking for something which is moving at a rate 
substantially different than the ground clutter, what you're asking for 
is some sort of microwave imaging system with a fairly fast frame rate 
and very good angular resolution and coverage.  (as in better than human 
vision, because the Mark I eyeball is what's used now, and isn't sufficient)

Right now, we have doppler radars like those used in a Tesla and other 
collision avoidance systems: but those basically provide a single "range 
- range rate" output for a hybrid of strongest and/or closest return.  A 
fairly simple doppler filter will find the "other vehicles" vs the giant 
return from own motion.  They have limited angular resolution (if any..) 
  Some of the mmWave units that are used in farming applications 
(automated tree pruning and the like) have phased array antennas which 
can scan vertically and horizontally, but they don't have fast frame rates.

LIDAR and laser scanning are both popular in autonomous vehicle work, 
but have a tough time detecting things like wires, and, of course, don't 
work well in weather that is not optically clear (the early morning haze 
and ground fog problem).


Overall, a data base of reasonably accurate positions would seem to be 
the best solution.  Not in a "use the position to fly around it" but in 
a "did something new pop up last night that I am unaware of it".






From bw_dw at fastmail.fm  Mon Jul 18 11:31:56 2016
From: bw_dw at fastmail.fm (dw)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:31:56 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
Message-ID: <1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>

I'm toying with the idea of making my first lower-band beam a
spider-beam.
>From what I can see on their web-site, the lowest band they support is
30 meters.
Eventually I will want a light-weight 40 meter 2 element.
But that may be more than I can chew as my first attempt.

So I'm toying with the idea of starting out with their 30 meter beam kit
because its only 28 pounds and turning radius of 20 feet.
And since I'm toying with getting it up an AB-577 military mast, the
spider-beam minimal weight and size might make the process easier.

Does anyone have any experience with the Spider-beams?
I'm especially curious if the shipping cost is going approximate the
cost of the antenna?

Thanks
N1BBR
-- 
 Bw_dw at fastmail.net


From KK4CPS at gmail.com  Mon Jul 18 12:09:09 2016
From: KK4CPS at gmail.com (Matthew King - KK4CPS)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:09:09 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <CAKs+UsnoiW37eYr2H8_25AeYwA-y_+uSvYyB1P_0EJfRHGYrVQ@mail.gmail.com>

Are you looking at spiderbeam.us?  They are located in Tennessee, making
shipping quite reasonable to anywhere in the states.

Good luck with your project!

73

Matt
AK4MK

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:31 AM, dw <bw_dw at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> I'm toying with the idea of making my first lower-band beam a
> spider-beam.
> From what I can see on their web-site, the lowest band they support is
> 30 meters.
> Eventually I will want a light-weight 40 meter 2 element.
> But that may be more than I can chew as my first attempt.
>
> So I'm toying with the idea of starting out with their 30 meter beam kit
> because its only 28 pounds and turning radius of 20 feet.
> And since I'm toying with getting it up an AB-577 military mast, the
> spider-beam minimal weight and size might make the process easier.
>
> Does anyone have any experience with the Spider-beams?
> I'm especially curious if the shipping cost is going approximate the
> cost of the antenna?
>
> Thanks
> N1BBR
> --
>  Bw_dw at fastmail.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From billp at wwpc.com  Mon Jul 18 12:28:56 2016
From: billp at wwpc.com (Bill Putney)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:28:56 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <39a7356d-976c-f14b-860d-18d08ddfc090@karlquist.com>
References: <20160717225939.9MX8Z.89456.imail@eastrmwml205>
	<c3a449bd-afba-d239-f8f7-98ef3f05003b@tm.net>
	<9ab5e1c1-50a2-5f20-e9f6-8aef1b4f4877@windstream.net>
	<39a7356d-976c-f14b-860d-18d08ddfc090@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <d9a710d0-47e6-ef1e-2175-28a4fc9579ff@wwpc.com>

First, single engine radar has to be hung out on a pod on the wing, 
which is where the spray bars are. Second, you don't want a spray 
pilot's eyes inside the cockpit looking at a radar screen when they are 
flying 50' above the ground.

Bill Putney - WB6RFW
Chief Engineer
KPTZ - Port Townsend, WA

PP-SEL/A&P-IA

"...you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd know it?" -Sheldon Cooper

On 7/18/16 6:23 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
> Haven't seen this mentioned:
>
> Why don't they require these low flying planes to
> have radar that would "see" power lines and towers?
>
> Rick N6RK
>
> On 7/18/2016 4:44 AM, Patrick Greenlee wrote:
>> I have seen a few dusters up close ranging from an old Steerman to
>> modern purpose built.  The latter had an inclined sharpened blade
>> positioned in front of the canopy  to cut wires.  I don't know how
>> effective that arrangement was. I never saw it tested.
>>
>> Patrick        NJ5G
>>
>>
>> On 7/17/2016 10:38 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
>>> Sounds like his antenna may have been a Rhombic.  They were very
>>> popular for those who had the room back then.
>>>
>>> Crop dusting aircraft would likely cut a wire antenna or phone line
>>> like it wasn't there, but a friend (I went to high school with)
>>> misjudged the height of a power line and neatly removed the vertical
>>> stabilizer from his Ag Cat.  With no lateral stabilization the torque
>>> rolled it over and turned it into a lawn dart. It hit the ground going
>>> almost straight down. killing him instantly.
>>>
>>> Those transmission lines are substantial and wound on a steel core.
>>> That strong steel core is much larger than any typical antenna wire.
>>> The antenna might bring down a light plane but modern crop dusters are
>>> built like the aeronautical version of a tank.
>>>
>>> We flew down to Visit my wife's folks in Florida over the Christmas
>>> holidays some years back. A layer of ground fog forming at night is
>>> quite common in the Florida peninsula and may not burn off until 9 or
>>> 10 AM.
>>>
>>> A piper Cherokee pilot took off one morning, staying really low. He
>>> apparently forgot about the high tension lines abt 2 miles W of (IIRC)
>>> Tampa Bay Exec. He apparently panicked when he saw the first set pass
>>> overhead and pulled up...right into the second power line. The only
>>> thing left was the engine and prop rolled into a ball. There was a
>>> notch in the one prop blade a good inch deep where it hit one of the
>>> lines.  AFAIK power was not interrupted.
>>> They probably replaced that span.
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> Roger (K8RI)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/17/2016 Sunday 10:59 PM, lstoskopf at cox.net wrote:
>>>> Waaay back in the early 50s when I was just getting started there was
>>>> a Ham in central Kansas whose job was keeping oil wells pumping.  He
>>>> and his wife lived in a very small house right in the middle of a
>>>> batch of those 90 ft derricks that we all think of when we think of
>>>> Texas oil. Anyway, he had a long length of wire running from his 'mud
>>>> room' to one of the towers, then to another, etc for maybe 5 or 6
>>>> towers and back to the shack. The towers were probably 800 ft
>>>> spaced.   Fed with a open balanced tuner.  I'm not sure what bands he
>>>> was on, but he could work DX!!!!!!  RF's got to go somewhere!
>>>>
>>>> So wondering how a long wire antenna fits into the regulation? His
>>>> would have be a very invisible airplane catcher.
>>>>
>>>> N0UU
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From co8dm at frcuba.co.cu  Mon Jul 18 15:36:24 2016
From: co8dm at frcuba.co.cu (Douglas Ruz / CO8DM)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:36:24 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <004501d1e12b$ae3b72f0$0ab258d0$@co.cu>

Hi,

I built the classic spiderbeam version for 10, 15 and 20m using HD fiber
poles available at spiderbeam website.

Then I add 2 shortened elements for 40m with separated feed line...I am
using coils to shortened.

My spreaders are 7m long (abt 23 ft long). To do that I install 3 guy ropes
from the top.

You can see some photos in the german website and also in my profile in
qrz.com

73 and GL,

Doug, CO8DM

-----Mensaje original-----
De: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] En nombre de dw
Enviado el: lunes, 18 de julio de 2016 11:32
Para: TowerTalk
Asunto: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?

I'm toying with the idea of making my first lower-band beam a
spider-beam.
>From what I can see on their web-site, the lowest band they support is
30 meters.
Eventually I will want a light-weight 40 meter 2 element.
But that may be more than I can chew as my first attempt.

So I'm toying with the idea of starting out with their 30 meter beam kit
because its only 28 pounds and turning radius of 20 feet.
And since I'm toying with getting it up an AB-577 military mast, the
spider-beam minimal weight and size might make the process easier.

Does anyone have any experience with the Spider-beams?
I'm especially curious if the shipping cost is going approximate the
cost of the antenna?

Thanks
N1BBR
-- 
 Bw_dw at fastmail.net

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Mon Jul 18 15:56:09 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:56:09 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <39a7356d-976c-f14b-860d-18d08ddfc090@karlquist.com>
References: <20160717225939.9MX8Z.89456.imail@eastrmwml205>
	<c3a449bd-afba-d239-f8f7-98ef3f05003b@tm.net>
	<9ab5e1c1-50a2-5f20-e9f6-8aef1b4f4877@windstream.net>
	<39a7356d-976c-f14b-860d-18d08ddfc090@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <b27644e3-23f9-2e6f-5972-9b88a963a562@tm.net>

The short answer is: Not practical!
Flying low with lots of obstetricals, flying a GPS pattern for maximum 
efficient coverage, and ground clutter on the RADAR return.
RADAR would be pretty much useless and a distraction.  It's pretty busy 
in there while looking outside.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/18/2016 Monday 9:23 AM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
> Haven't seen this mentioned:
>
> Why don't they require these low flying planes to
> have radar that would "see" power lines and towers?
>
> Rick N6RK
>
> On 7/18/2016 4:44 AM, Patrick Greenlee wrote:
>> I have seen a few dusters up close ranging from an old Steerman to
>> modern purpose built.  The latter had an inclined sharpened blade
>> positioned in front of the canopy  to cut wires.  I don't know how
>> effective that arrangement was. I never saw it tested.
>>
>> Patrick        NJ5G
>>
>>
>> On 7/17/2016 10:38 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
>>> Sounds like his antenna may have been a Rhombic.  They were very
>>> popular for those who had the room back then.
>>>
>>> Crop dusting aircraft would likely cut a wire antenna or phone line
>>> like it wasn't there, but a friend (I went to high school with)
>>> misjudged the height of a power line and neatly removed the vertical
>>> stabilizer from his Ag Cat.  With no lateral stabilization the torque
>>> rolled it over and turned it into a lawn dart. It hit the ground going
>>> almost straight down. killing him instantly.
>>>
>>> Those transmission lines are substantial and wound on a steel core.
>>> That strong steel core is much larger than any typical antenna wire.
>>> The antenna might bring down a light plane but modern crop dusters are
>>> built like the aeronautical version of a tank.
>>>
>>> We flew down to Visit my wife's folks in Florida over the Christmas
>>> holidays some years back. A layer of ground fog forming at night is
>>> quite common in the Florida peninsula and may not burn off until 9 or
>>> 10 AM.
>>>
>>> A piper Cherokee pilot took off one morning, staying really low. He
>>> apparently forgot about the high tension lines abt 2 miles W of (IIRC)
>>> Tampa Bay Exec. He apparently panicked when he saw the first set pass
>>> overhead and pulled up...right into the second power line. The only
>>> thing left was the engine and prop rolled into a ball. There was a
>>> notch in the one prop blade a good inch deep where it hit one of the
>>> lines.  AFAIK power was not interrupted.
>>> They probably replaced that span.
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> Roger (K8RI)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/17/2016 Sunday 10:59 PM, lstoskopf at cox.net wrote:
>>>> Waaay back in the early 50s when I was just getting started there was
>>>> a Ham in central Kansas whose job was keeping oil wells pumping.  He
>>>> and his wife lived in a very small house right in the middle of a
>>>> batch of those 90 ft derricks that we all think of when we think of
>>>> Texas oil. Anyway, he had a long length of wire running from his 'mud
>>>> room' to one of the towers, then to another, etc for maybe 5 or 6
>>>> towers and back to the shack. The towers were probably 800 ft
>>>> spaced.   Fed with a open balanced tuner.  I'm not sure what bands he
>>>> was on, but he could work DX!!!!!!  RF's got to go somewhere!
>>>>
>>>> So wondering how a long wire antenna fits into the regulation? His
>>>> would have be a very invisible airplane catcher.
>>>>
>>>> N0UU
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From lists at subich.com  Mon Jul 18 16:02:38 2016
From: lists at subich.com (Joe Subich, W4TV)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:02:38 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>


 > And since I'm toying with getting it up an AB-577 military mast, the
 > spider-beam minimal weight and size might make the process easier.

Erecting a Spiderbeam on an AB-577 is not easy.  The antenna would need
to be built from a 6' - 10' step ladder or work platform/scaffold - the
"spider" sets three to four feet above the rotator and the minimum
height of the AB-577 is about eight feet.  A Spiderbeam can not be 
assembled on the ground and then lifted into place on top of the
rotator either.  I gave up on trying to install a 20-17-125-12-10 HD
Spiderbeam on my AB-577.  The only way one might make it work is to
use a device like the N4ZZ Hexlock <http://www.nn4zz.com/hexlock.html>
to assemble the Spiderbeam with the AB-577 base horizontal, winch up and 
guy the AB-577 base then raise the mast normally.

 > I'm especially curious if the shipping cost is going approximate the
 > cost of the antenna?

Not even close ... contact the US distributor for Spiderbeam.  They
ship UPS from Tennessee.  I'd be surprised if the shipping amounts to
even 10% of the cost of the basic triband kit.

 > Eventually I will want a light-weight 40 meter 2 element.
 > But that may be more than I can chew as my first attempt.

Due to the longer spreaders, the "WARC" Spideerbeam or a 2 element 40
meter antenna will be even more difficult to raise with the AB-577.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 7/18/2016 11:31 AM, dw wrote:
> I'm toying with the idea of making my first lower-band beam a
> spider-beam.
>>From what I can see on their web-site, the lowest band they support is
> 30 meters.
> Eventually I will want a light-weight 40 meter 2 element.
> But that may be more than I can chew as my first attempt.
>
> So I'm toying with the idea of starting out with their 30 meter beam kit
> because its only 28 pounds and turning radius of 20 feet.
> And since I'm toying with getting it up an AB-577 military mast, the
> spider-beam minimal weight and size might make the process easier.
>
> Does anyone have any experience with the Spider-beams?
> I'm especially curious if the shipping cost is going approximate the
> cost of the antenna?
>
> Thanks
> N1BBR
>

From djm2150 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 18 17:03:53 2016
From: djm2150 at yahoo.com (Dan Maguire)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 21:03:53 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
References: <621987843.999754.1468875833704.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <621987843.999754.1468875833704.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

For those who might be interested in modeling a Spiderbeam:

http://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/4nec2-modeling-challenge.491855/page-3#post-3591039

Dan, AC6LA

From heartdoc at nwtcc.com  Mon Jul 18 17:25:53 2016
From: heartdoc at nwtcc.com (James C. Hall, MD)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:25:53 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
Message-ID: <004101d1e13a$f73b0c90$e5b125b0$@com>

I used a modified Spiderbeam for Field Day and this year, we did use the
NN4ZZ HexLock. Worked like a charm. We used it on ~30 feet mast in a
Penninger mount with a Yaesu rotator at the base. Guyed at 2 points with 4
guys each using glow-in-the-dark cleats. :) Pulled one set of guys up and
over a 10 foot ladder using the front loader of a tractor. Zips right up
without heartburn.

We took a video of the raising with a Chroma-copter drone. I have it in
Dropbox right now - it's rather large and I haven't had time to compress it
yet. But it is sharable if you would like. 

Way better than the complexity of an AB-577, which I also have. We used to
use it with a F12 C4S. Just a lot to do for FD. We're now old enough that we
actively look to lighten and simplify ... everything !

73, Jamie
WB4YDL

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Subich, W4TV
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 3:03 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?


 > And since I'm toying with getting it up an AB-577 military mast, the  >
spider-beam minimal weight and size might make the process easier.

Erecting a Spiderbeam on an AB-577 is not easy.  The antenna would need to
be built from a 6' - 10' step ladder or work platform/scaffold - the
"spider" sets three to four feet above the rotator and the minimum height of
the AB-577 is about eight feet.  A Spiderbeam can not be assembled on the
ground and then lifted into place on top of the rotator either.  I gave up
on trying to install a 20-17-125-12-10 HD Spiderbeam on my AB-577.  The only
way one might make it work is to use a device like the N4ZZ Hexlock
<http://www.nn4zz.com/hexlock.html>
to assemble the Spiderbeam with the AB-577 base horizontal, winch up and guy
the AB-577 base then raise the mast normally.

 > I'm especially curious if the shipping cost is going approximate the  >
cost of the antenna?

Not even close ... contact the US distributor for Spiderbeam.  They ship UPS
from Tennessee.  I'd be surprised if the shipping amounts to even 10% of the
cost of the basic triband kit.

 > Eventually I will want a light-weight 40 meter 2 element.
 > But that may be more than I can chew as my first attempt.

Due to the longer spreaders, the "WARC" Spideerbeam or a 2 element 40 meter
antenna will be even more difficult to raise with the AB-577.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 7/18/2016 11:31 AM, dw wrote:
> I'm toying with the idea of making my first lower-band beam a 
> spider-beam.
>>From what I can see on their web-site, the lowest band they support is
> 30 meters.
> Eventually I will want a light-weight 40 meter 2 element.
> But that may be more than I can chew as my first attempt.
>
> So I'm toying with the idea of starting out with their 30 meter beam 
> kit because its only 28 pounds and turning radius of 20 feet.
> And since I'm toying with getting it up an AB-577 military mast, the 
> spider-beam minimal weight and size might make the process easier.
>
> Does anyone have any experience with the Spider-beams?
> I'm especially curious if the shipping cost is going approximate the 
> cost of the antenna?
>
> Thanks
> N1BBR
>
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From richard at karlquist.com  Mon Jul 18 17:41:26 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:41:26 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
Message-ID: <57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>



On 7/18/2016 1:02 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> height of the AB-577 is about eight feet.  A Spiderbeam can not be
> assembled on the ground and then lifted into place on top of the
> rotator either.  I gave up on trying to install a 20-17-125-12-10 HD
> Spiderbeam on my AB-577.  The only way one might make it work is to

Why is this?  Is it related to having a boom truss?

Rick N6RK

From tnoel at mac.com  Mon Jul 18 18:30:04 2016
From: tnoel at mac.com (Thomas Noel)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:30:04 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <b27644e3-23f9-2e6f-5972-9b88a963a562@tm.net>
References: <20160717225939.9MX8Z.89456.imail@eastrmwml205>
	<c3a449bd-afba-d239-f8f7-98ef3f05003b@tm.net>
	<9ab5e1c1-50a2-5f20-e9f6-8aef1b4f4877@windstream.net>
	<39a7356d-976c-f14b-860d-18d08ddfc090@karlquist.com>
	<b27644e3-23f9-2e6f-5972-9b88a963a562@tm.net>
Message-ID: <DF396F22-CCE7-4000-863B-5D6B25CFA03B@mac.com>

Auto-correct is the most entertaining thing to happen to computer communication in decades!

Thomas W Noel
KF7RSF

> On Jul 18, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net> wrote:
> 
> The short answer is: Not practical!
> Flying low with lots of OBSTETRICALS, flying a GPS pattern for maximum efficient coverage, and ground clutter on the RADAR return.
> RADAR would be pretty much useless and a distraction.  It's pretty busy in there while looking outside.
> 
> 73
> 
> Roger (K8RI)


From heartdoc at nwtcc.com  Mon Jul 18 18:33:07 2016
From: heartdoc at nwtcc.com (James C. Hall, MD)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 17:33:07 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
	<57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <CFF9EAF9-BB11-4C55-A84D-5EFD8B3B45DD@nwtcc.com>

Rick:

Before we used the HexLock this year, we did in fact build the SB on a TV tripod nearby. Then we would gradually walk the SB up a 10 foot step ladder and shove this top mast section into the rest of the mast, match holes and shove bolts into them. This was all done way up over our head - quite precarious !

The HexLock is a safer and quicker alternative.

73, Jamie
WB4YDL

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 18, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <richard at karlquist.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 7/18/2016 1:02 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>> 
>> height of the AB-577 is about eight feet.  A Spiderbeam can not be
>> assembled on the ground and then lifted into place on top of the
>> rotator either.  I gave up on trying to install a 20-17-125-12-10 HD
>> Spiderbeam on my AB-577.  The only way one might make it work is to
> 
> Why is this?  Is it related to having a boom truss?
> 
> Rick N6RK
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From richard at karlquist.com  Mon Jul 18 18:49:35 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:49:35 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <CFF9EAF9-BB11-4C55-A84D-5EFD8B3B45DD@nwtcc.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
	<57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
	<CFF9EAF9-BB11-4C55-A84D-5EFD8B3B45DD@nwtcc.com>
Message-ID: <88a019dc-89d9-cf73-796c-227df6e590dd@karlquist.com>

Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?

On 7/18/2016 3:33 PM, James C. Hall, MD wrote:
> Rick:
>
> Before we used the HexLock this year, we did in fact build the SB on a TV tripod nearby. Then we would gradually walk the SB up a 10 foot step ladder and shove this top mast section into the rest of the mast, match holes and shove bolts into them. This was all done way up over our head - quite precarious !


This sounds like what W6ARA does on field day.
I'll ask them if they ever considered your
method.


>
> The HexLock is a safer and quicker alternative.
>
> 73, Jamie
> WB4YDL
>

Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?

Rick N6RK

From lists at subich.com  Mon Jul 18 19:10:31 2016
From: lists at subich.com (Joe Subich, W4TV)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:10:31 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
	<57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <62483337-db92-bc25-189f-ed4c08269f3b@subich.com>


 > Why is this?  Is it related to having a boom truss?

Yes, the Spiderbeam has something like six "boom trusses" on
top, four on the bottom and four going spreader to spreader
to hold the "booms" square.  When you add something like
10 (for the 20/15/10 meter version) to 15 wire elements (for
the 20/17/15/12/10 meter antenna) the thing is a real
"spierweb".

With the "booms" extending 32' front to back and side to side
for 20-10 and 40'+ for the 30,17,12 "WARC" version, the trusses
need to be at least 3-4' above/below the booms to be even
marginally effective.

I suggest getting and reviewing the Spiderbeam Construction Guide
from their web site.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 7/18/2016 5:41 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
>
>
> On 7/18/2016 1:02 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
>> height of the AB-577 is about eight feet.  A Spiderbeam can not be
>> assembled on the ground and then lifted into place on top of the
>> rotator either.  I gave up on trying to install a 20-17-125-12-10 HD
>> Spiderbeam on my AB-577.  The only way one might make it work is to
>
> Why is this?  Is it related to having a boom truss?
>
> Rick N6RK
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From sawyered at earthlink.net  Mon Jul 18 19:17:49 2016
From: sawyered at earthlink.net (Ed Sawyer)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:17:49 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
Message-ID: <000001d1e14a$9a53aea0$cefb0be0$@earthlink.net>

As a pilot (no longer active), I went to the regs for a quote:

 

"Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface,
except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the
aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure."

 

In order for the new tower regulation to make any sense it would have to be
only in area deemed:

 

Sparsely populated

500ft from any structure before the tower was put up (otherwise the pilot is
already supposed to be 500 ft away)

 

So technically, draw a cone around your house that is 500Ft in radius.  If
your tower is inside the cone, its already protected by the existence of the
house.

 

"Sparsely populated" I don't believe is on the chart.  I believe its in the
eye of the beholder as to the area where that applies.  I may be wrong on
that.  I didn't make a habit of flying below 1000ft elevation, let alone 500
ft.

 

I believe the above will dictate whatever regulations might emerge.

 

Where is sparsely populated would have to be defined.  If the towers are 100
feet tall and more than approx 375 ft from the house they might be effected.
Or more than 500 ft from the house and over 50 ft tall.

 

All just my opinion, but should give some idea of where it might go.

 

Ed N1UR


From EZRhino at fastmovers.biz  Mon Jul 18 19:19:42 2016
From: EZRhino at fastmovers.biz (EZ Rhino)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 17:19:42 -0600
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
	<57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <519DFFEE-286C-4338-9B52-E22ED45879F4@fastmovers.biz>

Sure it can!  We assemble the spiderbeam on the ground, and I've got video of my buddy lifting a Spiderbeam with one hand onto the mast pipe at the top of a nested Spidermast, about 8 feet off the ground, while standing on a ladder.  They are very lightweight.  However, the cross booms are what, 10 meters across?  So that's about a 15 foot radius, which means putting it on a mast if the tower/mast are tipped over horizontal, yeah that is a problem!  A tilt-plate type gadget would be needed.

Chris
KF7P





On Jul 18, 2016, at 15:41 , Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:



On 7/18/2016 1:02 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> height of the AB-577 is about eight feet.  A Spiderbeam can not be
> assembled on the ground and then lifted into place on top of the
> rotator either.  I gave up on trying to install a 20-17-125-12-10 HD
> Spiderbeam on my AB-577.  The only way one might make it work is to

Why is this?  Is it related to having a boom truss?

Rick N6RK
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



From ve7xf at dccnet.com  Mon Jul 18 19:22:05 2016
From: ve7xf at dccnet.com (Ralph Parker)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 23:22:05 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20160718232205.00b09d30@pop3.dccnet.com>

>Auto-correct is the most entertaining thing to happen to computer
communication 
in decades!

My sediments exactly!


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Mon Jul 18 21:55:51 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 21:55:51 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <DF396F22-CCE7-4000-863B-5D6B25CFA03B@mac.com>
References: <20160717225939.9MX8Z.89456.imail@eastrmwml205>
	<c3a449bd-afba-d239-f8f7-98ef3f05003b@tm.net>
	<9ab5e1c1-50a2-5f20-e9f6-8aef1b4f4877@windstream.net>
	<39a7356d-976c-f14b-860d-18d08ddfc090@karlquist.com>
	<b27644e3-23f9-2e6f-5972-9b88a963a562@tm.net>
	<DF396F22-CCE7-4000-863B-5D6B25CFA03B@mac.com>
Message-ID: <06f2f275-6090-eda4-f2bd-096e9dcbb54e@tm.net>

Yup, it can change the meaning  to an entirely different subject, or 
leave you in favor of what you thought you opposed, let alone sending to 
the wrong recipient with auto complete.  Auto spelling has the habit of 
changing properly spelled words it doesn't understand into something it 
does whether appropriate or not.  I sometimes think I'd be better off 
with my misspellings That and child birth in the crop duster would 
really make things busy in there.

However, even though I'm a published author, my spelling is as bad as my 
penmanship...Well, maybe not quite that bad. I see more of my dad's hand 
writing every day.

73

Roger (K8RI)

On 7/18/2016 Monday 6:30 PM, Thomas Noel wrote:
> Auto-correct is the most entertaining thing to happen to computer communication in decades!
>
> Thomas W Noel
> KF7RSF
>
>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net> wrote:
>>
>> The short answer is: Not practical!
>> Flying low with lots of OBSTETRICALS, flying a GPS pattern for maximum efficient coverage, and ground clutter on the RADAR return.
>> RADAR would be pretty much useless and a distraction.  It's pretty busy in there while looking outside.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Mon Jul 18 21:58:59 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 21:58:59 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <000001d1e14a$9a53aea0$cefb0be0$@earthlink.net>
References: <000001d1e14a$9a53aea0$cefb0be0$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <2d71ec8f-0a28-c1e4-9cb7-9ee05916456f@tm.net>

That's for you or me. The crop duster only has to miss it.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/18/2016 Monday 7:17 PM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
> As a pilot (no longer active), I went to the regs for a quote:
>
>   
>
> "Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface,
> except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the
> aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
> vehicle, or structure."
>
>   
>
> In order for the new tower regulation to make any sense it would have to be
> only in area deemed:
>
>   
>
> Sparsely populated
>
> 500ft from any structure before the tower was put up (otherwise the pilot is
> already supposed to be 500 ft away)
>
>   
>
> So technically, draw a cone around your house that is 500Ft in radius.  If
> your tower is inside the cone, its already protected by the existence of the
> house.
>
>   
>
> "Sparsely populated" I don't believe is on the chart.  I believe its in the
> eye of the beholder as to the area where that applies.  I may be wrong on
> that.  I didn't make a habit of flying below 1000ft elevation, let alone 500
> ft.
>
>   
>
> I believe the above will dictate whatever regulations might emerge.
>
>   
>
> Where is sparsely populated would have to be defined.  If the towers are 100
> feet tall and more than approx 375 ft from the house they might be effected.
> Or more than 500 ft from the house and over 50 ft tall.
>
>   
>
> All just my opinion, but should give some idea of where it might go.
>
>   
>
> Ed N1UR
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From n0ost99 at gmail.com  Mon Jul 18 22:14:56 2016
From: n0ost99 at gmail.com (Jeff Draughn)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 21:14:56 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Force 12 XR3-NV Plus
Message-ID: <CAK0vX_EUw6uOrorvyrstRhZ_Odwagjr4V+bRrbZcAOR0FWCoMg@mail.gmail.com>

I've seen a couple of references to the XR3-NV Plus seems to have a longer
boom but I can't find anything on the Force 12 website.
Anyone have any more info on it?
Thanks
Jeff, N0OST

From tnoel at mac.com  Mon Jul 18 22:49:44 2016
From: tnoel at mac.com (Thomas Noel)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:49:44 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <06f2f275-6090-eda4-f2bd-096e9dcbb54e@tm.net>
References: <20160717225939.9MX8Z.89456.imail@eastrmwml205>
	<c3a449bd-afba-d239-f8f7-98ef3f05003b@tm.net>
	<9ab5e1c1-50a2-5f20-e9f6-8aef1b4f4877@windstream.net>
	<39a7356d-976c-f14b-860d-18d08ddfc090@karlquist.com>
	<b27644e3-23f9-2e6f-5972-9b88a963a562@tm.net>
	<DF396F22-CCE7-4000-863B-5D6B25CFA03B@mac.com>
	<06f2f275-6090-eda4-f2bd-096e9dcbb54e@tm.net>
Message-ID: <84BE9906-A477-4036-94CF-CB8AE7165F5F@mac.com>

Retired physician. 'Nuff said about penmanship!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 18, 2016, at 18:55, Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> However, even though I'm a published author, my spelling is as bad as my penmanship...Well, maybe not quite that bad. I see more of my dad's hand writing every day.
> 
> 73
> 
> Roger (K8RI)
> 
>> On 7/18/2016 Monday 6:30 PM, Thomas Noel wrote:
>> Auto-correct is the most entertaining thing to happen to computer communication in decades!
>> 
>> Thomas W Noel
>> KF7RSF
>> 
>>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The short answer is: Not practical!
>>> Flying low with lots of OBSTETRICALS, flying a GPS pattern for maximum efficient coverage, and ground clutter on the RADAR return.
>>> RADAR would be pretty much useless and a distraction.  It's pretty busy in there while looking outside.
>>> 
>>> 73
>>> 
>>> Roger (K8RI)
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From heartdoc at nwtcc.com  Mon Jul 18 23:12:17 2016
From: heartdoc at nwtcc.com (James C. Hall, MD)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 22:12:17 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <88a019dc-89d9-cf73-796c-227df6e590dd@karlquist.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
	<57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
	<CFF9EAF9-BB11-4C55-A84D-5EFD8B3B45DD@nwtcc.com>
	<88a019dc-89d9-cf73-796c-227df6e590dd@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <576471F1-4ADD-4610-95BD-26FC8BE62E74@nwtcc.com>

I haven't seen much about the tilt plate as relates to a SB mount - more for a yagi. I'm not sure I could answer your question on this one.

73, Jamie
WB4YDL

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 18, 2016, at 5:49 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <richard at karlquist.com> wrote:
> 
> Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?
> 
>> On 7/18/2016 3:33 PM, James C. Hall, MD wrote:
>> Rick:
>> 
>> Before we used the HexLock this year, we did in fact build the SB on a TV tripod nearby. Then we would gradually walk the SB up a 10 foot step ladder and shove this top mast section into the rest of the mast, match holes and shove bolts into them. This was all done way up over our head - quite precarious !
> 
> 
> This sounds like what W6ARA does on field day.
> I'll ask them if they ever considered your
> method.
> 
> 
>> 
>> The HexLock is a safer and quicker alternative.
>> 
>> 73, Jamie
>> WB4YDL
> 
> Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?
> 
> Rick N6RK


From bswadener at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 18 23:15:19 2016
From: bswadener at yahoo.com (Bryan Swadener)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:15:19 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5991.1468893586.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
References: <mailman.5991.1468893586.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <1044498108.1165936.1468898119522.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Norm Crosby would be proud of you for not jumping to contusions. ;-)

vy 73,
Bryan WA7PRC



 
     Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 23:22:05 +0000
From: Ralph Parker <ve7xf at dccnet.com>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

>Auto-correct is the most entertaining thing to happen to computer
communication 
in decades!

My sediments exactly!
   
 

From jimc at pwrone.com  Mon Jul 18 23:21:44 2016
From: jimc at pwrone.com (Jim Chaggaris)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 22:21:44 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <576471F1-4ADD-4610-95BD-26FC8BE62E74@nwtcc.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
	<57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
	<CFF9EAF9-BB11-4C55-A84D-5EFD8B3B45DD@nwtcc.com>
	<88a019dc-89d9-cf73-796c-227df6e590dd@karlquist.com>
	<576471F1-4ADD-4610-95BD-26FC8BE62E74@nwtcc.com>
Message-ID: <9C1CB25A-2A02-4C15-A6EC-B821642738F3@pwrone.com>

Put up a Hexbeam on the AB-577 and be done with it.

73,
Jim N9WW

Jim Chaggaris
PowerOne Corp.
2325 Dean St. Set 200
St. Charles, IL 60175
Phone: (630)443-6500
Cell: (630)669-2241

Sent from my iPad Air2

> On Jul 18, 2016, at 10:12 PM, James C. Hall, MD <heartdoc at nwtcc.com> wrote:
> 
> I haven't seen much about the tilt plate as relates to a SB mount - more for a yagi. I'm not sure I could answer your question on this one.
> 
> 73, Jamie
> WB4YDL
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 5:49 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <richard at karlquist.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?
>> 
>>> On 7/18/2016 3:33 PM, James C. Hall, MD wrote:
>>> Rick:
>>> 
>>> Before we used the HexLock this year, we did in fact build the SB on a TV tripod nearby. Then we would gradually walk the SB up a 10 foot step ladder and shove this top mast section into the rest of the mast, match holes and shove bolts into them. This was all done way up over our head - quite precarious !
>> 
>> 
>> This sounds like what W6ARA does on field day.
>> I'll ask them if they ever considered your
>> method.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> The HexLock is a safer and quicker alternative.
>>> 
>>> 73, Jamie
>>> WB4YDL
>> 
>> Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?
>> 
>> Rick N6RK
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From heartdoc at nwtcc.com  Mon Jul 18 23:32:28 2016
From: heartdoc at nwtcc.com (James C. Hall, MD)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 22:32:28 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <9C1CB25A-2A02-4C15-A6EC-B821642738F3@pwrone.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
	<57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
	<CFF9EAF9-BB11-4C55-A84D-5EFD8B3B45DD@nwtcc.com>
	<88a019dc-89d9-cf73-796c-227df6e590dd@karlquist.com>
	<576471F1-4ADD-4610-95BD-26FC8BE62E74@nwtcc.com>
	<9C1CB25A-2A02-4C15-A6EC-B821642738F3@pwrone.com>
Message-ID: <2BFB3C99-BF9A-48C8-B914-D3734E6A8740@nwtcc.com>

I like the Hexbeam, but I also like that 3rd element in the SB (and for 10M, 3rd and 4th elements). To me, it's just a superior design.

I think I could walk up the SB on a mast after being built on the side on a TV tripod, and fit it in a Yaesu rotator mounted on the AB-577 stub. It's not that heavy, just unwieldy. 

73, Jamie
WB4YDL

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 18, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Jim Chaggaris <jimc at pwrone.com> wrote:
> 
> Put up a Hexbeam on the AB-577 and be done with it.
> 
> 73,
> Jim N9WW
> 
> Jim Chaggaris
> PowerOne Corp.
> 2325 Dean St. Set 200
> St. Charles, IL 60175
> Phone: (630)443-6500
> Cell: (630)669-2241
> 
> Sent from my iPad Air2
> 
>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 10:12 PM, James C. Hall, MD <heartdoc at nwtcc.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I haven't seen much about the tilt plate as relates to a SB mount - more for a yagi. I'm not sure I could answer your question on this one.
>> 
>> 73, Jamie
>> WB4YDL
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 5:49 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <richard at karlquist.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?
>>> 
>>>> On 7/18/2016 3:33 PM, James C. Hall, MD wrote:
>>>> Rick:
>>>> 
>>>> Before we used the HexLock this year, we did in fact build the SB on a TV tripod nearby. Then we would gradually walk the SB up a 10 foot step ladder and shove this top mast section into the rest of the mast, match holes and shove bolts into them. This was all done way up over our head - quite precarious !
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This sounds like what W6ARA does on field day.
>>> I'll ask them if they ever considered your
>>> method.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The HexLock is a safer and quicker alternative.
>>>> 
>>>> 73, Jamie
>>>> WB4YDL
>>> 
>>> Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?
>>> 
>>> Rick N6RK
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


From jimc at pwrone.com  Mon Jul 18 23:45:39 2016
From: jimc at pwrone.com (Jim Chaggaris)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 22:45:39 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <2BFB3C99-BF9A-48C8-B914-D3734E6A8740@nwtcc.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
	<57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
	<CFF9EAF9-BB11-4C55-A84D-5EFD8B3B45DD@nwtcc.com>
	<88a019dc-89d9-cf73-796c-227df6e590dd@karlquist.com>
	<576471F1-4ADD-4610-95BD-26FC8BE62E74@nwtcc.com>
	<9C1CB25A-2A02-4C15-A6EC-B821642738F3@pwrone.com>
	<2BFB3C99-BF9A-48C8-B914-D3734E6A8740@nwtcc.com>
Message-ID: <E07D22E6-8CEA-41AC-9A53-33E54D9B9ADF@pwrone.com>

Jamie, 

I've never used Spidebeam but know they can be cumbersome to erect.  I had a Hexbeam mounted at 70' on an AB-577 mast and it worked great.  Whatever you decide to do, make sure you have enough workers to help.  Ideally, 1 on the launcher and 3 on the guy wires.  That said, I figured out a way, given my location, to erect my Hexbeam up to 70' all by my self.  It wasn't for the faint of heart but it worked.

73,
Jim N9WW

Jim Chaggaris
PowerOne Corp.
2325 Dean St. Set 200
St. Charles, IL 60175
Phone: (630)443-6500
Cell: (630)669-2241

Sent from my iPad Air2

> On Jul 18, 2016, at 10:32 PM, James C. Hall, MD <heartdoc at nwtcc.com> wrote:
> 
> I like the Hexbeam, but I also like that 3rd element in the SB (and for 10M, 3rd and 4th elements). To me, it's just a superior design.
> 
> I think I could walk up the SB on a mast after being built on the side on a TV tripod, and fit it in a Yaesu rotator mounted on the AB-577 stub. It's not that heavy, just unwieldy. 
> 
> 73, Jamie
> WB4YDL
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Jim Chaggaris <jimc at pwrone.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Put up a Hexbeam on the AB-577 and be done with it.
>> 
>> 73,
>> Jim N9WW
>> 
>> Jim Chaggaris
>> PowerOne Corp.
>> 2325 Dean St. Set 200
>> St. Charles, IL 60175
>> Phone: (630)443-6500
>> Cell: (630)669-2241
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad Air2
>> 
>>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 10:12 PM, James C. Hall, MD <heartdoc at nwtcc.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I haven't seen much about the tilt plate as relates to a SB mount - more for a yagi. I'm not sure I could answer your question on this one.
>>> 
>>> 73, Jamie
>>> WB4YDL
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 5:49 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <richard at karlquist.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?
>>>> 
>>>>> On 7/18/2016 3:33 PM, James C. Hall, MD wrote:
>>>>> Rick:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Before we used the HexLock this year, we did in fact build the SB on a TV tripod nearby. Then we would gradually walk the SB up a 10 foot step ladder and shove this top mast section into the rest of the mast, match holes and shove bolts into them. This was all done way up over our head - quite precarious !
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> This sounds like what W6ARA does on field day.
>>>> I'll ask them if they ever considered your
>>>> method.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The HexLock is a safer and quicker alternative.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 73, Jamie
>>>>> WB4YDL
>>>> 
>>>> Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?
>>>> 
>>>> Rick N6RK
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 


From keepwalking188 at ac0c.com  Tue Jul 19 03:56:52 2016
From: keepwalking188 at ac0c.com (Jeff AC0C)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 15:56:52 +0800
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <B6BA54309A2A4090A3AFD93EE0821FCD@w520>

I?m considering a LPDA on a 25G and had planned to use a T2X for that - but wonder if something with a bit more brake would not be a better choice.  We get frequent ice + wind here.

What?s the strongest rotor that will fit (or can be made to fit) inside a 25G?

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie


From patrick_g at windstream.net  Tue Jul 19 08:12:39 2016
From: patrick_g at windstream.net (Patrick Greenlee)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 07:12:39 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <9C1CB25A-2A02-4C15-A6EC-B821642738F3@pwrone.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
	<57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
	<CFF9EAF9-BB11-4C55-A84D-5EFD8B3B45DD@nwtcc.com>
	<88a019dc-89d9-cf73-796c-227df6e590dd@karlquist.com>
	<576471F1-4ADD-4610-95BD-26FC8BE62E74@nwtcc.com>
	<9C1CB25A-2A02-4C15-A6EC-B821642738F3@pwrone.com>
Message-ID: <002a4236-420f-546c-304c-d80532d6c25f@windstream.net>



On 7/18/2016 10:21 PM, Jim Chaggaris wrote:
> Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?

Purpose built and less expensive.  Right "tool" for the job. Also 
considerably lighter and less wind resistance by a huge margin. (I have 
both.)

Patrick        NJ5G




From thompson at mindspring.com  Tue Jul 19 12:01:57 2016
From: thompson at mindspring.com (Dave Thompson)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:01:57 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
Message-ID: <4197879.1468944117838.JavaMail.wam@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>



I thought the spiderbeam sold by Vibroplex was a better antenna than most of the other hex beams.  Why?

1.  It is a 3 el beam on 20 and 15 and a 4 el beam on 10.  I guessed that it was a 2 el beam on 17 and 12.

2.  It only requires 4 spreaders not 6 like most hex beams.

I was somewhat surprised that the model supplied by K5VV was lower in gain and the pattern was so poor on 20/15/10 but then again I have not seen other hex beams modeled.

73 Dave K4JRB


From arnie123 at hotmail.com  Tue Jul 19 13:00:51 2016
From: arnie123 at hotmail.com (Arnie Pfingst)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:00:51 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 87
Message-ID: <SNT405-EAS2573444105635A6E8A6A1BB8E370@phx.gbl>

I hear people talking about lots of different types of antennas, but nobody taljs about the old "cubical quad" antenna. Is there a reason? I had on up for years and it worked great


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S?6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone<div>
</div><div>
</div><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: towertalk-request at contesting.com </div><div>Date: 7/19/16  9:00 AM  (GMT-08:00) </div><div>To: towertalk at contesting.com </div><div>Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 87 </div><div>
</div>
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..."

From n5kilomike at gmail.com  Tue Jul 19 17:29:09 2016
From: n5kilomike at gmail.com (N5KM - Kris)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:29:09 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Antennas-Amplifiers.com
Message-ID: <CAL386nkZirJctAsHSXd-CaC0RrCC-C4FJO6Dg-wLwoG8DVX-Hw@mail.gmail.com>

Has anyone had experience with purchases from antennas-amplifiers.com?

I am looking at 6m Yagis and they have very good prices even with the
shipping charges from Serbia.

Kris N5KM

From kstover at ac0h.net  Tue Jul 19 19:05:32 2016
From: kstover at ac0h.net (Kevin)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 18:05:32 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <002a4236-420f-546c-304c-d80532d6c25f@windstream.net>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
	<57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
	<CFF9EAF9-BB11-4C55-A84D-5EFD8B3B45DD@nwtcc.com>
	<88a019dc-89d9-cf73-796c-227df6e590dd@karlquist.com>
	<576471F1-4ADD-4610-95BD-26FC8BE62E74@nwtcc.com>
	<9C1CB25A-2A02-4C15-A6EC-B821642738F3@pwrone.com>
	<002a4236-420f-546c-304c-d80532d6c25f@windstream.net>
Message-ID: <9335b223-ec95-3738-77c0-f3566dd4c305@ac0h.net>

Tiltplate was designed for antennas with booms.

Hexbeams have no boom.


On 7/19/2016 7:12 AM, Patrick Greenlee wrote:
>
>
> On 7/18/2016 10:21 PM, Jim Chaggaris wrote:
>> Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?
>
> Purpose built and less expensive.  Right "tool" for the job. Also 
> considerably lighter and less wind resistance by a huge margin. (I 
> have both.)
>
> Patrick        NJ5G
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

-- 
R. Kevin Stover
AC0H
ARRL
FISTS #11993
SKCC #215
NAQCC #3441


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From gary_mayfield at hotmail.com  Tue Jul 19 19:27:00 2016
From: gary_mayfield at hotmail.com (Gary)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 23:27:00 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?
In-Reply-To: <576471F1-4ADD-4610-95BD-26FC8BE62E74@nwtcc.com>
References: <20160519114621.F52RE.270926.imail@eastrmwml302>
	<1468855916.1208682.669575657.51524C26@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<b14c1eb5-2806-070e-1e31-f2654771e4a7@subich.com>
	<57ab0843-4183-d49b-bd7d-3f6f4d8b9e28@karlquist.com>
	<CFF9EAF9-BB11-4C55-A84D-5EFD8B3B45DD@nwtcc.com>
	<88a019dc-89d9-cf73-796c-227df6e590dd@karlquist.com>,
	<576471F1-4ADD-4610-95BD-26FC8BE62E74@nwtcc.com>
Message-ID: <DM5PR06MB239304AB2B47FA7EC9F3BD3F8A370@DM5PR06MB2393.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>


There is a tilt plate for hex/spider beam.

http://www.nn4zz.com/hexlock.html
[http://www.nn4zz.com/images/HexLock/HexLock-Operational-Positio.jpg]<http://www.nn4zz.com/hexlock.html>

HexLock by NN4ZZ<http://www.nn4zz.com/hexlock.html>
www.nn4zz.com
HexLock for Hexbeam type antennas What is a HexLock - The HexLock is a device that will let you tilt your tower all the way to the ground to ...

73,
Joe kk0sd



________________________________
From: TowerTalk <towertalk-bounces at contesting.com> on behalf of James C. Hall, MD <heartdoc at nwtcc.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 10:12 PM
To: Richard (Rick) Karlquist
Cc: Joe Subich, W4TV; towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Any thoughts on spider-beams?

I haven't seen much about the tilt plate as relates to a SB mount - more for a yagi. I'm not sure I could answer your question on this one.

73, Jamie
WB4YDL

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 18, 2016, at 5:49 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <richard at karlquist.com> wrote:
>
> Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?
>
>> On 7/18/2016 3:33 PM, James C. Hall, MD wrote:
>> Rick:
>>
>> Before we used the HexLock this year, we did in fact build the SB on a TV tripod nearby. Then we would gradually walk the SB up a 10 foot step ladder and shove this top mast section into the rest of the mast, match holes and shove bolts into them. This was all done way up over our head - quite precarious !
>
>
> This sounds like what W6ARA does on field day.
> I'll ask them if they ever considered your
> method.
>
>
>>
>> The HexLock is a safer and quicker alternative.
>>
>> 73, Jamie
>> WB4YDL
>
> Why the choice of HexLock vs TiltPlate?
>
> Rick N6RK

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
TowerTalk Info Page - Contesting<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
lists.contesting.com
TowerTalk is for discussion of tower and HF antenna construction topics. TT members have lots of helpful information and are happy to share it.




From btippett at alum.mit.edu  Wed Jul 20 10:56:09 2016
From: btippett at alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:56:09 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <CAOH7AOomtTjxqbQay8vCHgvwKQfWrc5mUn5B8_RDd8YWvfPc5A@mail.gmail.com>

> What?s the strongest rotor that will fit (or can be made to fit) inside a
25G?

If you can find one, a KLM 1500HD (no longer available) will fit into a
tapered top section of Rohn 25.  I know because I just tried the one I have
in 25G.  You have to mount it in a 25AG series top section at the ~16" open
window without Z-bracing.

Abbreviated specs:

Diameter: 8"
Height with top mast clamp: 16.73"
Weight with top mast clamp: 28 pounds
Rotating Torque: 1,550 inch-pounds
Stall Torque: 1,740 inch-pounds
Brake: 10,500 inch-pounds
360 degree rotation time: approx 60 secs (48V 1A motor)

It's like a small prop pitch (another alternative) with no brake mechanism
other than the motor/gearbox.  The data sheet says it's good for 32.6 sq ft
at 90 MPH when mounted inside the tower.  Mine survived regular 100 MPH
winds and two exceeding 140 MPH in Colorado (but derate by ~15% for wind
pressure at 5000' elevation).  I had a KLM 5L 20 and KLM 3L 40 mounted on
it.

I *might* consider selling it but will not give it away (e.g. I believe
K7NV's prop pitches are ~$3000).  Make me an offer I can't refuse if
interested  :-)  I have the manual and can scan the complete specifications
page if interested.

73,  Bill  W4ZV

From gummydoc at gmail.com  Mon Jul 18 12:15:30 2016
From: gummydoc at gmail.com (Ross Lambert)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:15:30 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Help With Rohn 25 and Winch
Message-ID: <CAFKPm7T39v1TbyjU-qGpBy75KTZeobA02NZaNe-sOQYStDdWQQ@mail.gmail.com>

I put up 16 feet of Rohn 25 g ( 10 foot section and a 6 foot section. )
This tower is bolted to upper section of house near eave of  house at the
10 foot up from the
a 3 ele tribander (TA33M ) and a 3 element 6 meter beam is going on it.
The tilt over base is on a flat roof .
I would like to use a winch and block and tackle to tilt over and tilt up
tower.

I bought a D and L WG2000 worm gear winch
7/32 aircraft winch cable

I plan on routing the cable through a series of pulleys rated at 800 lbs up
to the ten foot level

The question is should I use a block and tackle arrangement between the
wall of the hous and the tower?

And will this short tower be ok with the winch?  I'd like to be able to
raise and lower the tower with the antennas on it.

The antennnas dont weigh much. The tribander  will be just above tower top
and the 6 meter 4 or 5 feet above.

Any comments or suggestions?

Please copy your response to e-mail address below

Ross

K3HR

k3hr at k3hr.com

From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Wed Jul 20 16:17:46 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:17:46 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
In-Reply-To: <CAOH7AOomtTjxqbQay8vCHgvwKQfWrc5mUn5B8_RDd8YWvfPc5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOH7AOomtTjxqbQay8vCHgvwKQfWrc5mUn5B8_RDd8YWvfPc5A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5c2ef140-03cd-8988-c171-f368551c34dc@tm.net>

A heavy duty rotator with a large antenna should be mounted well down 
into the tower. Mounted at the top, in the tapered section would likely 
put very high stress at that point.

73

Roger (K8RI)

On 7/20/2016 Wednesday 10:56 AM, Bill Tippett wrote:
>> What?s the strongest rotor that will fit (or can be made to fit) inside a
> 25G?
>
> If you can find one, a KLM 1500HD (no longer available) will fit into a
> tapered top section of Rohn 25.  I know because I just tried the one I have
> in 25G.  You have to mount it in a 25AG series top section at the ~16" open
> window without Z-bracing.
>
> Abbreviated specs:
>
> Diameter: 8"
> Height with top mast clamp: 16.73"
> Weight with top mast clamp: 28 pounds
> Rotating Torque: 1,550 inch-pounds
> Stall Torque: 1,740 inch-pounds
> Brake: 10,500 inch-pounds
> 360 degree rotation time: approx 60 secs (48V 1A motor)
>
> It's like a small prop pitch (another alternative) with no brake mechanism
> other than the motor/gearbox.  The data sheet says it's good for 32.6 sq ft
> at 90 MPH when mounted inside the tower.  Mine survived regular 100 MPH
> winds and two exceeding 140 MPH in Colorado (but derate by ~15% for wind
> pressure at 5000' elevation).  I had a KLM 5L 20 and KLM 3L 40 mounted on
> it.
>
> I *might* consider selling it but will not give it away (e.g. I believe
> K7NV's prop pitches are ~$3000).  Make me an offer I can't refuse if
> interested  :-)  I have the manual and can scan the complete specifications
> page if interested.
>
> 73,  Bill  W4ZV
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From btippett at alum.mit.edu  Wed Jul 20 17:26:11 2016
From: btippett at alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:26:11 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <CAOH7AOqHyqYiewA3qP==xk=xBtf+ooSepp3oDWF2NAPX4XYSXg@mail.gmail.com>

K8RI:  > A heavy duty rotator with a large antenna should be mounted well
down into the tower. Mounted at the top, in the tapered section would
likely put very high stress at that point.

I mounted my rotator at the same point in 45G and had no problems for >10
years with the antennas/wind speeds in Colorado described previously.  If
still concerned, you could mount a straight 25G section above a straight
25AG4 and install the rotator in the 16" window.  Of course this would
require a long mast (~15').  I don't know which LPDA Jeff is considering
but I doubt it's >32 sq. ft.

73,  Bill  W4ZV

From lists at oakcom.org  Wed Jul 20 17:34:01 2016
From: lists at oakcom.org (Steve Maki)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:34:01 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
In-Reply-To: <CAOH7AOqHyqYiewA3qP==xk=xBtf+ooSepp3oDWF2NAPX4XYSXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOH7AOqHyqYiewA3qP==xk=xBtf+ooSepp3oDWF2NAPX4XYSXg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9c527102-c185-ac08-e30e-120c609176a1@oakcom.org>

On 7/20/2016 17:26 PM, Bill Tippett wrote:
> K8RI:  > A heavy duty rotator with a large antenna should be mounted well
> down into the tower. Mounted at the top, in the tapered section would
> likely put very high stress at that point.
>
> I mounted my rotator at the same point in 45G and had no problems for >10
> years with the antennas/wind speeds in Colorado described previously.  If
> still concerned, you could mount a straight 25G section above a straight
> 25AG4 and install the rotator in the 16" window.  Of course this would
> require a long mast (~15').  I don't know which LPDA Jeff is considering
> but I doubt it's >32 sq. ft.

And besides, the rotational torque will be resisted by z-braced sections 
below the rotator.

The only concern with the normal R25 rotator mounting position is 
lateral loads encountered with tall masts. I've seen pointy top sections 
fold over in that scenario.

-Steve K8LX


From grants2 at pacbell.net  Wed Jul 20 22:43:09 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 19:43:09 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Help With Rohn 25 and Winch
In-Reply-To: <CAFKPm7T39v1TbyjU-qGpBy75KTZeobA02NZaNe-sOQYStDdWQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFKPm7T39v1TbyjU-qGpBy75KTZeobA02NZaNe-sOQYStDdWQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <579036BD.4070909@pacbell.net>

As long as your eave is strong enough, that winch should do the job 
without any more pulleys to gain mechanical advantage.  That assumes the 
other pulleys are good ones with low friction, although it is not clear 
in your post what "a series of pulleys" means.  800# pulleys vs 2000# 
winch seems like a bad idea.  The cheap (eg Zoro) 800 and 2000# pulleys 
and turning blocks are steel pulleys on steel bolts, without grease 
fittings or bronze bearings, pretty much junk for your application since 
they are out in the weather and probably not rated "for lifting".

It would be wise to add a 2 x 8 or larger inside the eves across several 
studs and bolt thru with threaded rod to the top turning block. Better 
yet, add some diagonal bracing (e.g. an angle iron with end cut and bent 
and drilled for lags  or bolts) from the 2 x 8 back to the attic floor, 
onto a 3/4" sheet of plywood nailed or screwed to the joists.  Eave 
studs have little structural resistance to pull over and the sheathing 
only has small nails holding it onto the studs.  I've done this at two 
houses, one with a 30' of R25 and a bigger beam on 15' of exposed mast 
and they and the house survived hurricane winds.

Grant KZ1W

On 7/18/2016 9:15 AM, Ross Lambert wrote:
> I put up 16 feet of Rohn 25 g ( 10 foot section and a 6 foot section. )
> This tower is bolted to upper section of house near eave of  house at the
> 10 foot up from the
> a 3 ele tribander (TA33M ) and a 3 element 6 meter beam is going on it.
> The tilt over base is on a flat roof .
> I would like to use a winch and block and tackle to tilt over and tilt up
> tower.
>
> I bought a D and L WG2000 worm gear winch
> 7/32 aircraft winch cable
>
> I plan on routing the cable through a series of pulleys rated at 800 lbs up
> to the ten foot level
>
> The question is should I use a block and tackle arrangement between the
> wall of the hous and the tower?
>
> And will this short tower be ok with the winch?  I'd like to be able to
> raise and lower the tower with the antennas on it.
>
> The antennnas dont weigh much. The tribander  will be just above tower top
> and the 6 meter 4 or 5 feet above.
>
> Any comments or suggestions?
>
> Please copy your response to e-mail address below
>
> Ross
>
> K3HR
>
> k3hr at k3hr.com
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From grants2 at pacbell.net  Wed Jul 20 22:58:01 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 19:58:01 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
In-Reply-To: <5c2ef140-03cd-8988-c171-f368551c34dc@tm.net>
References: <CAOH7AOomtTjxqbQay8vCHgvwKQfWrc5mUn5B8_RDd8YWvfPc5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5c2ef140-03cd-8988-c171-f368551c34dc@tm.net>
Message-ID: <57903A39.8040603@pacbell.net>

The assertion is often made that a longer mast inside the tower 
strengthens the tower.  I think not.

So perhaps those with civil/structural engineering skills greater than 
my novice level could help me to understand why lowering the rotator 
lowers the tower stresses.  My analysis follows.

For a perpendicular wind load to the tower and antenna, and a given 
antenna height above the tower,  the lateral force exerted on the tower 
is the same whether there is 1' or 100' of mast inside the tower.

Given that a large antenna should be close to the top of R25, the added 
moment from the mast applied to the tower top is essentially independent 
of the mast below the top, when the top section has a mast sleeve such 
as tapered R25 or big UST crank ups.  Thus the amount of side load on 
the rotator is also minimal on towers with those tubular mast tops since 
the mast can only move a fraction of a degree inside that tube.

Some posters claim that a mast "strengthens" the tower,  but the ratio 
of the bending moment of inertia is large from 2" x 0.25wall mast to a 
10' stick of R25.  The moment of inertia for R25 per factory spec sheet 
is 15.3 in^4 and for 2"od x 0.25 wall is 0.54 in^4.  In other words the 
R25 tower is almost 30 times stiffer in resisting bending than the 2" 
mast.  Hence the mast makes an insignificant contribution to the 
strength of the tower.  (see Leeson's analysis of sleeved elements in 
Physical Design of Yagi Antennas)

A stock "thrust bearing" (Yaesu, Rohn) may have enough slop to allow the 
mast to pivot at the top plate quite a bit, at least the Rohn one I used 
(never again!) could let the mast achieve scary angles when the rotator 
was removed.  So in this case there is some moment transferred to the 
rotator  bearings and mounting plate, but the tower resists those 
bending loads 30x better than the mast.

A lattice tower is engineered to have high stiffness due to the large 
"diameter" (distance to the neutral axis) and low weight by using small 
tube legs and welded bracing to distribute the loads among the legs.  
While it is beyond my skills to compute the stress distribution for 10' 
of R25 loaded as a cantilever, IMO it will withstand a lot more force 
before it fails than a 10' length of 2" diameter mast.

Grant KZ1W




On 7/20/2016 13:17 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
> A heavy duty rotator with a large antenna should be mounted well down 
> into the tower. Mounted at the top, in the tapered section would 
> likely put very high stress at that point.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
> On 7/20/2016 Wednesday 10:56 AM, Bill Tippett wrote:
>>> What?s the strongest rotor that will fit (or can be made to fit) 
>>> inside a
>> 25G?
>>
>> If you can find one, a KLM 1500HD (no longer available) will fit into a
>> tapered top section of Rohn 25.  I know because I just tried the one 
>> I have
>> in 25G.  You have to mount it in a 25AG series top section at the 
>> ~16" open
>> window without Z-bracing.
>>
>> Abbreviated specs:
>>
>> Diameter: 8"
>> Height with top mast clamp: 16.73"
>> Weight with top mast clamp: 28 pounds
>> Rotating Torque: 1,550 inch-pounds
>> Stall Torque: 1,740 inch-pounds
>> Brake: 10,500 inch-pounds
>> 360 degree rotation time: approx 60 secs (48V 1A motor)
>>
>> It's like a small prop pitch (another alternative) with no brake 
>> mechanism
>> other than the motor/gearbox.  The data sheet says it's good for 32.6 
>> sq ft
>> at 90 MPH when mounted inside the tower.  Mine survived regular 100 MPH
>> winds and two exceeding 140 MPH in Colorado (but derate by ~15% for wind
>> pressure at 5000' elevation).  I had a KLM 5L 20 and KLM 3L 40 
>> mounted on
>> it.
>>
>> I *might* consider selling it but will not give it away (e.g. I believe
>> K7NV's prop pitches are ~$3000).  Make me an offer I can't refuse if
>> interested  :-)  I have the manual and can scan the complete 
>> specifications
>> page if interested.
>>
>> 73,  Bill  W4ZV
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Thu Jul 21 02:20:52 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 02:20:52 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
In-Reply-To: <57903A39.8040603@pacbell.net>
References: <CAOH7AOomtTjxqbQay8vCHgvwKQfWrc5mUn5B8_RDd8YWvfPc5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5c2ef140-03cd-8988-c171-f368551c34dc@tm.net>
	<57903A39.8040603@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <5b743348-15aa-bec6-aa72-404833e3e5ba@tm.net>

The entire leverage, or tipping moment (not the straight lateral force) 
is applied between the thrust bearing (or sleeve and the bottom of the 
rotator.)   If the rotator is mounted at the junction of the next 
section down, the pivoting force is the multiple of the arm.  The 
straight lateral force is the same, but the leverage is greatly 
reduced.  Just use the ratio of the arm above the pivot point to that 
below the pivot point.  For a short arm (rotator at the top of the tower 
that leverage may be greater than the entire lateral wind load.

The greater the antenna wind load the greater the leverage. It's much 
the same as using a mast to raise the antenna above the top of the 
tower.which increases the arm.

http://www.rohnnet.com/rohn-25g-tower  Click on 25G and download the 
specifications.
Revision G = 90 MPH, Revision F= 70 MPH
The "maximum wind load for a 35', 25G in the lowest wind area is 22.6 sq 
ft  Exposure B Revision G for exposure C it is only 16.6 sq ft.
At 60 feet the loads are reduced to 20.3 and 15.2.

These figures are for 25G tower installed as per ROHNs instructions
Many of us have used 25G in excess of the ratings with no problems, but 
most of us do so with the knowledge that our insurance "may" not cover 
the installation.

With more violent weather and huge numbers of claims, insurance 
companies may not be nearly as forgiving as in the past. You can also 
expect your premiums to go up with a major claim, or a number of small 
claims.  Ask around. Anyone on here have their insurance canceled, or 
major increase in premiums after a claim, or just an increase in claims 
from your area?

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/20/2016 Wednesday 10:58 PM, Grant Saviers wrote:
> The assertion is often made that a longer mast inside the tower 
> strengthens the tower.  I think not.
>
> So perhaps those with civil/structural engineering skills greater than 
> my novice level could help me to understand why lowering the rotator 
> lowers the tower stresses.  My analysis follows.
>
> For a perpendicular wind load to the tower and antenna, and a given 
> antenna height above the tower,  the lateral force exerted on the 
> tower is the same whether there is 1' or 100' of mast inside the tower.
>
> Given that a large antenna should be close to the top of R25, the 
> added moment from the mast applied to the tower top is essentially 
> independent of the mast below the top, when the top section has a mast 
> sleeve such as tapered R25 or big UST crank ups.  Thus the amount of 
> side load on the rotator is also minimal on towers with those tubular 
> mast tops since the mast can only move a fraction of a degree inside 
> that tube.
>
> Some posters claim that a mast "strengthens" the tower,  but the ratio 
> of the bending moment of inertia is large from 2" x 0.25wall mast to a 
> 10' stick of R25.  The moment of inertia for R25 per factory spec 
> sheet is 15.3 in^4 and for 2"od x 0.25 wall is 0.54 in^4.  In other 
> words the R25 tower is almost 30 times stiffer in resisting bending 
> than the 2" mast.  Hence the mast makes an insignificant contribution 
> to the strength of the tower.  (see Leeson's analysis of sleeved 
> elements in Physical Design of Yagi Antennas)
>
> A stock "thrust bearing" (Yaesu, Rohn) may have enough slop to allow 
> the mast to pivot at the top plate quite a bit, at least the Rohn one 
> I used (never again!) could let the mast achieve scary angles when the 
> rotator was removed.  So in this case there is some moment transferred 
> to the rotator  bearings and mounting plate, but the tower resists 
> those bending loads 30x better than the mast.
>
> A lattice tower is engineered to have high stiffness due to the large 
> "diameter" (distance to the neutral axis) and low weight by using 
> small tube legs and welded bracing to distribute the loads among the 
> legs.  While it is beyond my skills to compute the stress distribution 
> for 10' of R25 loaded as a cantilever, IMO it will withstand a lot 
> more force before it fails than a 10' length of 2" diameter mast.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
>
>
>
> On 7/20/2016 13:17 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
>> A heavy duty rotator with a large antenna should be mounted well down 
>> into the tower. Mounted at the top, in the tapered section would 
>> likely put very high stress at that point.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>> On 7/20/2016 Wednesday 10:56 AM, Bill Tippett wrote:
>>>> What?s the strongest rotor that will fit (or can be made to fit) 
>>>> inside a
>>> 25G?
>>>
>>> If you can find one, a KLM 1500HD (no longer available) will fit into a
>>> tapered top section of Rohn 25.  I know because I just tried the one 
>>> I have
>>> in 25G.  You have to mount it in a 25AG series top section at the 
>>> ~16" open
>>> window without Z-bracing.
>>>
>>> Abbreviated specs:
>>>
>>> Diameter: 8"
>>> Height with top mast clamp: 16.73"
>>> Weight with top mast clamp: 28 pounds
>>> Rotating Torque: 1,550 inch-pounds
>>> Stall Torque: 1,740 inch-pounds
>>> Brake: 10,500 inch-pounds
>>> 360 degree rotation time: approx 60 secs (48V 1A motor)
>>>
>>> It's like a small prop pitch (another alternative) with no brake 
>>> mechanism
>>> other than the motor/gearbox.  The data sheet says it's good for 
>>> 32.6 sq ft
>>> at 90 MPH when mounted inside the tower.  Mine survived regular 100 MPH
>>> winds and two exceeding 140 MPH in Colorado (but derate by ~15% for 
>>> wind
>>> pressure at 5000' elevation).  I had a KLM 5L 20 and KLM 3L 40 
>>> mounted on
>>> it.
>>>
>>> I *might* consider selling it but will not give it away (e.g. I believe
>>> K7NV's prop pitches are ~$3000).  Make me an offer I can't refuse if
>>> interested  :-)  I have the manual and can scan the complete 
>>> specifications
>>> page if interested.
>>>
>>> 73,  Bill  W4ZV
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From keepwalking188 at ac0c.com  Wed Jul 20 20:39:30 2016
From: keepwalking188 at ac0c.com (Jeff AC0C)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:39:30 +0800
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
In-Reply-To: <9c527102-c185-ac08-e30e-120c609176a1@oakcom.org>
References: <CAOH7AOqHyqYiewA3qP==xk=xBtf+ooSepp3oDWF2NAPX4XYSXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9c527102-c185-ac08-e30e-120c609176a1@oakcom.org>
Message-ID: <F35250C5B5414EC48DEEE44E222D4847@w520>

Thanks for the guys who have replied so far.

The top section is a flat top with a bearing.  The rotor would sit down at 
the junction of the first and second section point.

The antenna under consideration is probably something like a Tennadyne T12 
covering 10-30m, 36 foot mast, 53' max element and about 150 lbs.  16 sq ft 
if I remember right.  I may stick a small 6m beam up above the T12 but that 
would not offer much in the way of wind loading compared to the LPDA, other 
than the contribution to torque felt by the top mast bearing.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Steve Maki
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 5:34 AM
To: towertalk
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G

On 7/20/2016 17:26 PM, Bill Tippett wrote:
> K8RI:  > A heavy duty rotator with a large antenna should be mounted well
> down into the tower. Mounted at the top, in the tapered section would
> likely put very high stress at that point.
>
> I mounted my rotator at the same point in 45G and had no problems for >10
> years with the antennas/wind speeds in Colorado described previously.  If
> still concerned, you could mount a straight 25G section above a straight
> 25AG4 and install the rotator in the 16" window.  Of course this would
> require a long mast (~15').  I don't know which LPDA Jeff is considering
> but I doubt it's >32 sq. ft.

And besides, the rotational torque will be resisted by z-braced sections
below the rotator.

The only concern with the normal R25 rotator mounting position is
lateral loads encountered with tall masts. I've seen pointy top sections
fold over in that scenario.

-Steve K8LX

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 


From keepwalking188 at ac0c.com  Thu Jul 21 04:35:16 2016
From: keepwalking188 at ac0c.com (Jeff AC0C)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:35:16 +0800
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
In-Reply-To: <5b743348-15aa-bec6-aa72-404833e3e5ba@tm.net>
References: <CAOH7AOomtTjxqbQay8vCHgvwKQfWrc5mUn5B8_RDd8YWvfPc5A@mail.gmail.com><5c2ef140-03cd-8988-c171-f368551c34dc@tm.net><57903A39.8040603@pacbell.net>
	<5b743348-15aa-bec6-aa72-404833e3e5ba@tm.net>
Message-ID: <B6F579A9BC7848928C0EF500FF4A8C57@w520>

I want to focus the question at hand on turning and braking ability.

The nightmare around this part of the country is to wake up and see your 
beam pin-wheeling around due to a brake failure or the fact it won't turn 
anymore.  This always happens right at the start of winter so guys can sit 
out all winter season wishing they had put a rotor up with a bit more 
brawn...

All the other issues, while significant, fall into the "items to consider 
down the road" category.

Will the small Alfa-SPID fit inside the 25G?

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Roger (K8RI) on TT
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:20 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G

The entire leverage, or tipping moment (not the straight lateral force)
is applied between the thrust bearing (or sleeve and the bottom of the
rotator.)   If the rotator is mounted at the junction of the next
section down, the pivoting force is the multiple of the arm.  The
straight lateral force is the same, but the leverage is greatly
reduced.  Just use the ratio of the arm above the pivot point to that
below the pivot point.  For a short arm (rotator at the top of the tower
that leverage may be greater than the entire lateral wind load.

The greater the antenna wind load the greater the leverage. It's much
the same as using a mast to raise the antenna above the top of the
tower.which increases the arm.

http://www.rohnnet.com/rohn-25g-tower  Click on 25G and download the
specifications.
Revision G = 90 MPH, Revision F= 70 MPH
The "maximum wind load for a 35', 25G in the lowest wind area is 22.6 sq
ft  Exposure B Revision G for exposure C it is only 16.6 sq ft.
At 60 feet the loads are reduced to 20.3 and 15.2.

These figures are for 25G tower installed as per ROHNs instructions
Many of us have used 25G in excess of the ratings with no problems, but
most of us do so with the knowledge that our insurance "may" not cover
the installation.

With more violent weather and huge numbers of claims, insurance
companies may not be nearly as forgiving as in the past. You can also
expect your premiums to go up with a major claim, or a number of small
claims.  Ask around. Anyone on here have their insurance canceled, or
major increase in premiums after a claim, or just an increase in claims
from your area?

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/20/2016 Wednesday 10:58 PM, Grant Saviers wrote:
> The assertion is often made that a longer mast inside the tower 
> strengthens the tower.  I think not.
>
> So perhaps those with civil/structural engineering skills greater than my 
> novice level could help me to understand why lowering the rotator lowers 
> the tower stresses.  My analysis follows.
>
> For a perpendicular wind load to the tower and antenna, and a given 
> antenna height above the tower,  the lateral force exerted on the tower is 
> the same whether there is 1' or 100' of mast inside the tower.
>
> Given that a large antenna should be close to the top of R25, the added 
> moment from the mast applied to the tower top is essentially independent 
> of the mast below the top, when the top section has a mast sleeve such as 
> tapered R25 or big UST crank ups.  Thus the amount of side load on the 
> rotator is also minimal on towers with those tubular mast tops since the 
> mast can only move a fraction of a degree inside that tube.
>
> Some posters claim that a mast "strengthens" the tower,  but the ratio of 
> the bending moment of inertia is large from 2" x 0.25wall mast to a 10' 
> stick of R25.  The moment of inertia for R25 per factory spec sheet is 
> 15.3 in^4 and for 2"od x 0.25 wall is 0.54 in^4.  In other words the R25 
> tower is almost 30 times stiffer in resisting bending than the 2" mast. 
> Hence the mast makes an insignificant contribution to the strength of the 
> tower.  (see Leeson's analysis of sleeved elements in Physical Design of 
> Yagi Antennas)
>
> A stock "thrust bearing" (Yaesu, Rohn) may have enough slop to allow the 
> mast to pivot at the top plate quite a bit, at least the Rohn one I used 
> (never again!) could let the mast achieve scary angles when the rotator 
> was removed.  So in this case there is some moment transferred to the 
> rotator  bearings and mounting plate, but the tower resists those bending 
> loads 30x better than the mast.
>
> A lattice tower is engineered to have high stiffness due to the large 
> "diameter" (distance to the neutral axis) and low weight by using small 
> tube legs and welded bracing to distribute the loads among the legs. 
> While it is beyond my skills to compute the stress distribution for 10' of 
> R25 loaded as a cantilever, IMO it will withstand a lot more force before 
> it fails than a 10' length of 2" diameter mast.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
>
>
>
> On 7/20/2016 13:17 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
>> A heavy duty rotator with a large antenna should be mounted well down 
>> into the tower. Mounted at the top, in the tapered section would likely 
>> put very high stress at that point.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>> On 7/20/2016 Wednesday 10:56 AM, Bill Tippett wrote:
>>>> What?s the strongest rotor that will fit (or can be made to fit) inside 
>>>> a
>>> 25G?
>>>
>>> If you can find one, a KLM 1500HD (no longer available) will fit into a
>>> tapered top section of Rohn 25.  I know because I just tried the one I 
>>> have
>>> in 25G.  You have to mount it in a 25AG series top section at the ~16" 
>>> open
>>> window without Z-bracing.
>>>
>>> Abbreviated specs:
>>>
>>> Diameter: 8"
>>> Height with top mast clamp: 16.73"
>>> Weight with top mast clamp: 28 pounds
>>> Rotating Torque: 1,550 inch-pounds
>>> Stall Torque: 1,740 inch-pounds
>>> Brake: 10,500 inch-pounds
>>> 360 degree rotation time: approx 60 secs (48V 1A motor)
>>>
>>> It's like a small prop pitch (another alternative) with no brake 
>>> mechanism
>>> other than the motor/gearbox.  The data sheet says it's good for 32.6 sq 
>>> ft
>>> at 90 MPH when mounted inside the tower.  Mine survived regular 100 MPH
>>> winds and two exceeding 140 MPH in Colorado (but derate by ~15% for wind
>>> pressure at 5000' elevation).  I had a KLM 5L 20 and KLM 3L 40 mounted 
>>> on
>>> it.
>>>
>>> I *might* consider selling it but will not give it away (e.g. I believe
>>> K7NV's prop pitches are ~$3000).  Make me an offer I can't refuse if
>>> interested  :-)  I have the manual and can scan the complete 
>>> specifications
>>> page if interested.
>>>
>>> 73,  Bill  W4ZV
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Thu Jul 21 05:18:26 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:18:26 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
In-Reply-To: <B6F579A9BC7848928C0EF500FF4A8C57@w520>
References: <CAOH7AOomtTjxqbQay8vCHgvwKQfWrc5mUn5B8_RDd8YWvfPc5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5c2ef140-03cd-8988-c171-f368551c34dc@tm.net>
	<57903A39.8040603@pacbell.net>
	<5b743348-15aa-bec6-aa72-404833e3e5ba@tm.net>
	<B6F579A9BC7848928C0EF500FF4A8C57@w520>
Message-ID: <74eea4d0-ada7-fea6-25cb-3344720a8f3f@tm.net>

As for AlphaSpid, go to their site and ask. http://www.alfaradio.ca/

As for winter, tower climbers do work in winter.  I used to climb my 
100' 45G when the temps were approaching single digits.
I've shown the following image many times, but working on that array, 
involved removing the rotator (PST61) lowering the mast with a 
comealong, using a thrust bearing to hold it for safety, loosening the 
antenna(s), or removing them/  To replace a thrust bearong 
requiredlowering the mast to the point where the top bearing could be 
slid off the top.  Reassembly was the same as the original install.

Get in good shape so a minimum of warm clothes are needed. Proper diet, 
conditioning, and proper clother are most important in cold weather.  
Dressing too warm, can cause as many serious problems as not warm enough.

If you are installing antennas large enough to cause rotator concerns, 
it might be a good idea to consider a 45G

73

Roger (K8RI)

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From john at kk9a.com  Thu Jul 21 06:41:31 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 06:41:31 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <5533bd3be5852d5c58fef6a4a31fda1d.squirrel@www11.qth.com>

If your tower is not big enough to fit an adequately sized rotator I have
to question if the tower is big enough for your antenna.

Regarding winter tower work, I have climbed my tower in Chicago many times
in the winter. Sometimes my cold fingers did not have good dexterity but
doing the work was certainly possible.

John KK9A


To:	<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject:	Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
From:	"Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188 at ac0c.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:35:16 +0800


I want to focus the question at hand on turning and braking ability.

The nightmare around this part of the country is to wake up and see your
beam pin-wheeling around due to a brake failure or the fact it won't turn
anymore. This always happens right at the start of winter so guys can sit
out all winter season wishing they had put a rotor up with a bit more
brawn...

All the other issues, while significant, fall into the "items to consider
down the road" category.

Will the small Alfa-SPID fit inside the 25G?

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie


From jim.thom at telus.net  Thu Jul 21 06:44:43 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 03:44:43 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <E34728FB7C35495B93489A689AF49A65@JimPC>

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:35:16 +0800
From: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188 at ac0c.com>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G

I want to focus the question at hand on turning and braking ability.

The nightmare around this part of the country is to wake up and see your 
beam pin-wheeling around due to a brake failure or the fact it won't turn 
anymore.  This always happens right at the start of winter so guys can sit 
out all winter season wishing they had put a rotor up with a bit more 
brawn...

All the other issues, while significant, fall into the "items to consider 
down the road" category.

Will the small Alfa-SPID fit inside the 25G?

##  Im pretty sure the smaller alpha spid will fit a rohn 25, but ask VE6JY,
since he would know for sure. 

Jim   VE7RF 


From jim.thom at telus.net  Thu Jul 21 07:57:10 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 04:57:10 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <9DA3441600334411A7E9A73F59EF6003@JimPC>

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 19:58:01 -0700
From: Grant Saviers <grants2 at pacbell.net>
To: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>,
towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G

The assertion is often made that a longer mast inside the tower 
strengthens the tower.  I think not.

So perhaps those with civil/structural engineering skills greater than 
my novice level could help me to understand why lowering the rotator 
lowers the tower stresses.  My analysis follows.

For a perpendicular wind load to the tower and antenna, and a given 
antenna height above the tower,  the lateral force exerted on the tower 
is the same whether there is 1' or 100' of mast inside the tower.

Given that a large antenna should be close to the top of R25, the added 
moment from the mast applied to the tower top is essentially independent 
of the mast below the top, when the top section has a mast sleeve such 
as tapered R25 or big UST crank ups.  Thus the amount of side load on 
the rotator is also minimal on towers with those tubular mast tops since 
the mast can only move a fraction of a degree inside that tube.

Some posters claim that a mast "strengthens" the tower,  but the ratio 
of the bending moment of inertia is large from 2" x 0.25wall mast to a 
10' stick of R25.  The moment of inertia for R25 per factory spec sheet 
is 15.3 in^4 and for 2"od x 0.25 wall is 0.54 in^4.  In other words the 
R25 tower is almost 30 times stiffer in resisting bending than the 2" 
mast.  Hence the mast makes an insignificant contribution to the 
strength of the tower.  (see Leeson's analysis of sleeved elements in 
Physical Design of Yagi Antennas)

A stock "thrust bearing" (Yaesu, Rohn) may have enough slop to allow the 
mast to pivot at the top plate quite a bit, at least the Rohn one I used 
(never again!) could let the mast achieve scary angles when the rotator 
was removed.  So in this case there is some moment transferred to the 
rotator  bearings and mounting plate, but the tower resists those 
bending loads 30x better than the mast.

A lattice tower is engineered to have high stiffness due to the large 
"diameter" (distance to the neutral axis) and low weight by using small 
tube legs and welded bracing to distribute the loads among the legs.  
While it is beyond my skills to compute the stress distribution for 10' 
of R25 loaded as a cantilever, IMO it will withstand a lot more force 
before it fails than a 10' length of 2" diameter mast.

Grant KZ1W

##  the mast wont strengthen any tower.  If you look in leesons book,
He sez the bending moment  on the tower is  normal bending moment you
would have at the bottom of the mast, as it enters the top bearing. 
But he then converts the bending moment in ft lbs...to inch lbs, by multiplying
x 12.   Then he take the bending moment in inch lbs.... and simply divides by the 
distance, in inches,   between the  top bearing..and what ever is below it, like a 2nd
bearing...or a rotor. 

##  IE:   2500 ft  lbs  X  12 =   30,000 inch lbs.   Say the rotor is down 4 ft below top of tower. 
Its then 30,000 / 48  inchs  =   625 ft lbs.  ( you can also just use 2500 / 4 = 625 ft lbs)
Assume the wind is from the north.   The side force experienced at the south side of the top bearing
is now 625 lbs.   The side force experienced at the north side of the rotor is also 625 lbs. 

##  If you now instead insert  the mast  10 ft into the tower,  its now becomes 2500 /10 =  250
lbs  on the side of the top bearing..and also the rotor.   So yes, putting the mast lower into the tower
will help a lot. 

##  heres  where that concept wont work.   Put the mast 10 feet into the tower, but now use a 2nd thrust
bearing, say 4 ft below tower top.   IE: top bearing, then 2nd bearing down 4 ft, then the rotor down 10 ft. 

##  all the forces are between the 2 x bearings..... = 625 lbs   The  portion of the mast below the 2nd bearing.... between
2nd bearing and rotor, plays no part in the results. That portion of the mast could be made of way lesser strength
since all it has to handle is the torque of the array.  

##  If any of you have leesons book, its explained at the top of  page 7-14

Jim   VE7RF




From dpease at adams.net  Thu Jul 21 09:09:42 2016
From: dpease at adams.net (Danny Pease)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:09:42 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <010701d1e351$2562c0a0$702841e0$@adams.net>

Jeff, yes, a small AlfaSpid will barely fit inside of Rohn 25G tower, we put
one in a 112 foot Rohn 25G tower at N9JF's, about 8 feet down from the top.
It was not easy and we did have to slightly bend one of the diagonals to get
it centered. It is turning a 2 element 40 and a 5 element 10 meter beam with
ease. The biggest drawback I saw was the rotor control box does not allow
the rotor to ramp up or ramp down and when it starts turning, it does put a
good bit of twist to the tower, even with anti-torque arms. Same applies to
stopping, when it stops, there is no slowing down, it simply stops turning.
A different rotor controller would be needed to allow a softer start and
stop.

Danny NG9R


Message: 4
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:35:16 +0800
From: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188 at ac0c.com>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <B6F579A9BC7848928C0EF500FF4A8C57 at w520>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
	reply-type=response

I want to focus the question at hand on turning and braking ability.

The nightmare around this part of the country is to wake up and see your
beam pin-wheeling around due to a brake failure or the fact it won't turn
anymore.  This always happens right at the start of winter so guys can sit
out all winter season wishing they had put a rotor up with a bit more
brawn...

All the other issues, while significant, fall into the "items to consider
down the road" category.

Will the small Alfa-SPID fit inside the 25G?

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie




From ve6jy.1 at gmail.com  Thu Jul 21 11:01:10 2016
From: ve6jy.1 at gmail.com (Don Moman VE6JY)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:01:10 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
In-Reply-To: <E34728FB7C35495B93489A689AF49A65@JimPC>
References: <E34728FB7C35495B93489A689AF49A65@JimPC>
Message-ID: <CAJf7ZhTs8o2UxsPhvPUYPyz-umL_8sOKTG+-a3FZh4Jj-HwygQ@mail.gmail.com>

Both the small RAU and the RAK will fit in Rohn 25.  The RAK is a tight fit
but it can be done without having to cut or bend any braces.  The taller
base adapter is suggested as it will position the motor above the diagonal
brace.

73 Don
VE6JY


On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Jim Thomson <jim.thom at telus.net> wrote:

> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:35:16 +0800
> From: "Jeff AC0C" <keepwalking188 at ac0c.com>
> To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
>
> I want to focus the question at hand on turning and braking ability.
>
> The nightmare around this part of the country is to wake up and see your
> beam pin-wheeling around due to a brake failure or the fact it won't turn
> anymore.  This always happens right at the start of winter so guys can sit
> out all winter season wishing they had put a rotor up with a bit more
> brawn...
>
> All the other issues, while significant, fall into the "items to consider
> down the road" category.
>
> Will the small Alfa-SPID fit inside the 25G?
>
> ##  Im pretty sure the smaller alpha spid will fit a rohn 25, but ask
> VE6JY,
> since he would know for sure.
>
> Jim   VE7RF
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

From keepwalking188 at ac0c.com  Thu Jul 21 11:01:49 2016
From: keepwalking188 at ac0c.com (Jeff AC0C)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 23:01:49 +0800
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
In-Reply-To: <F35250C5B5414EC48DEEE44E222D4847@w520>
References: <CAOH7AOqHyqYiewA3qP==xk=xBtf+ooSepp3oDWF2NAPX4XYSXg@mail.gmail.com><9c527102-c185-ac08-e30e-120c609176a1@oakcom.org>
	<F35250C5B5414EC48DEEE44E222D4847@w520>
Message-ID: <5CDD32E436D1467998D7EF875A4CC3FF@w520>

Correction.  36' BOOM.  Not mast as I originally wrote.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jeff AC0C
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 8:39 AM
To: towertalk ; Steve Maki
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G

Thanks for the guys who have replied so far.

The top section is a flat top with a bearing.  The rotor would sit down at
the junction of the first and second section point.

The antenna under consideration is probably something like a Tennadyne T12
covering 10-30m, 36 foot mast, 53' max element and about 150 lbs.  16 sq ft
if I remember right.  I may stick a small 6m beam up above the T12 but that
would not offer much in the way of wind loading compared to the LPDA, other
than the contribution to torque felt by the top mast bearing.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Steve Maki
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 5:34 AM
To: towertalk
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G

On 7/20/2016 17:26 PM, Bill Tippett wrote:
> K8RI:  > A heavy duty rotator with a large antenna should be mounted well
> down into the tower. Mounted at the top, in the tapered section would
> likely put very high stress at that point.
>
> I mounted my rotator at the same point in 45G and had no problems for >10
> years with the antennas/wind speeds in Colorado described previously.  If
> still concerned, you could mount a straight 25G section above a straight
> 25AG4 and install the rotator in the 16" window.  Of course this would
> require a long mast (~15').  I don't know which LPDA Jeff is considering
> but I doubt it's >32 sq. ft.

And besides, the rotational torque will be resisted by z-braced sections
below the rotator.

The only concern with the normal R25 rotator mounting position is
lateral loads encountered with tall masts. I've seen pointy top sections
fold over in that scenario.

-Steve K8LX

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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 


From john at kk9a.com  Thu Jul 21 11:50:32 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:50:32 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <2438b61f57f5752fc4cd4a275ffd4032.squirrel@www11.qth.com>

Does N9JF use a 6 guy cable torque stabilizer or just three torque arms
attached to the tower. The latter does little to prevent twisting.  A
Green Heron controller sounds like it would be a nice addition to the
AlfaSpid.

John KK9A

To:	<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject:	Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
From:	"Danny Pease" <dpease at adams.net>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:09:42 -0500

Jeff, yes, a small AlfaSpid will barely fit inside of Rohn 25G tower, we put
one in a 112 foot Rohn 25G tower at N9JF's, about 8 feet down from the top.
It was not easy and we did have to slightly bend one of the diagonals to get
it centered. It is turning a 2 element 40 and a 5 element 10 meter beam with
ease. The biggest drawback I saw was the rotor control box does not allow
the rotor to ramp up or ramp down and when it starts turning, it does put a
good bit of twist to the tower, even with anti-torque arms. Same applies to
stopping, when it stops, there is no slowing down, it simply stops turning.
A different rotor controller would be needed to allow a softer start and
stop.

Danny NG9R


From dpease at adams.net  Thu Jul 21 12:49:27 2016
From: dpease at adams.net (Danny Pease)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:49:27 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <014901d1e36f$d84dd6f0$88e984d0$@adams.net>

John, N9JF used a 6 foot long piece of 6 X 6 X 1/2 inch galvanized angle
iron fastened across the tower about 4 feet down from the top. He uses 4
guys wires, two on each end of the angle iron. This is not quite as
effective as a star guying system, but an improvement over the usual Rohn
torque arms.

Danny NG9R


Message: 2
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:50:32 -0400
From: "john at kk9a.com" <john at kk9a.com>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <2438b61f57f5752fc4cd4a275ffd4032.squirrel at www11.qth.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

Does N9JF use a 6 guy cable torque stabilizer or just three torque arms
attached to the tower. The latter does little to prevent twisting.  A Green
Heron controller sounds like it would be a nice addition to the AlfaSpid.

John KK9A




From btippett at alum.mit.edu  Thu Jul 21 13:31:40 2016
From: btippett at alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:31:40 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] (no subject)
Message-ID: <CAOH7AOpuSDw1sCYqjFACLhceStHY-BXNvvRENexHbPVRumQj1A@mail.gmail.com>

NG9R wrote:

> The biggest drawback I saw was the rotor control box does not allow the
rotor to ramp up or ramp down and when it starts turning, it does put a good
bit of twist to the tower, even with anti-torque arms. Same applies to
stopping,
when it stops, there is no slowing down, it simply stops turning. A
different rotor controller would be needed to allow a softer start and stop.

My intelligent controller (a.k.a. yours truly) simply taps the CW and CCW
paddles when starting and stopping.  Worked for the 1500HD (42' boom KLM 5L
20 & 3L 40) and CDE Ham-X series (34' boom KT-34XA).

73,  Bill  W4ZV

From btippett at alum.mit.edu  Thu Jul 21 14:42:38 2016
From: btippett at alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:42:38 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <CAOH7AOr7MRV+_OvkoBFhBGQBb19zuDrhfmFdutHZHxF4RuTMCA@mail.gmail.com>

NG9R wrote:

> The biggest drawback I saw was the rotor control box does not allow the
rotor to ramp up or ramp down and when it starts turning, it does put a good
bit of twist to the tower, even with anti-torque arms. Same applies to
stopping,
when it stops, there is no slowing down, it simply stops turning. A
different rotor controller would be needed to allow a softer start and stop.

My intelligent controller (a.k.a. yours truly) simply taps the CW and CCW
paddles when starting and stopping.  Worked for the 1500HD (42' boom KLM 5L
20 & 3L 40) and CDE Ham-X series (34' boom KT-34XA).

73,  Bill  W4ZV

From w4abw at aol.com  Fri Jul 22 15:54:18 2016
From: w4abw at aol.com (Alfred Watson)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:54:18 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 93
In-Reply-To: <mailman.9.1469203204.23208.towertalk@contesting.com>
References: <mailman.9.1469203204.23208.towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <156142c39ff-7e0a-3cce@webprd-m105.mail.aol.com>


Maybe OT but is there a reflector on the Alpha 9500 HF Linear Amplifier.

Mine does not key from my FT 1000MP anymore. The trouble started recently.

Much Thanks
Al
W4ABW
Huntsville, AL
#1 DXCC HR



-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-request <towertalk-request at contesting.com>
To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 22, 2016 11:09 am
Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 93

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. Re: Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G (Danny Pease)
   2. (no subject) (Bill Tippett)
   3. Re: Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G (Bill Tippett)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:49:27 -0500
From: "Danny Pease" <dpease at adams.net>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <014901d1e36f$d84dd6f0$88e984d0$@adams.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

John, N9JF used a 6 foot long piece of 6 X 6 X 1/2 inch galvanized angle
iron fastened across the tower about 4 feet down from the top. He uses 4
guys wires, two on each end of the angle iron. This is not quite as
effective as a star guying system, but an improvement over the usual Rohn
torque arms.

Danny NG9R


Message: 2
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:50:32 -0400
From: "john at kk9a.com" <john at kk9a.com>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID: <2438b61f57f5752fc4cd4a275ffd4032.squirrel at www11.qth.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

Does N9JF use a 6 guy cable torque stabilizer or just three torque arms
attached to the tower. The latter does little to prevent twisting.  A Green
Heron controller sounds like it would be a nice addition to the AlfaSpid.

John KK9A





------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:31:40 -0400
From: Bill Tippett <btippett at alum.mit.edu>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] (no subject)
Message-ID:
	<CAOH7AOpuSDw1sCYqjFACLhceStHY-BXNvvRENexHbPVRumQj1A at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

NG9R wrote:

> The biggest drawback I saw was the rotor control box does not allow the
rotor to ramp up or ramp down and when it starts turning, it does put a good
bit of twist to the tower, even with anti-torque arms. Same applies to
stopping,
when it stops, there is no slowing down, it simply stops turning. A
different rotor controller would be needed to allow a softer start and stop.

My intelligent controller (a.k.a. yours truly) simply taps the CW and CCW
paddles when starting and stopping.  Worked for the 1500HD (42' boom KLM 5L
20 & 3L 40) and CDE Ham-X series (34' boom KT-34XA).

73,  Bill  W4ZV


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:42:38 -0400
From: Bill Tippett <btippett at alum.mit.edu>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
Message-ID:
	<CAOH7AOr7MRV+_OvkoBFhBGQBb19zuDrhfmFdutHZHxF4RuTMCA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

NG9R wrote:

> The biggest drawback I saw was the rotor control box does not allow the
rotor to ramp up or ramp down and when it starts turning, it does put a good
bit of twist to the tower, even with anti-torque arms. Same applies to
stopping,
when it stops, there is no slowing down, it simply stops turning. A
different rotor controller would be needed to allow a softer start and stop.

My intelligent controller (a.k.a. yours truly) simply taps the CW and CCW
paddles when starting and stopping.  Worked for the 1500HD (42' boom KLM 5L
20 & 3L 40) and CDE Ham-X series (34' boom KT-34XA).

73,  Bill  W4ZV


------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


------------------------------

End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 93
******************************************


From navydude1962 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 22 17:04:41 2016
From: navydude1962 at yahoo.com (Ed)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:04:41 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
Message-ID: <7FB00D72-561F-4E85-865E-ACBD11DAD9A5@yahoo.com>

I have an HDX-589 tower that is need of a replacement control box. In looking at the original design, compared to the latest design in my HDX-5106, they're "apples n oranges."  

The 589 is much older and has a complex electrical layout whereas the 5106 box uses three components only (terminal strip, fuse holder and switch). I called UST and they're asking $1000 for a replacement. Ripoff. 

Long shot here - does anybody have a control box they'd like to part with?  Not holding my breath but worth a try.

73,
Ed NI6S

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Fri Jul 22 20:18:07 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:18:07 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 93
In-Reply-To: <156142c39ff-7e0a-3cce@webprd-m105.mail.aol.com>
References: <mailman.9.1469203204.23208.towertalk@contesting.com>
	<156142c39ff-7e0a-3cce@webprd-m105.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <d4006f6a-5c93-8bbf-13d5-42559eee2ff2@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Fri,7/22/2016 12:54 PM, Alfred Watson via TowerTalk wrote:
> Maybe OT but is there a reflector on the Alpha 9500 HF Linear Amplifier.
Yep. amps at contesting.com  Sign up at contesting.com

> Mine does not key from my FT 1000MP anymore. The trouble started recently.

Check that the DC control line between the MP and amp is still good (not 
pulled out, broken, etc.).  With the amp in bypass, key the radio and 
watch that the SWR indicates "normal" for the antenna that you're using. 
Also, is there a menu or control setting in the MP that turns the amp 
key line on and off?

I used to use MPs, but sold them in '08 to buy K3s, and I've never owned 
an Alpha, so these ideas are pretty generic. :)

73, Jim K9YC


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Fri Jul 22 21:43:47 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 21:43:47 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
In-Reply-To: <F35250C5B5414EC48DEEE44E222D4847@w520>
References: <CAOH7AOqHyqYiewA3qP==xk=xBtf+ooSepp3oDWF2NAPX4XYSXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9c527102-c185-ac08-e30e-120c609176a1@oakcom.org>
	<F35250C5B5414EC48DEEE44E222D4847@w520>
Message-ID: <4625e46a-778e-54e8-24f0-eac3f271853d@tm.net>

Don't forget to multiply the wind area 6-meter antenna by the height 
above the top of the tower. Even a small antenna can rapidly gain 
resistance with height.  A 3 sq ft antenna, 10'bove the top of the tower 
become 30 sq ft.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/20/2016 Wednesday 8:39 PM, Jeff AC0C wrote:
> Thanks for the guys who have replied so far.
>
> The top section is a flat top with a bearing.  The rotor would sit 
> down at the junction of the first and second section point.
>
> The antenna under consideration is probably something like a Tennadyne 
> T12 covering 10-30m, 36 foot mast, 53' max element and about 150 lbs.  
> 16 sq ft if I remember right.  I may stick a small 6m beam up above 
> the T12 but that would not offer much in the way of wind loading 
> compared to the LPDA, other than the contribution to torque felt by 
> the top mast bearing.
>
> 73/jeff/ac0c
> www.ac0c.com
> alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Steve Maki
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 5:34 AM
> To: towertalk
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Biggest rotor that will fit in a Rohn 25G
>
> On 7/20/2016 17:26 PM, Bill Tippett wrote:
>> K8RI:  > A heavy duty rotator with a large antenna should be mounted 
>> well
>> down into the tower. Mounted at the top, in the tapered section would
>> likely put very high stress at that point.
>>
>> I mounted my rotator at the same point in 45G and had no problems for 
>> >10
>> years with the antennas/wind speeds in Colorado described 
>> previously.  If
>> still concerned, you could mount a straight 25G section above a straight
>> 25AG4 and install the rotator in the 16" window.  Of course this would
>> require a long mast (~15').  I don't know which LPDA Jeff is considering
>> but I doubt it's >32 sq. ft.
>
> And besides, the rotational torque will be resisted by z-braced sections
> below the rotator.
>
> The only concern with the normal R25 rotator mounting position is
> lateral loads encountered with tall masts. I've seen pointy top sections
> fold over in that scenario.
>
> -Steve K8LX
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From k6uj at pacbell.net  Fri Jul 22 22:28:57 2016
From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Bob K6UJ)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 19:28:57 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <7FB00D72-561F-4E85-865E-ACBD11DAD9A5@yahoo.com>
References: <7FB00D72-561F-4E85-865E-ACBD11DAD9A5@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a15d7186-0dd0-7bb7-862b-44832c1f78b9@pacbell.net>

Ed,

I have an HDX-589.  Is the metal enclosure rusted out ?
If so, a new Hoffman box wouldn't be too much.  You could
reinstall the electrical gear in a new box for a lot less than $1000  :-)

Bob
K6UJ


On 7/22/16 2:04 PM, Ed via TowerTalk wrote:
> I have an HDX-589 tower that is need of a replacement control box. In looking at the original design, compared to the latest design in my HDX-5106, they're "apples n oranges."
>
> The 589 is much older and has a complex electrical layout whereas the 5106 box uses three components only (terminal strip, fuse holder and switch). I called UST and they're asking $1000 for a replacement. Ripoff.
>
> Long shot here - does anybody have a control box they'd like to part with?  Not holding my breath but worth a try.
>
> 73,
> Ed NI6S
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Fri Jul 22 23:40:39 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 23:40:39 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <a15d7186-0dd0-7bb7-862b-44832c1f78b9@pacbell.net>
References: <7FB00D72-561F-4E85-865E-ACBD11DAD9A5@yahoo.com>
	<a15d7186-0dd0-7bb7-862b-44832c1f78b9@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <6c22dcaf-813b-a4cf-d592-d5bca6411e91@tm.net>

My LM470 uses a plastic replacement instead of the Hoffman box (PVC?) 
and they don't rust.

73

Roger  (K8RI)


On 7/22/2016 Friday 10:28 PM, Bob K6UJ wrote:
> Ed,
>
> I have an HDX-589.  Is the metal enclosure rusted out ?
> If so, a new Hoffman box wouldn't be too much.  You could
> reinstall the electrical gear in a new box for a lot less than $1000  :-)
>
> Bob
> K6UJ
>
>
> On 7/22/16 2:04 PM, Ed via TowerTalk wrote:
>> I have an HDX-589 tower that is need of a replacement control box. In 
>> looking at the original design, compared to the latest design in my 
>> HDX-5106, they're "apples n oranges."
>>
>> The 589 is much older and has a complex electrical layout whereas the 
>> 5106 box uses three components only (terminal strip, fuse holder and 
>> switch). I called UST and they're asking $1000 for a replacement. 
>> Ripoff.
>>
>> Long shot here - does anybody have a control box they'd like to part 
>> with?  Not holding my breath but worth a try.
>>
>> 73,
>> Ed NI6S

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From navydude1962 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 23 01:40:32 2016
From: navydude1962 at yahoo.com (Edward)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 22:40:32 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <6c22dcaf-813b-a4cf-d592-d5bca6411e91@tm.net>
References: <7FB00D72-561F-4E85-865E-ACBD11DAD9A5@yahoo.com>
	<a15d7186-0dd0-7bb7-862b-44832c1f78b9@pacbell.net>
	<6c22dcaf-813b-a4cf-d592-d5bca6411e91@tm.net>
Message-ID: <312F10CC-93FF-446A-A6BF-E6147E17A0BB@yahoo.com>

For clarification, I am looking for a tower mounted control box with the components installed. No limit switches or cables. Thanks. 

> On Jul 22, 2016, at 20:40, Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net> wrote:
> 
> My LM470 uses a plastic replacement instead of the Hoffman box (PVC?) and they don't rust.
> 
> 73
> 
> Roger  (K8RI)
> 
> 
>> On 7/22/2016 Friday 10:28 PM, Bob K6UJ wrote:
>> Ed,
>> 
>> I have an HDX-589.  Is the metal enclosure rusted out ?
>> If so, a new Hoffman box wouldn't be too much.  You could
>> reinstall the electrical gear in a new box for a lot less than $1000  :-)
>> 
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>> 
>> 
>>> On 7/22/16 2:04 PM, Ed via TowerTalk wrote:
>>> I have an HDX-589 tower that is need of a replacement control box. In looking at the original design, compared to the latest design in my HDX-5106, they're "apples n oranges."
>>> 
>>> The 589 is much older and has a complex electrical layout whereas the 5106 box uses three components only (terminal strip, fuse holder and switch). I called UST and they're asking $1000 for a replacement. Ripoff.
>>> 
>>> Long shot here - does anybody have a control box they'd like to part with?  Not holding my breath but worth a try.
>>> 
>>> 73,
>>> Ed NI6S
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From john at kk9a.com  Sat Jul 23 17:37:35 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 17:37:35 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
Message-ID: <000a01d1e52a$6d978a10$48c69e30$@com>

Hoffman enclosures are pretty well made, I have not seen one with any
significant corrosion even after being outdoors for well over a decade.

John KK9A


Re: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
from [Roger (K8RI) on TT]	[Permanent Link][Original]
To:	towertalk at contesting.com
Subject:	Re: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
From:	"Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2016 23:40:39 -0400

My LM470 uses a plastic replacement instead of the Hoffman box (PVC?) and
they don't rust.

73

Roger  (K8RI)


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sat Jul 23 18:25:51 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 18:25:51 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <000a01d1e52a$6d978a10$48c69e30$@com>
References: <000a01d1e52a$6d978a10$48c69e30$@com>
Message-ID: <d9965003-efcf-e44e-1f91-6bdb770098e9@tm.net>

The Hoffman boxes do depend on a good coat of paint to protect the 
surface where the door gasket seals. Mine showed surface rust is less 
than 8 years with just the factory primer.

Whether a heavy duty Plastic replacement box, or the Hoffman box (both 
can be installed on the tower just like the original., installing the 
components can be done in a few minutes with hand tools at a savings of 
nearly $900.  With no limit switches, the cost of new components is 
around $10 - $15 excluding the electrical box.

I could afford the factory box, ready-to-go, but even with one hand it's 
an easy installation.

I'd definitely want limit switches.  They are good insurance.

73

Roger (K8RI)

On 7/23/2016 Saturday 5:37 PM, john at kk9a.com wrote:
> Hoffman enclosures are pretty well made, I have not seen one with any
> significant corrosion even after being outdoors for well over a decade.
>
> John KK9A
>
>
> Re: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
> from [Roger (K8RI) on TT]	[Permanent Link][Original]
> To:	towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject:	Re: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
> From:	"Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
> Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2016 23:40:39 -0400
>
> My LM470 uses a plastic replacement instead of the Hoffman box (PVC?) and
> they don't rust.
>
> 73
>
> Roger  (K8RI)
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From navydude1962 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 23 18:40:16 2016
From: navydude1962 at yahoo.com (Edward)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 15:40:16 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <d9965003-efcf-e44e-1f91-6bdb770098e9@tm.net>
References: <000a01d1e52a$6d978a10$48c69e30$@com>
	<d9965003-efcf-e44e-1f91-6bdb770098e9@tm.net>
Message-ID: <BB76BD0E-F735-402A-8A27-1DBDE8FFFA17@yahoo.com>

Yes. My 106' tower has limit switches. And so does my 589 tower. That's why I'm thinking the same design can be used. By the way, the control box itself is in fine shape.   It the electrical part that needs to be redone. Looks simple enough to copy. 

> On Jul 23, 2016, at 15:25, Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net> wrote:
> 
> The Hoffman boxes do depend on a good coat of paint to protect the surface where the door gasket seals. Mine showed surface rust is less than 8 years with just the factory primer.
> 
> Whether a heavy duty Plastic replacement box, or the Hoffman box (both can be installed on the tower just like the original., installing the components can be done in a few minutes with hand tools at a savings of nearly $900.  With no limit switches, the cost of new components is around $10 - $15 excluding the electrical box.
> 
> I could afford the factory box, ready-to-go, but even with one hand it's an easy installation.
> 
> I'd definitely want limit switches.  They are good insurance.
> 
> 73
> 
> Roger (K8RI)
> 
>> On 7/23/2016 Saturday 5:37 PM, john at kk9a.com wrote:
>> Hoffman enclosures are pretty well made, I have not seen one with any
>> significant corrosion even after being outdoors for well over a decade.
>> 
>> John KK9A
>> 
>> 
>> Re: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
>> from [Roger (K8RI) on TT]    [Permanent Link][Original]
>> To:    towertalk at contesting.com
>> Subject:    Re: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
>> From:    "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
>> Date:    Fri, 22 Jul 2016 23:40:39 -0400
>> 
>> My LM470 uses a plastic replacement instead of the Hoffman box (PVC?) and
>> they don't rust.
>> 
>> 73
>> 
>> Roger  (K8RI)
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 73
> 
> Roger (K8RI)
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From richard at karlquist.com  Sat Jul 23 19:41:28 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 16:41:28 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <d9965003-efcf-e44e-1f91-6bdb770098e9@tm.net>
References: <000a01d1e52a$6d978a10$48c69e30$@com>
	<d9965003-efcf-e44e-1f91-6bdb770098e9@tm.net>
Message-ID: <f0bda0a8-8e1b-a277-0747-7d9ef02df926@karlquist.com>



On 7/23/2016 3:25 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
>
> I'd definitely want limit switches.  They are good insurance.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>

Actually, limit switches are NOT good insurance.  They
don't protect against the contactor sticking.  The
contactor used is the same kind that air conditioners
use, and air conditioner contactors are famous for
sticking.  Read about that on the internet.

What you need for insurance is a local (on the box)
power switch that cuts the power to the MOTOR.  The
power switch built into the control box only cuts
the power to the coil of a relay that in turn cuts
the power off to the COIL of the contactor.  I had
to add a real power cutoff switch to the box.

I have had a contactor stick twice.  Fortunately, I
was standing next to the control box monitoring
when it happened and was able to pull the big switch.

Rick N6RK

From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sat Jul 23 20:22:25 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 20:22:25 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <f0bda0a8-8e1b-a277-0747-7d9ef02df926@karlquist.com>
References: <000a01d1e52a$6d978a10$48c69e30$@com>
	<d9965003-efcf-e44e-1f91-6bdb770098e9@tm.net>
	<f0bda0a8-8e1b-a277-0747-7d9ef02df926@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <fc8c50e3-dfd8-a2d2-06a4-b1d3524cf43d@tm.net>

When used properly, the limit switches are an additional 2 sets of 
contacts.  Any additional sets of contacts do serve as additional 
safety. Mine are Microswitches which are widely used in industry.  If 
you are not satisfied with the reliability, purchase SPDT Microswitches 
and the enclosures for exterior use. They are very reliable. The 
companies I worked for over the years all used Microswitch limit 
switches as do most of my machine tools.

There are no relays in my control box, nor is there a key switch. The 
power comes from an extension cord which is only hooked up when raising, 
or lowering the tower.  Emergency shutoff is simply pulling the plug.

I thought about copying the original setup and decided on simple. 
Operation is a simple  DPDT, spring return, center off 10A 120 VAC bat 
handle, toggle switch.

73

Roger  (K8RI)


On 7/23/2016 Saturday 7:41 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
>
>
> On 7/23/2016 3:25 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
>>
>> I'd definitely want limit switches.  They are good insurance.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>
> Actually, limit switches are NOT good insurance.  They
> don't protect against the contactor sticking.  The
> contactor used is the same kind that air conditioners
> use, and air conditioner contactors are famous for
> sticking.  Read about that on the internet.
>
> What you need for insurance is a local (on the box)
> power switch that cuts the power to the MOTOR.  The
> power switch built into the control box only cuts
> the power to the coil of a relay that in turn cuts
> the power off to the COIL of the contactor.  I had
> to add a real power cutoff switch to the box.
>
> I have had a contactor stick twice.  Fortunately, I
> was standing next to the control box monitoring
> when it happened and was able to pull the big switch.
>
> Rick N6RK


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From k6uj at pacbell.net  Sat Jul 23 20:26:35 2016
From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Bob K6UJ)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 17:26:35 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <f0bda0a8-8e1b-a277-0747-7d9ef02df926@karlquist.com>
References: <000a01d1e52a$6d978a10$48c69e30$@com>
	<d9965003-efcf-e44e-1f91-6bdb770098e9@tm.net>
	<f0bda0a8-8e1b-a277-0747-7d9ef02df926@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <165f4af0-625a-1ba4-a723-6e5ee6deb9b3@pacbell.net>

Rick,

That's very good to know about the contactor sticking possibility.
I always watch everything when I raise or lower my HDX-589MDPL motorized 
tower.
I made a 25 foot remote control with up/down/off switch mounted in a duplex
electrical receptacle box so I can stand in the yard away from the tower 
and watch
everything as it goes up or down.  I am thinking now of adding a 
"master"power cutoff
switch to my remote switch box.  Looks like I will need to replace the 
cable to one with
two more conductors for the adding the master power switch.
Thanks for the info on contactor switching.

Bob
K6UJ





On 7/23/16 4:41 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
>
>
> On 7/23/2016 3:25 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
>>
>> I'd definitely want limit switches.  They are good insurance.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>
> Actually, limit switches are NOT good insurance.  They
> don't protect against the contactor sticking.  The
> contactor used is the same kind that air conditioners
> use, and air conditioner contactors are famous for
> sticking.  Read about that on the internet.
>
> What you need for insurance is a local (on the box)
> power switch that cuts the power to the MOTOR.  The
> power switch built into the control box only cuts
> the power to the coil of a relay that in turn cuts
> the power off to the COIL of the contactor.  I had
> to add a real power cutoff switch to the box.
>
> I have had a contactor stick twice.  Fortunately, I
> was standing next to the control box monitoring
> when it happened and was able to pull the big switch.
>
> Rick N6RK
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From jimlux at earthlink.net  Sat Jul 23 22:19:51 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 19:19:51 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <f0bda0a8-8e1b-a277-0747-7d9ef02df926@karlquist.com>
References: <000a01d1e52a$6d978a10$48c69e30$@com>
	<d9965003-efcf-e44e-1f91-6bdb770098e9@tm.net>
	<f0bda0a8-8e1b-a277-0747-7d9ef02df926@karlquist.com>
Message-ID: <61f67579-911a-9139-6daa-ef5b1a1b3b62@earthlink.net>

On 7/23/16 4:41 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
>
>
> On 7/23/2016 3:25 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
>>
>> I'd definitely want limit switches.  They are good insurance.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>
> Actually, limit switches are NOT good insurance.  They
> don't protect against the contactor sticking.  The
> contactor used is the same kind that air conditioners
> use, and air conditioner contactors are famous for
> sticking.  Read about that on the internet.
>
> What you need for insurance is a local (on the box)
> power switch that cuts the power to the MOTOR.  The
> power switch built into the control box only cuts
> the power to the coil of a relay that in turn cuts
> the power off to the COIL of the contactor.  I had
> to add a real power cutoff switch to the box.
>

And this is why the electrical code requires a motor disconnect within a 
certain distance of the motor.  When I was working for the effects 
company building a big tornado machine, we ran into this: we had 
cabinets full of fancy variable speed drives, but had to have a 
(expensive) three phase disconnect box rated to interrupt locked rotor 
current (typically 7x running current) next to each 10HP motor.

There's even more rules if there are significant inertial loads on the 
motors.


> I have had a contactor stick twice.  Fortunately, I
> was standing next to the control box monitoring
> when it happened and was able to pull the big switch.
>




From jeffl at cruzio.com  Sun Jul 24 01:13:01 2016
From: jeffl at cruzio.com (Jeff Liebermann)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 22:13:01 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Need to identify aluminum tower
Message-ID: <e1e00c74-ef1f-5df0-ab4a-4e9965462c30@cruzio.com>

JV (K6HJU) obtained a rather odd aluminum tower and needs help
identifying the manufacture in order to obtain a spec sheet.

Photos:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/aluminum-tower/

We've done the usual Google image searches.  Most aluminum
towers are welded, not assembled with riveted circular clamps.
We've called Aluma Tower and skimmed through the Glen Martin
tower offerings, but nothing was found that was similar.  What's
really odd is that each tower section is only about 7ft long,
instead of the usual 10ft.  The hardware seems to be US standard,
not metric, but I want to double check this.

There are some barely legible markings on one of the cross braces.
  GALCO 13-199ASSY786G420-110
This might be the company:
http://www.galco.com
Their web pile shows "signal tower" parts but no towers or tower
sections:
http://www.galco.com/scripts/cgiip.exe/wa/wcat/catalog.htm?cat=SIGN&search-desc=Signal%20Tower

Does anyone recognize this tower?

-- 
Jeff Liebermann                    jeffl at cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D   http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060           http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann         AE6KS    831-336-2558


From jdlambrightatty at gmail.com  Sat Jul 23 10:23:54 2016
From: jdlambrightatty at gmail.com (J D Lambright)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 09:23:54 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
Message-ID: <CAM7owYamEbi0sTHm+Hj4Ass-aEOxfTE3sjEb6GvNpZwDB03CKw@mail.gmail.com>

I have two US Tower HDX-589MDPL towers.  When I purchased them, both
control boxes on the towers were extremely rusted inside and in terrible
condition.  I started from scratch and built 2 new control boxes with all
new components. Also, I replaced the cables running from the control box to
the limit switches to the motor, and to the 120v power source. (I also
replaced each motor, as they were in really bad condition and locked up).
I enclosed each of these cables in flexible conduit with watertight
fittings. I simply used the UST wiring diagram and made mine exactly like
the original ones.  It's very simple and very inexpensive.

I paid around $45 at Home Depot for each metal weatherproof box, and all
the other components are very cheap.  I may have spent $100 total on each
completed box.  They now look and function like new.

J D - KF5U

From jdlambrightatty at gmail.com  Sat Jul 23 19:43:06 2016
From: jdlambrightatty at gmail.com (J D Lambright)
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 18:43:06 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
Message-ID: <CAM7owYZGq8SyePWdVyoQV1=nW8iF2HtaZwTXkerrZHkkeP5VCA@mail.gmail.com>

I have two US Tower HDX-589MDPL towers.  When I purchased them, both
control boxes on the towers were extremely rusted inside and in terrible
condition.  I started from scratch and built 2 new control boxes with all
new components. Also, I replaced the cables running from the control box to
the limit switches to the motor, and to the 120v power source. (I also
replaced each motor, as they were in really bad condition and locked up).
I enclosed each of these cables in flexible conduit with watertight
fittings. I simply used the UST wiring diagram and made mine exactly like
the original ones.  They are very simple and very inexpensive.

I paid around $45 at Home Depot for each metal weatherproof box, and all
the other components are very cheap.  I spent less than $100 total on each
completed box.  They now look and function like new.

One of the limit switches on each tower was completely rusted inside, so I
replaced them a couple of weeks ago.  UST's price on the limit switches was
way too high, so I bought 5 of them brand new and in the box from a surplus
electronics place on the internet.  They cost me $35 each.

J D - KF5U

From rcblumen at centurylink.net  Sun Jul 24 12:04:02 2016
From: rcblumen at centurylink.net (Dick Blumenstein)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:04:02 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large ground
	loop?
Message-ID: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>

 From everything I've read, the prevailing overall grounding technique 
is to run a heavy duty copper wire from the grounding system around the 
tower, back to the ground rod outside the shack wall as well as to run 
it to the ground rod under where your AC power enters the house.

It just occurred to me that the AC ground wire, besides going into the 
house and connecting to the chassis ground in the breaker box (where 
also all the neutral white wires are connected) then proceeds throughout 
your house and also to your ham radio shack equipment. It is here that 
the ground wire also connects to all the chassis in your shack as well 
as the shields on your coax connectors that also finds it way back 
outside your shack wall to the ground rod; one huge ground loop.  I  
know that there are 2 issues here; RF grounding and lightning 
protection. Any comments about that?

Thanks,

Dick, K0CAT





From w8erdbob at gmail.com  Sun Jul 24 12:15:49 2016
From: w8erdbob at gmail.com (Robert Dixon)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:15:49 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Monster Ladder for Sale
Message-ID: <728036C6-F78A-422E-A6C0-49722ACE08F5@gmail.com>

Monster Ladder. 60 foot telescoping aluminum. Never climb your tower again.
Like new condition.  Home improvement stores sell this for $1100.   Your price $300
plus shipping.

Bob W8ERD

From k1ttt at arrl.net  Sun Jul 24 12:39:41 2016
From: k1ttt at arrl.net (David Robbins)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 16:39:41 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
	ground	loop?
In-Reply-To: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
Message-ID: <001101d1e5c9$faeb3200$f0c19600$@arrl.net>

There is no such thing as an 'RF Ground'.

David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
web: http://wiki.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://k1ttt.net:7373


-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dick
Blumenstein
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 16:04
To: TowerTalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large ground
loop?

 From everything I've read, the prevailing overall grounding technique is to
run a heavy duty copper wire from the grounding system around the tower,
back to the ground rod outside the shack wall as well as to run it to the
ground rod under where your AC power enters the house.

It just occurred to me that the AC ground wire, besides going into the house
and connecting to the chassis ground in the breaker box (where also all the
neutral white wires are connected) then proceeds throughout your house and
also to your ham radio shack equipment. It is here that the ground wire also
connects to all the chassis in your shack as well as the shields on your
coax connectors that also finds it way back outside your shack wall to the
ground rod; one huge ground loop.  I know that there are 2 issues here; RF
grounding and lightning protection. Any comments about that?

Thanks,

Dick, K0CAT




_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From w2lk at bk-lk.com  Sun Jul 24 13:08:58 2016
From: w2lk at bk-lk.com (Les Kalmus)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 13:08:58 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <CAM7owYbvikqXSXquzgB=vanA-JCijYEH650XJnZQV9YdVyRc=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM7owYZGq8SyePWdVyoQV1=nW8iF2HtaZwTXkerrZHkkeP5VCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<98caba32-1990-be6a-ffaa-f932bf7e1d75@bk-lk.com>
	<CAM7owYbvikqXSXquzgB=vanA-JCijYEH650XJnZQV9YdVyRc=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68cb60ff-8a3e-0072-493c-92dc863d0a6c@bk-lk.com>

Thanks. I think those may have been used on older towers. I have them on 
my older UST HDX-589MDPL but a newer HDX-572MDPL has Allen Bradley 
802T-AP series J, switches marked type 4, 6P & 13. I bought one on ebay 
new for about half of UST's asking price. They sell in the range of $80 
and up which is why I was wondering how you got yours at that price.

Les W2LK


On 7/24/2016 11:09 AM, J D Lambright wrote:
> I replaced the totally corroded limit switches with the exact same 
> ones that came with the towers.  The towers had been laying horizontal 
> for several years, and water had gotten inside the limit switch body.
>
> They are GE CR115LB1 with 1NO - 1NC contacts and 1/2 inch npt 
> fitting.  They are marked type 1,4,13, A600 P300.
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Les Kalmus <w2lk at bk-lk.com 
> <mailto:w2lk at bk-lk.com>> wrote:
>
>     Which kind of limit switch did you buy?
>
>     Les W2LK
>
>
>     On 7/23/2016 7:43 PM, J D Lambright wrote:
>
>         I have two US Tower HDX-589MDPL towers.  When I purchased
>         them, both
>         control boxes on the towers were extremely rusted inside and
>         in terrible
>         condition.  I started from scratch and built 2 new control
>         boxes with all
>         new components. Also, I replaced the cables running from the
>         control box to
>         the limit switches to the motor, and to the 120v power source.
>         (I also
>         replaced each motor, as they were in really bad condition and
>         locked up).
>         I enclosed each of these cables in flexible conduit with
>         watertight
>         fittings. I simply used the UST wiring diagram and made mine
>         exactly like
>         the original ones.  They are very simple and very inexpensive.
>
>         I paid around $45 at Home Depot for each metal weatherproof
>         box, and all
>         the other components are very cheap.  I spent less than $100
>         total on each
>         completed box.  They now look and function like new.
>
>         One of the limit switches on each tower was completely rusted
>         inside, so I
>         replaced them a couple of weeks ago.  UST's price on the limit
>         switches was
>         way too high, so I bought 5 of them brand new and in the box
>         from a surplus
>         electronics place on the internet.  They cost me $35 each.
>
>         J D - KF5U
>         _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         TowerTalk mailing list
>         TowerTalk at contesting.com <mailto:TowerTalk at contesting.com>
>         http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>


From jvarn359 at gmail.com  Sun Jul 24 13:24:03 2016
From: jvarn359 at gmail.com (JVarney)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 10:24:03 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Need to identify aluminum tower
Message-ID: <CANx7EtaOk9DA4gDkQcky4WyKyzMh1Xs4gp8NNA5Brt2zwpOKdg@mail.gmail.com>

I'm not familiar with this tower, but at first glance this looks to
be an excellent design for aluminum, very intriguing. One,
the mechanical collars for the brace joints are so much
better than welding as it avoids the large strength reduction
(over 50%) due to the loss of temper in the heat affected zone.
Two, the use of round legs and round braces -- much, much
better than angle shapes, which vary in strength depending
on load direction and are prone to local buckling. Three, the
use of collars for the brace joints avoid the loss of strength
due to drilling a hole in the leg for a bolt.

A formal analysis would have to be done but I would not
be surprised if this design turns out to be one the most
efficient uses of aluminum for a tower possible.

73 Jim K6OK


Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>> JV (K6HJU) obtained a rather odd aluminum tower and needs
>> help identifying the manufacture in order to obtain a spec
>> sheet. ... GALCO 13-199ASSY786G420-110

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Sun Jul 24 14:07:44 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:07:44 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
Message-ID: <aa229b15-1c66-da65-acd4-c80f8890e584@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Sun,7/24/2016 9:04 AM, Dick Blumenstein wrote:
> one huge ground loop. 

Ground loops are a massive fiction, a completely false concept. Here's 
my take on power, grounding, and bonding for hams.

http://k9yc.com/GroundingAndAudio.pdf

And here's my comparable work for professional audio and video, which I 
taught for ten years at conventions for audio and video contractors who 
build systems from the small to the very large. The first link is to a 
long tutorial, the second two are to Power Point slides for my workshops.

http://k9yc.com/SurgeXPowerGround.pdf

http://k9yc.com/InfoComm-PowerSystems2012.pdf

http://k9yc.com/InfoComm-Grounding2012.pdf

73, Jim K9YC



From w5kf at prodigy.net  Sun Jul 24 15:18:42 2016
From: w5kf at prodigy.net (Sam Barrett)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 15:18:42 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] UST Control Box wiring
Message-ID: <4B0FEFD0-762E-482A-87DF-4BD15A3C27D2@prodigy.net>

Mine is an HDX-555, and I acquired it a couple of years ago. I?ve been working towards getting it vertical again. 

I?ve gotten to the point of looking at the wiring. With the exception of the up and down switch, the box seems to be in reasonable shape. Is the wiring diagram for raising/lowering mechanism available anywhere? I haven?t been able to locate it, and I would like to check it over before I apply power.

73,
Sam - W5KF

From EZRhino at fastmovers.biz  Sun Jul 24 15:43:20 2016
From: EZRhino at fastmovers.biz (EZ Rhino)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 13:43:20 -0600
Subject: [TowerTalk] Need to identify aluminum tower
In-Reply-To: <CANx7EtaOk9DA4gDkQcky4WyKyzMh1Xs4gp8NNA5Brt2zwpOKdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANx7EtaOk9DA4gDkQcky4WyKyzMh1Xs4gp8NNA5Brt2zwpOKdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7FD0459B-3677-45EA-9786-5E0141BD5C97@fastmovers.biz>

I like the design too, but haven't ever seen it before.  It looks like it may have been intended as a temporary/portable type set up with the shorter sections and the pins that are attached with wire lanyards.  Let us know what you find out.

Chris
KF7P


On Jul 24, 2016, at 11:24 , JVarney wrote:

I'm not familiar with this tower, but at first glance this looks to
be an excellent design for aluminum, very intriguing. One,
the mechanical collars for the brace joints are so much
better than welding as it avoids the large strength reduction
(over 50%) due to the loss of temper in the heat affected zone.
Two, the use of round legs and round braces -- much, much
better than angle shapes, which vary in strength depending
on load direction and are prone to local buckling. Three, the
use of collars for the brace joints avoid the loss of strength
due to drilling a hole in the leg for a bolt.

A formal analysis would have to be done but I would not
be surprised if this design turns out to be one the most
efficient uses of aluminum for a tower possible.

73 Jim K6OK


Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>> JV (K6HJU) obtained a rather odd aluminum tower and needs
>> help identifying the manufacture in order to obtain a spec
>> sheet. ... GALCO 13-199ASSY786G420-110
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sun Jul 24 19:37:33 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 19:37:33 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Need to identify aluminum tower
In-Reply-To: <e1e00c74-ef1f-5df0-ab4a-4e9965462c30@cruzio.com>
References: <e1e00c74-ef1f-5df0-ab4a-4e9965462c30@cruzio.com>
Message-ID: <9064f9cb-69ed-d3d0-fc3e-baa305e262b5@tm.net>

Many towers are available in shorter lengths so they can be shipped UPS  
This includes 25G at least at one time
There were many, very light duty aluminum towers in 8' sections made of 
a soft, cheap grade Aluminum.  These have long since ceased production 
and information is sparse to non available.

These towers are only good for holding a small VHF vertical, or wire 
antenna._*They are not safe to climb!
*_
73

Roger (K8RI)



On 7/24/2016 Sunday 1:13 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> JV (K6HJU) obtained a rather odd aluminum tower and needs help
> identifying the manufacture in order to obtain a spec sheet.
>
> Photos:
> http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/aluminum-tower/
>
> We've done the usual Google image searches.  Most aluminum
> towers are welded, not assembled with riveted circular clamps.
> We've called Aluma Tower and skimmed through the Glen Martin
> tower offerings, but nothing was found that was similar.  What's
> really odd is that each tower section is only about 7ft long,
> instead of the usual 10ft.  The hardware seems to be US standard,
> not metric, but I want to double check this.
>
> There are some barely legible markings on one of the cross braces.
>    GALCO 13-199ASSY786G420-110
> This might be the company:
> http://www.galco.com
> Their web pile shows "signal tower" parts but no towers or tower
> sections:
> http://www.galco.com/scripts/cgiip.exe/wa/wcat/catalog.htm?cat=SIGN&search-desc=Signal%20Tower
>
> Does anyone recognize this tower?
>


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From lists at subich.com  Sun Jul 24 20:06:37 2016
From: lists at subich.com (Joe Subich, W4TV)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 20:06:37 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Need to identify aluminum tower
In-Reply-To: <7FD0459B-3677-45EA-9786-5E0141BD5C97@fastmovers.biz>
References: <CANx7EtaOk9DA4gDkQcky4WyKyzMh1Xs4gp8NNA5Brt2zwpOKdg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7FD0459B-3677-45EA-9786-5E0141BD5C97@fastmovers.biz>
Message-ID: <d247e92d-909c-c04f-56c3-af53f744ca46@subich.com>


The guy wire assemblies are a military design (used on the AB-577 and
AB-621 that I'm aware of).  I suspect the tower is military surplus
based on the use of the SM-D-423650/423651 guy assemblies and the
captive pin junction design.

Any design specifications would be buried deep in military procurement
- if you can find them <G>.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV



On 7/24/2016 3:43 PM, EZ Rhino wrote:
> I like the design too, but haven't ever seen it before.  It looks like it may have been intended as a temporary/portable type set up with the shorter sections and the pins that are attached with wire lanyards.  Let us know what you find out.
>
> Chris
> KF7P
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 11:24 , JVarney wrote:
>
> I'm not familiar with this tower, but at first glance this looks to
> be an excellent design for aluminum, very intriguing. One,
> the mechanical collars for the brace joints are so much
> better than welding as it avoids the large strength reduction
> (over 50%) due to the loss of temper in the heat affected zone.
> Two, the use of round legs and round braces -- much, much
> better than angle shapes, which vary in strength depending
> on load direction and are prone to local buckling. Three, the
> use of collars for the brace joints avoid the loss of strength
> due to drilling a hole in the leg for a bolt.
>
> A formal analysis would have to be done but I would not
> be surprised if this design turns out to be one the most
> efficient uses of aluminum for a tower possible.
>
> 73 Jim K6OK
>
>
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>>> JV (K6HJU) obtained a rather odd aluminum tower and needs
>>> help identifying the manufacture in order to obtain a spec
>>> sheet. ... GALCO 13-199ASSY786G420-110
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

From glhuber at msn.com  Sun Jul 24 20:35:15 2016
From: glhuber at msn.com (glhuber)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 19:35:15 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Need to identify aluminum tower
Message-ID: <SNT405-EAS77923CC34C7FA1501E7FB8A60D0@phx.gbl>

I agree with Joe. I know the tower resembles something that I've seen, but it's been over 25 years since I finished 27 years of military service.

73 es DX,
Gary - AB9M


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Tab? 3 Lite

-------- Original message --------
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
Date:07/24/2016  7:06 PM  (GMT-06:00)
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Need to identify aluminum tower


The guy wire assemblies are a military design (used on the AB-577 and
AB-621 that I'm aware of).  I suspect the tower is military surplus
based on the use of the SM-D-423650/423651 guy assemblies and the
captive pin junction design.

Any design specifications would be buried deep in military procurement
- if you can find them <G>.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV



On 7/24/2016 3:43 PM, EZ Rhino wrote:
> I like the design too, but haven't ever seen it before.  It looks like it may have been intended as a temporary/portable type set up with the shorter sections and the pins that are attached with wire lanyards.  Let us know what you find out.
>
> Chris
> KF7P
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 11:24 , JVarney wrote:
>
> I'm not familiar with this tower, but at first glance this looks to
> be an excellent design for aluminum, very intriguing. One,
> the mechanical collars for the brace joints are so much
> better than welding as it avoids the large strength reduction
> (over 50%) due to the loss of temper in the heat affected zone.
> Two, the use of round legs and round braces -- much, much
> better than angle shapes, which vary in strength depending
> on load direction and are prone to local buckling. Three, the
> use of collars for the brace joints avoid the loss of strength
> due to drilling a hole in the leg for a bolt.
>
> A formal analysis would have to be done but I would not
> be surprised if this design turns out to be one the most
> efficient uses of aluminum for a tower possible.
>
> 73 Jim K6OK
>
>
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>>> JV (K6HJU) obtained a rather odd aluminum tower and needs
>>> help identifying the manufacture in order to obtain a spec
>>> sheet. ... GALCO 13-199ASSY786G420-110
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From rcblumen at centurylink.net  Sun Jul 24 21:40:35 2016
From: rcblumen at centurylink.net (Dick Blumenstein)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 21:40:35 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <001101d1e5c9$faeb3200$f0c19600$@arrl.net>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
	<001101d1e5c9$faeb3200$f0c19600$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <691a10a1-6344-2544-e715-7eec5667f25f@centurylink.net>

David-

You might tell that to Glen Zook, K9STH, who I understand had been 
writing articles for electronic magazines for decades:

     <www.w0btu.com/files/misc/R.F._Grounding_primer_2.pdf>

Dick, K0CAT

===========================================
David Robbins wrote on 7/24/2016 12:39 PM:
> There is no such thing as an 'RF Ground'.
>
> David Robbins K1TTT
> e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
> web: http://wiki.k1ttt.net
> AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://k1ttt.net:7373
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dick
> Blumenstein
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 16:04
> To: TowerTalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large ground
> loop?
>
>   From everything I've read, the prevailing overall grounding technique is to
> run a heavy duty copper wire from the grounding system around the tower,
> back to the ground rod outside the shack wall as well as to run it to the
> ground rod under where your AC power enters the house.
>
> It just occurred to me that the AC ground wire, besides going into the house
> and connecting to the chassis ground in the breaker box (where also all the
> neutral white wires are connected) then proceeds throughout your house and
> also to your ham radio shack equipment. It is here that the ground wire also
> connects to all the chassis in your shack as well as the shields on your
> coax connectors that also finds it way back outside your shack wall to the
> ground rod; one huge ground loop.  I know that there are 2 issues here; RF
> grounding and lightning protection. Any comments about that?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dick, K0CAT
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 


Richard (Dick) Blumenstein
Tel:  (386)  451-6660

E-Mail:  rcblumen at centurylink.net

/  "Just because you don't take an interest in politics,
    doesn't mean that politics won't take an interest in you."/
          Pericles, c. 495 ? 429 BC



From rcblumen at centurylink.net  Sun Jul 24 22:09:30 2016
From: rcblumen at centurylink.net (Dick Blumenstein)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 22:09:30 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <aa229b15-1c66-da65-acd4-c80f8890e584@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
	<aa229b15-1c66-da65-acd4-c80f8890e584@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <803237ad-4558-6efc-582b-a24f6ea164e1@centurylink.net>

Thanks Jim for your input. I will have to study your presentations in 
more depth. Years ago, I worked building audio amplifiers and tape 
duplicators that also had a small oscillator for some AC bias needed for 
tape recorder recording heads. Ground loops at the time were always a 
concern and we had to make sure that we only grounded the entire system 
at one point to the chassis, and ran a ground rod suspended down the 
center of the chassis and grounded all components to that ground rod.

I noticed in one of your slides that you said to NOT run the tower 
grounding system back to the house AC input ground if it is too long 
(but to depend on the antenna coax sheath). How long is too long?

It is about 40-50' from my shack wall to the tower base, but probably 
100' from the tower base to around the other side of the house to the AC 
input of the house (house ground rod). I am planning on putting in about 
9 ground rods around the base of the 73' tall crank-up tower (3 off of 
each leg in a "Y" configuration).  The first rod off of each Y leg will 
have a wide copper strap connected from the ground rod to the tower leg 
in a gentle arc with no sharp turns. Most installations I've seen have 
maybe a 3" or 4" wide piece of copper.  All three Y base leg ground rods 
will be cadwelded to #2 copper stranded in a ring around the tower. It 
was this ring that I was going to run to the AC house ground rod.  
Finally, the other 2 ground rods in each Y configuration were planned to 
be cadwelded to the base leg of the Y with #2 stranded. Any comments? PS 
- We have heavy clay soil here in NC.

Dick, K0CAT

=======================



Jim Brown wrote on 7/24/2016 2:07 PM:
> On Sun,7/24/2016 9:04 AM, Dick Blumenstein wrote:
>> one huge ground loop. 
>
> Ground loops are a massive fiction, a completely false concept. Here's 
> my take on power, grounding, and bonding for hams.
>
> http://k9yc.com/GroundingAndAudio.pdf
>
> And here's my comparable work for professional audio and video, which 
> I taught for ten years at conventions for audio and video contractors 
> who build systems from the small to the very large. The first link is 
> to a long tutorial, the second two are to Power Point slides for my 
> workshops.
>
> http://k9yc.com/SurgeXPowerGround.pdf
>
> http://k9yc.com/InfoComm-PowerSystems2012.pdf
>
> http://k9yc.com/InfoComm-Grounding2012.pdf
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>



From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sun Jul 24 23:11:14 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 23:11:14 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher comparrison
Message-ID: <5dbc68aa-60b7-48b2-7436-15393bdd2a8d@tm.net>

This video shows the comparison between various ways of locking nuts.  
The reaction to a lock washer and vibration was a real surprine. Only 
one method actually worked.

https://www.facebook.com/Trustmeiamamechanicalengineer/videos/746827738792165/

-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From jimlux at earthlink.net  Sun Jul 24 23:47:33 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 20:47:33 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher comparrison
In-Reply-To: <5dbc68aa-60b7-48b2-7436-15393bdd2a8d@tm.net>
References: <5dbc68aa-60b7-48b2-7436-15393bdd2a8d@tm.net>
Message-ID: <c05facc4-f229-aa5e-0162-f8fe92fdbcde@earthlink.net>

On 7/24/16 8:11 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
> This video shows the comparison between various ways of locking nuts.
> The reaction to a lock washer and vibration was a real surprine. Only
> one method actually worked.
>
> https://www.facebook.com/Trustmeiamamechanicalengineer/videos/746827738792165/
>
>

Well, there's also using a threadlocking adhesive (Loctite) and safety 
wire...

Lockwashers are widely acknowledged to be worthless in actually locking. 
  What's important is having enough bolt stretch (which in turn is 
dependent on good lubrication of the threads if you're measuring 
torque).  If you have enough bolt stretch, the load on the "inclined 
plane" of the threads is sufficient to prevent the nut from vibrating off.

temperature cycling makes it tougher,of course.



From edk0kl at centurytel.net  Sun Jul 24 23:53:27 2016
From: edk0kl at centurytel.net (Ed Karl)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 22:53:27 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Aluminum Tower
Message-ID: <3eab5910-b8fc-3515-fade-32428233beac@centurytel.net>

Any chance it is from a stage lighting setup?

Looks like R25, but not, with different interconnections (??)

73!

ed K0KL



From jimlux at earthlink.net  Mon Jul 25 00:00:31 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 21:00:31 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Aluminum Tower
In-Reply-To: <3eab5910-b8fc-3515-fade-32428233beac@centurytel.net>
References: <3eab5910-b8fc-3515-fade-32428233beac@centurytel.net>
Message-ID: <6b58ab6b-8821-7fe1-6f26-caf67e65856b@earthlink.net>

On 7/24/16 8:53 PM, Ed Karl wrote:
> Any chance it is from a stage lighting setup?

all the aluminum theatrical truss I've seen is welded and has flat ends 
where you bolt the sections together.



From k6uj at pacbell.net  Mon Jul 25 00:34:42 2016
From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Bob K6UJ)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 21:34:42 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher comparrison
In-Reply-To: <5dbc68aa-60b7-48b2-7436-15393bdd2a8d@tm.net>
References: <5dbc68aa-60b7-48b2-7436-15393bdd2a8d@tm.net>
Message-ID: <d42f550a-03df-ed01-8633-6820553e4af0@pacbell.net>

The NordLocks look pretty good.  I am trying them on My Orion 2800 
mounting to the rotor plate
and the clamp to the mast.


Bob
K6UJ




On 7/24/16 8:11 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
> This video shows the comparison between various ways of locking nuts.  
> The reaction to a lock washer and vibration was a real surprine. Only 
> one method actually worked.
>
> https://www.facebook.com/Trustmeiamamechanicalengineer/videos/746827738792165/ 
>
>


From navydude1962 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 25 00:51:36 2016
From: navydude1962 at yahoo.com (Ed)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 21:51:36 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] New Control Box
In-Reply-To: <CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>
	<CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <88AF2F43-9929-4A75-B3DF-9B64480A7118@yahoo.com>

Perfect.  Thanks very much, JD!

> On Jul 24, 2016, at 19:00, J D Lambright <jdlambrightatty at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Here is the wiring diagram for the UST MCL-100 control box.
> 
> 
> J D Lambright - KF5U
> 
> 
> <IMG_2575.JPG>
> <US Tower MCL 100 Box Wiring.pdf>

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Mon Jul 25 01:08:08 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 22:08:08 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <803237ad-4558-6efc-582b-a24f6ea164e1@centurylink.net>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
	<aa229b15-1c66-da65-acd4-c80f8890e584@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<803237ad-4558-6efc-582b-a24f6ea164e1@centurylink.net>
Message-ID: <01717a14-fe74-f1b4-0790-93f0e4d08102@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Sun,7/24/2016 7:09 PM, Dick Blumenstein wrote:
> Thanks Jim for your input. I will have to study your presentations in 
> more depth. Years ago, I worked building audio amplifiers and tape 
> duplicators that also had a small oscillator for some AC bias needed 
> for tape recorder recording heads. Ground loops at the time were 
> always a concern and we had to make sure that we only grounded the 
> entire system at one point to the chassis, and ran a ground rod 
> suspended down the center of the chassis and grounded all components 
> to that ground rod.

The problem with using the words "ground loop" is that it causes us to 
do the wrong thing to solve issues with hum, buzz, and RFI. The 
respected audio engineer Bill Whitlock is the guy who opened my eyes to 
understanding the REAL mechanisms, which are NOT a loop. I've 
incorporated his treatment into my tutorials, both for hams and for pro 
audio/video. Bill and I serve on the AES Standards Committee Working 
Group on EMC. He, I, Neil Muncy, and Ray Rayburn are principal authors 
of all AES Standards on EMC, with lots of input from other fine 
engineers -- ABC-TV, BBC, German broadcast, etc.

>
> I noticed in one of your slides that you said to NOT run the tower 
> grounding system back to the house AC input ground if it is too long 
> (but to depend on the antenna coax sheath). How long is too long?

Note the slide(s) showing that 1) lightning is NOT a DC event, it is an 
RF event so that 2) the inductance of a long bonding conductor dominates 
the resistance of the conductor. The logic here is to give lightning at 
the tower a low impedance path to earth at its base, do the same at the 
house.  And, of course, follow proper bonding at the house.

> It is about 40-50' from my shack wall to the tower base, but probably 
> 100' from the tower base to around the other side of the house to the 
> AC input of the house (house ground rod). I am planning on putting in 
> about 9 ground rods around the base of the 73' tall crank-up tower (3 
> off of each leg in a "Y" configuration).  The first rod off of each Y 
> leg will have a wide copper strap connected from the ground rod to the 
> tower leg in a gentle arc with no sharp turns. Most installations I've 
> seen have maybe a 3" or 4" wide piece of copper.  All three Y base leg 
> ground rods will be cadwelded to #2 copper stranded in a ring around 
> the tower. It was this ring that I was going to run to the AC house 
> ground rod.  Finally, the other 2 ground rods in each Y configuration 
> were planned to be cadwelded to the base leg of the Y with #2 
> stranded. Any comments? PS - We have heavy clay soil here in NC.

All sounds fine. I'd say the tower is probably close enough to the house 
that the tower ground should be bonded to the house. But remember, it's 
inductance, so a pretty high Z at 1 MHz, which is where the energy in 
lightning is roughly centered.

What matters a LOT more is proper bonding of everything in your house. 
See the tutorial for discussion of that.

73, Jim
>
> Dick, K0CAT
>
> =======================
>
>
>
> Jim Brown wrote on 7/24/2016 2:07 PM:
>> On Sun,7/24/2016 9:04 AM, Dick Blumenstein wrote:
>>> one huge ground loop. 
>>
>> Ground loops are a massive fiction, a completely false concept. 
>> Here's my take on power, grounding, and bonding for hams.
>>
>> http://k9yc.com/GroundingAndAudio.pdf
>>
>> And here's my comparable work for professional audio and video, which 
>> I taught for ten years at conventions for audio and video contractors 
>> who build systems from the small to the very large. The first link is 
>> to a long tutorial, the second two are to Power Point slides for my 
>> workshops.
>>
>> http://k9yc.com/SurgeXPowerGround.pdf
>>
>> http://k9yc.com/InfoComm-PowerSystems2012.pdf
>>
>> http://k9yc.com/InfoComm-Grounding2012.pdf
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


From grants2 at pacbell.net  Mon Jul 25 01:18:25 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 22:18:25 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher comparrison
In-Reply-To: <c05facc4-f229-aa5e-0162-f8fe92fdbcde@earthlink.net>
References: <5dbc68aa-60b7-48b2-7436-15393bdd2a8d@tm.net>
	<c05facc4-f229-aa5e-0162-f8fe92fdbcde@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5795A121.9000107@pacbell.net>

One way to deal with temperature cycling is to use the necessary stack 
of Belleville washers under the nut to provide the locking tension as 
the bolt expands/contracts with temperature.  They are used on high temp 
process industry pipelines with flanged pipe connections.  A325 
structural bolts are torqued to near the max as Jim notes, but they 
don't experience much in the way of temperature cycling.  Like 300 
ft-lbs for a 3/4" bolt so you need a serious torque wrench and beefy 
ironworkers.  The inspector didn't bother to check them in my steel 
frame building as one ironworker was 300# plus.

Some A325 bolts are now supplied waxed which reduces the needed torque 
by about 1/3.

I've been using Nord-Locks on critical bolts for a while, so far so good.

Grant KZ1W

On 7/24/2016 20:47 PM, jimlux wrote:
> On 7/24/16 8:11 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
>> This video shows the comparison between various ways of locking nuts.
>> The reaction to a lock washer and vibration was a real surprine. Only
>> one method actually worked.
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/Trustmeiamamechanicalengineer/videos/746827738792165/ 
>>
>>
>>
>
> Well, there's also using a threadlocking adhesive (Loctite) and safety 
> wire...
>
> Lockwashers are widely acknowledged to be worthless in actually 
> locking.  What's important is having enough bolt stretch (which in 
> turn is dependent on good lubrication of the threads if you're 
> measuring torque).  If you have enough bolt stretch, the load on the 
> "inclined plane" of the threads is sufficient to prevent the nut from 
> vibrating off.
>
> temperature cycling makes it tougher,of course.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From w7wll at arrl.net  Mon Jul 25 02:31:17 2016
From: w7wll at arrl.net (Don W7WLL)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 23:31:17 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher comparrison
In-Reply-To: <c05facc4-f229-aa5e-0162-f8fe92fdbcde@earthlink.net>
References: <5dbc68aa-60b7-48b2-7436-15393bdd2a8d@tm.net>
	<c05facc4-f229-aa5e-0162-f8fe92fdbcde@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <4B26A4DBA36F42EBB98048DCA0EF351C@DonPC>

My ME always claimed the last turn on any nut, lockwasher or not, will strip 
the bolt/screw or snap it off. Of course, without the last turn,  the nut 
will fall off, with or without a lockwasher. I found that to be true only 
once in awhile, but I learned quickly to check the bolts (and lockwashers) 
holding my T2X in place at least once a summer, as there was always one 
coming loose it seemed.

I also learned it was a mistake to allow any mechanical object to realize I 
was in a hurry.

Don W7WLL

-----Original Message----- 
From: jimlux
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 8:47 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher comparrison

On 7/24/16 8:11 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
> This video shows the comparison between various ways of locking nuts.
> The reaction to a lock washer and vibration was a real surprine. Only
> one method actually worked.
>
> https://www.facebook.com/Trustmeiamamechanicalengineer/videos/746827738792165/
>
>

Well, there's also using a threadlocking adhesive (Loctite) and safety
wire...

Lockwashers are widely acknowledged to be worthless in actually locking.
  What's important is having enough bolt stretch (which in turn is
dependent on good lubrication of the threads if you're measuring
torque).  If you have enough bolt stretch, the load on the "inclined
plane" of the threads is sufficient to prevent the nut from vibrating off.

temperature cycling makes it tougher,of course.


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



From dgloesch at aol.com  Mon Jul 25 07:53:32 2016
From: dgloesch at aol.com (dgloesch)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:53:32 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Have you sold your ladder?
Message-ID: <inq3817j4at9cp85b4ynragu.1469447612250@email.android.com>

K8bvl Don 73


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

From jimlux at earthlink.net  Mon Jul 25 08:51:09 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 05:51:09 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <01717a14-fe74-f1b4-0790-93f0e4d08102@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
	<aa229b15-1c66-da65-acd4-c80f8890e584@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<803237ad-4558-6efc-582b-a24f6ea164e1@centurylink.net>
	<01717a14-fe74-f1b4-0790-93f0e4d08102@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <af15ddda-aac5-6009-1dd0-b2e776308e3f@earthlink.net>

On 7/24/16 10:08 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>
>>
>> I noticed in one of your slides that you said to NOT run the tower
>> grounding system back to the house AC input ground if it is too long
>> (but to depend on the antenna coax sheath). How long is too long?
>
> Note the slide(s) showing that 1) lightning is NOT a DC event, it is an
> RF event so that 2) the inductance of a long bonding conductor dominates
> the resistance of the conductor. The logic here is to give lightning at
> the tower a low impedance path to earth at its base, do the same at the
> house.  And, of course, follow proper bonding at the house.
>
>> It is about 40-50' from my shack wall to the tower base, but probably
>> 100' from the tower base to around the other side of the house to the
>> AC input of the house (house ground rod). I am planning on putting in
>> about 9 ground rods around the base of the 73' tall crank-up tower (3
>> off of each leg in a "Y" configuration).  The first rod off of each Y
>> leg will have a wide copper strap connected from the ground rod to the
>> tower leg in a gentle arc with no sharp turns. Most installations I've
>> seen have maybe a 3" or 4" wide piece of copper.  All three Y base leg
>> ground rods will be cadwelded to #2 copper stranded in a ring around
>> the tower. It was this ring that I was going to run to the AC house
>> ground rod.  Finally, the other 2 ground rods in each Y configuration
>> were planned to be cadwelded to the base leg of the Y with #2
>> stranded. Any comments? PS - We have heavy clay soil here in NC.


Gentle arcs don't change the inductance much as compared to a sharp 
right angle bend. It's all about the length of the conductor. if you 
have a 1 foot radius 90 degree arc, it's about 1.6 feet long. If you did 
the same thing along the sides of a square it would be 2 feet long. If 
you cut across the middle with a 45 degree, it would be 1.4 feet long 
(which would be the lowest inductance).

The reason for not having sharp bends in *lightning* grounding cables is 
to reduce the field concentrations with small radius of curvature. 
Small radius of curvature increases the field at the curve which 
increases  the likelihood of a flashover from the conductor to something 
else.


For reference, a good rule of thumb is 1 microhenry/meter (or 1/3 
uH/ft).  At 1 MHz, this works out to 6.28 ohms/meter impedance.  That 
completely dominates over the AC resistance, even if you were using AWG 
30 wire-wrap wire.

You DO want low resistance bonds, to reduce the heating from the 
multi-kilo-amp currents (that last a short time - 50 microseconds)


>
> All sounds fine. I'd say the tower is probably close enough to the house
> that the tower ground should be bonded to the house. But remember, it's
> inductance, so a pretty high Z at 1 MHz, which is where the energy in
> lightning is roughly centered.

What you want is everything that is "near" each other connected with 
good conductors that are similar in length (so the inductance is 
similar, and the voltage rise from the pulse is similar).

If you have one piece of gear with a 10 foot cable to the lightning 
impulse. And another piece of gear on the bench connected with a 100 
foot cable to the lightning impulse, and then you interconnect the two 
with a short jumper, you can see that there might be a problem.



From jim.thom at telus.net  Mon Jul 25 10:12:36 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:12:36 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher comparrison
Message-ID: <40C9D717C8614CD19F91BE60EED6994E@JimPC>

Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 23:11:14 -0400
From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
To: "towertalk at contesting.com" <towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher comparrison

This video shows the comparison between various ways of locking nuts.  
The reaction to a lock washer and vibration was a real surprine. Only 
one method actually worked.

https://www.facebook.com/Trustmeiamamechanicalengineer/videos/746827738792165/

-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)

##  I dont think you will loosen bolts and nuts when  blue loctite is used.... and esp red loctite.
They should re-run the tests again, but using a flat washer under everything.   Also, what else
that might work is double nutting, but using  2 x nylocks. 

##  It appears that they used never seize goop on the threads.   That alone should reduce the required
Torque by a good  33-40%.   It would be interesting to place your fingers on the assy, shown in the video, while
it is vibrating away.   If stuff is vibrating loose within 2-20 secs, it must be one helluva vibration, not some subtle,
gentler, vibration. 

##  Note, there are several other cos that make identical washers as the nordlocks..and no where near the price tag. 
There is only one correct way to install the pair of nordlock washers..and several wrong ways.  

Jim  VE7RF


From k1ttt at arrl.net  Mon Jul 25 10:17:07 2016
From: k1ttt at arrl.net (David Robbins)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:17:07 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <af15ddda-aac5-6009-1dd0-b2e776308e3f@earthlink.net>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
	<aa229b15-1c66-da65-acd4-c80f8890e584@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<803237ad-4558-6efc-582b-a24f6ea164e1@centurylink.net>
	<01717a14-fe74-f1b4-0790-93f0e4d08102@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<af15ddda-aac5-6009-1dd0-b2e776308e3f@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <005d01d1e67f$3aec3a10$b0c4ae30$@arrl.net>

"If you have one piece of gear with a 10 foot cable to the lightning 
impulse. And another piece of gear on the bench connected with a 100 
foot cable to the lightning impulse, and then you interconnect the two 
with a short jumper, you can see that there might be a problem."

And THAT is the crux of the problem when bonding equipment for lightning
protection.  NOTE:  I said BONDING not grounding! Consider this...  the 10'
cable is connected from a rod/shack/power 'ground' to the radio and the 100'
cable is a coax that is not connected to the rod/shack/power 'ground' but
goes right from the antenna/tower to the radio.   

First a little math to show the magnitude of the problem. ..  An average
lightning stroke is about 30ka.  Lets say it strikes the tower/antenna.  So,
down the tower the current goes.  When it gets to the bottom it sees a
ground system, lets say its good and fat and looks like 5 ohms to the
current, while going to the shack the cables are above ground and skinnier
than the ground so they may look like 100 ohms, this 5 vs 100 ohms splits
the current so most of it goes into the ground.  But even 30ka into 5 ohms
is 150kv at the base of the tower.  First assumption is that none of the
insulation between the shield and center conductor is good enough to
withstand the voltage at the base of the tower.  So at the base of the tower
you now have 150kv on the shield and center conductor of the coax.  note
that this is really the best case, it is likely the connection from the coax
to the antenna flashed over already and the center conductor is at an even
higher voltage but lets go with the 150kv for now.  

Next some more math and rough assumptions... we now have a 150kv step at the
tower and it has 2 paths to the shack, one on the coax the other through the
ground.  Yes, there will be a voltage step propagating along the ground even
if you don't connect the tower ground to the shack ground.   In experiments
I have done the speed of propagation along a shallow buried wire is about
.5c or about 150m/usec (450ft/usec).  Lets also assume that propagation
along a conductor above ground was about .9c or about 270m/usec(800ft/usec).
These are both rough figures that depend on the soil, depth of the buried
wire, height of the overhead wire, etc, but they'll do for now.  Now in that
100' run to the shack it takes the ground current about .2usec, while the
overhead current takes about .1usec... roughly.  So now you have 150kv
arriving at the radio .1usec before the voltage on the ground rises up... we
will ignore the fact that the current in/on the ground is spreading out and
thus the voltage there rises less than it would directly at the tower, that
only makes it worse after the initial .1usec event.

So, what happens now.  Well, the current on the shield gets connected to the
radio case(and operator if present) and continues down that 10' wire to the
rod/shack/power ground.  However the current on the center conductor gets
inside the case and lets just say that most radios are not protected against
150kv for even fractions of a micro-second so the radio power supply becomes
the best path to ground and out comes the magic smoke.  Yes, there are
possible mitigating factors, for instance if the radio is connected to a
circuit that has a protector at the rod/shack/power ground once the current
gets to it from the case of the radio it will equalize the voltage between
the ground and the power conductors which will after .04usec (roughly a 10'
round trip from the radio to protector and back to the radio) equalize the
voltage from the power supply to the rest of the radio, but by then the
damage may already be done.

What is the fix?  Well, if everything is bonded to the same point at the
rod/shack/power ground with protectors all the wires get their voltages
equalized so there is no flashovers inside the equipment being protected.
Just note, all it takes is one unprotected conductor and that becomes a
target for a flashover from the 'ground' to whatever it is connected to.

You can do similar analysis for a loop where there is a gap at one point,
but that gets much uglier... just think about the early experiments with
spark transmitters and how a spark would be induced in a receiving loop
across a small gap... but scale up the currents and size of the loops by a
lot.



David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
web: http://wiki.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://k1ttt.net:7373


From champsruss at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 25 10:25:52 2016
From: champsruss at yahoo.com (Russ Dearmore)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:25:52 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
References: <708045528.4975758.1469456752741.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <708045528.4975758.1469456752741.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

 






Nord-Lock 1145 Wedge Locking Washer - 316 Stainless Steel - M45 (1-3/4") - Pkg of 25
  Email Print   Item #:?T9FB2114089  Sold By: globalindustrial.com  Usually ships in 3 to 6 days      0 reviews | Write a review     Price:  $2,138.00 ??
?Fantastic lock washers but I only wish I could afford a bunch....? Hi??????? Russ? K5ZZR
??????????

From w2lk at bk-lk.com  Mon Jul 25 10:44:40 2016
From: w2lk at bk-lk.com (Les Kalmus)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:44:40 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <708045528.4975758.1469456752741.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <708045528.4975758.1469456752741.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	<708045528.4975758.1469456752741.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e6cb93f3-a7d4-ae73-db2b-177d3b639c9c@bk-lk.com>

You can. Check this page:

http://www.mcmaster.com/#nord-lock-washers/=13fps29

Les, W2LK


On 7/25/2016 10:25 AM, Russ Dearmore via TowerTalk wrote:
>   
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nord-Lock 1145 Wedge Locking Washer - 316 Stainless Steel - M45 (1-3/4") - Pkg of 25
>    Email Print   Item #: T9FB2114089  Sold By: globalindustrial.com  Usually ships in 3 to 6 days      0 reviews | Write a review     Price:  $2,138.00
>   Fantastic lock washers but I only wish I could afford a bunch....  Hi        Russ  K5ZZR
>            
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From jimlux at earthlink.net  Mon Jul 25 10:55:00 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:55:00 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <005d01d1e67f$3aec3a10$b0c4ae30$@arrl.net>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
	<aa229b15-1c66-da65-acd4-c80f8890e584@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<803237ad-4558-6efc-582b-a24f6ea164e1@centurylink.net>
	<01717a14-fe74-f1b4-0790-93f0e4d08102@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<af15ddda-aac5-6009-1dd0-b2e776308e3f@earthlink.net>
	<005d01d1e67f$3aec3a10$b0c4ae30$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <4e57cf22-e401-6ddb-1e81-7890bfa5a4a3@earthlink.net>

On 7/25/16 7:17 AM, David Robbins wrote:
> "If you have one piece of gear with a 10 foot cable to the lightning
> impulse. And another piece of gear on the bench connected with a 100
> foot cable to the lightning impulse, and then you interconnect the two
> with a short jumper, you can see that there might be a problem."
>
> And THAT is the crux of the problem when bonding equipment for lightning
> protection.  NOTE:  I said BONDING not grounding! Consider this...  the 10'
> cable is connected from a rod/shack/power 'ground' to the radio and the 100'
> cable is a coax that is not connected to the rod/shack/power 'ground' but
> goes right from the antenna/tower to the radio.
>

And this starts to get at the whole thing about what works and what 
doesn't.

There are various devices that clamp the voltage differential (e.g. 
polyphasers and other transient suppression devices), so that sort of 
takes care of the "inner conductor to shield" voltage problem. And then, 
if all the shields are bonded together at the point where all those TVSS 
devices are, you've got a common voltage reference point.

But the farther downstream you get from that point, the more risk there 
is of the "thing being protected" seeing something radically different 
than expected.  For instance, you might have a entrance panel for your 
coax. Run the coax from that panel 50 ft to your shack, and then you 
plug your rig's power supply into the wall socket in the shack.  Oops.. 
there's a long wire between the greenwire/chassis and your nice coax 
entrance panel.

This kind of thing is really hard to avoid: maybe you've been 
conscientious about the rig: running its chassis ground back to the coax 
entry panel (perhaps via the coax shield..that's a decent way), but the 
PC next to it is plugged into the wall, and the chassis ground of the PC 
is common to the "ground" pin of the serial port going to your remote 
control interface.

Wired ethernet is nice: it has galvanic isolation (although typically 
only 5kV breakdown in the coupling transformer). Wireless ethernet is 
even nicer: no galvanic path at all.

Wall warts typically have no third wire pin, but that doesn't mean 
they're well isolated. They often have substantial capacitance between 
the output and the AC power pins. They *do* usually pass some sort of 
HiPot test at the factory, so at least there's no easy path.

I've always thought that ham rigs should make more use of the TOSlink 
type optical interconnect. These are getting more rare on 
stereo/audio/video equipment since HDMI came out, but you can't beat a 
meter of plastic for getting good isolation.


Moral of the story, bring your AC power distribution next to where you 
bring your coax in, and bond all those shields and "grounds" together at 
that point.  That's also where you put the TVSS clamps on the AC 
line/neutral conductors.




From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Mon Jul 25 11:10:35 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:10:35 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <e6cb93f3-a7d4-ae73-db2b-177d3b639c9c@bk-lk.com>
References: <708045528.4975758.1469456752741.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com><708045528.4975758.1469456752741.JavaMail.yahoo@ma
	il.yahoo.com> <e6cb93f3-a7d4-ae73-db2b-177d3b639c9c@bk-lk.com>
Message-ID: <FE86A51E94664BB9A70AD35058390B83@RXDesignDell>

Although rotor bolts can loosen over time generally if they're tightened 
properly initially they won't do so - at least that has been my experience. 
Tower bolts have no issues to speak of as the nuts have lots of friction and 
are not critical to the application (all load is vertical) ... Nylocks were 
the second best and at a much more affordable price - that is what M2, 
Optibeam use on their antennas - and what I choose to use.

Gary
K9RX


-----Original Message----- 
From: Les Kalmus
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 10:44 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison

You can. Check this page:

http://www.mcmaster.com/#nord-lock-washers/=13fps29

Les, W2LK


On 7/25/2016 10:25 AM, Russ Dearmore via TowerTalk wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nord-Lock 1145 Wedge Locking Washer - 316 Stainless Steel - M45 (1-3/4") - 
> Pkg of 25
>    Email Print   Item #: T9FB2114089  Sold By: globalindustrial.com 
> Usually ships in 3 to 6 days      0 reviews | Write a review     Price: 
> $2,138.00
>   Fantastic lock washers but I only wish I could afford a bunch....  Hi 
> Russ  K5ZZR
>            _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



From john at kk9a.com  Mon Jul 25 12:11:01 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:11:01 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
Message-ID: <d9c93df25c4903af586eca204e16885f.squirrel@www11.qth.com>

I concur. If the rotator bolts are loosening, perhaps something else is
happening like the clamp bracket is stretching or bending.

John KK9A


To:	<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject:	Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
From:	"StellarCAT" <rxdesign at ssvecnet.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:10:35 -0400

Although rotor bolts can loosen over time generally if they're tightened
properly initially they won't do so - at least that has been my
experience. Tower bolts have no issues to speak of as the nuts have lots
of friction and are not critical to the application (all load is vertical)
... Nylocks were the second best and at a much more affordable price -
that is what M2, Optibeam use on their antennas - and what I choose to
use.

Gary
K9RX



From fritz at k4oaq.com  Mon Jul 25 12:11:28 2016
From: fritz at k4oaq.com (FritzOAQ)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:11:28 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] stack yagis on US Tower TX-472MDP?
Message-ID: <006b01d1e68f$33af66e0$9b0e34a0$@k4oaq.com>

Before I spend the energy moving my 25G 100 miles from one QTH to another, I
thot I'd ask the question if stacking yagis (only one abt half way up) on a
UST crankup is a possibility. If yes, then can it still be cranked down? If
not cranked down all the way, then enough to tilt over?

73,

Fritz K4OAQ


From n1rr at comcast.net  Mon Jul 25 12:20:35 2016
From: n1rr at comcast.net (n1rr at comcast.net)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:20:35 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] stack yagis on US Tower TX-472MDP?
In-Reply-To: <006b01d1e68f$33af66e0$9b0e34a0$@k4oaq.com>
References: <006b01d1e68f$33af66e0$9b0e34a0$@k4oaq.com>
Message-ID: <665079576.33423057.1469463635245.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net>

Some ops will stack yagis at the top of each crank-up section. 
The 472 has 4 sections, about ~20 foot each 
A two tribander yagi stack of about 72ft over 38ft would work well. 
Some have even gone to the extent of mounting a ringrotor to the 
tower at the top of the second section in order to turn that bottom yagi. 
Other combinations will be useful with monobanders. 
Good luck with your project. 

----- Original Message -----

From: "FritzOAQ" <fritz at k4oaq.com> 
To: "TowerTalk" <towertalk at contesting.com> 
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 12:11:28 PM 
Subject: [TowerTalk] stack yagis on US Tower TX-472MDP? 

Before I spend the energy moving my 25G 100 miles from one QTH to another, I 
thot I'd ask the question if stacking yagis (only one abt half way up) on a 
UST crankup is a possibility. If yes, then can it still be cranked down? If 
not cranked down all the way, then enough to tilt over? 

73, 

Fritz K4OAQ 

_______________________________________________ 



_______________________________________________ 
TowerTalk mailing list 
TowerTalk at contesting.com 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 


From EZRhino at fastmovers.biz  Mon Jul 25 12:28:52 2016
From: EZRhino at fastmovers.biz (Chris)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:28:52 -0600
Subject: [TowerTalk] stack yagis on US Tower TX-472MDP?
In-Reply-To: <006b01d1e68f$33af66e0$9b0e34a0$@k4oaq.com>
References: <006b01d1e68f$33af66e0$9b0e34a0$@k4oaq.com>
Message-ID: <2C01BB5F-EE85-49A7-84A4-54415C838285@fastmovers.biz>

The short answer is yes, but there aren't any off-the-shelf hardware solutions that I am aware of.  It's custom work.

Chris
KF7P


On Jul 25, 2016, at 10:11 AM, FritzOAQ wrote:

> Before I spend the energy moving my 25G 100 miles from one QTH to another, I
> thot I'd ask the question if stacking yagis (only one abt half way up) on a
> UST crankup is a possibility. If yes, then can it still be cranked down? If
> not cranked down all the way, then enough to tilt over?
> 
> 73,
> 
> Fritz K4OAQ
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> 


From richard at karlquist.com  Mon Jul 25 14:18:47 2016
From: richard at karlquist.com (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:18:47 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] stack yagis on US Tower TX-472MDP?
In-Reply-To: <2C01BB5F-EE85-49A7-84A4-54415C838285@fastmovers.biz>
References: <006b01d1e68f$33af66e0$9b0e34a0$@k4oaq.com>
	<2C01BB5F-EE85-49A7-84A4-54415C838285@fastmovers.biz>
Message-ID: <7bfd4672-1216-871f-29b5-a96b252217d1@karlquist.com>

I used to have a TIC-RING rotator that appeared
to be off the shelf that had pegs that inserted
into the top of the rails of the 3rd section of
my HDX-5106.  The previous owner used it for a
20 meter stack.  The tower could still be cranked
down.  The previous owner (W6BH, SK) owned a
bucket truck to work on it.  I'm not so sure
about tilting it over with all that weight on
it.

Rick N6RK



On 7/25/2016 9:28 AM, Chris wrote:
> The short answer is yes, but there aren't any off-the-shelf hardware solutions that I am aware of.  It's custom work.
>
> Chris
> KF7P
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2016, at 10:11 AM, FritzOAQ wrote:
>
>> Before I spend the energy moving my 25G 100 miles from one QTH to another, I
>> thot I'd ask the question if stacking yagis (only one abt half way up) on a
>> UST crankup is a possibility. If yes, then can it still be cranked down? If
>> not cranked down all the way, then enough to tilt over?
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Fritz K4OAQ
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Mon Jul 25 17:32:50 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:32:50 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <af15ddda-aac5-6009-1dd0-b2e776308e3f@earthlink.net>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
	<aa229b15-1c66-da65-acd4-c80f8890e584@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<803237ad-4558-6efc-582b-a24f6ea164e1@centurylink.net>
	<01717a14-fe74-f1b4-0790-93f0e4d08102@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<af15ddda-aac5-6009-1dd0-b2e776308e3f@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <3a3aa877-d38c-cf61-59ab-074ca7f3f8ba@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Mon,7/25/2016 5:51 AM, jimlux wrote:
> What you want is everything that is "near" each other connected with 
> good conductors that are similar in length (so the inductance is 
> similar, and the voltage rise from the pulse is similar).
>
> If you have one piece of gear with a 10 foot cable to the lightning 
> impulse. And another piece of gear on the bench connected with a 100 
> foot cable to the lightning impulse, and then you interconnect the two 
> with a short jumper, you can see that there might be a problem.


The problem with this (and any) analysis of a lightning event is that it 
is FAR more complicated than anything we can compute, simply because the 
voltages and currents induced in any system (stuff wired together) will 
be different in each conductor depending on WHERE the strike is, the 
physical geometry of the conductors that make up that system, how energy 
from the strike gets to the earth, etc.

Remember that in any given lightning event, voltages/currents are likely 
to couple into our system (our home) via the power system, via the CATV 
system, via the telephone system, via our antennas, and directly onto 
all the wiring within our home. Voltages/currents will be very different 
between those multiple systems by virtue of THEIR geometry, how they are 
earthed and bonded, and THEIR proximity to the strike.

73, Jim K9YC


From hanslg at aol.com  Mon Jul 25 17:44:26 2016
From: hanslg at aol.com (Hans Hammarquist)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:44:26 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <001101d1e5c9$faeb3200$f0c19600$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <1562404239b-348c-ec8@webprd-a28.mail.aol.com>


 Yes, you want the heaviest wired groundloop you can get. It doesn't necessary improve your RF ground (as that really never exist) but it will help out redirecting current in case of a lightning strike in you buildings or nearby.

When you implement it don't forget that you can include you water supply system and your heating system (if you have water carried heat in copper pipes like I have).

I believe the idea is that you try to reduce the voltage differences across your house a much as possible thereby not getting damages from the lightning current.

Imagine if you could build your house on a large, thick metals plate of some good conducting material. That would act like a gigantic, electric island that would reduce and voltage differences between the corners of your house. If you then shields around every electric (and electronic) equipment in the house and connected these shields to the gigantic metal plate under the house you would have the ultimate lightning protection.

Now, the heavy conductor around your house will (try to) act like the gigantic plate and give you some protection.

Needless to say, you connect your tower to that ground loop to include it in the, hopefully so, voltage reduction scheme. 

Good luck in your endeavor and 73 de, 

Hans - N2JFS

 

 


-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dick
Blumenstein
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 16:04
To: TowerTalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large ground
loop?

 From everything I've read, the prevailing overall grounding technique is to
run a heavy duty copper wire from the grounding system around the tower,
back to the ground rod outside the shack wall as well as to run it to the
ground rod under where your AC power enters the house.

It just occurred to me that the AC ground wire, besides going into the house
and connecting to the chassis ground in the breaker box (where also all the
neutral white wires are connected) then proceeds throughout your house and
also to your ham radio shack equipment. It is here that the ground wire also
connects to all the chassis in your shack as well as the shields on your
coax connectors that also finds it way back outside your shack wall to the
ground rod; one huge ground loop.  I know that there are 2 issues here; RF
grounding and lightning protection. Any comments about that?

Thanks,

Dick, K0CAT




_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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


From k2xx at swva.net  Mon Jul 25 19:37:50 2016
From: k2xx at swva.net (Joe Giacobello, K2XX)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 19:37:50 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <d9c93df25c4903af586eca204e16885f.squirrel@www11.qth.com>
References: <d9c93df25c4903af586eca204e16885f.squirrel@www11.qth.com>
Message-ID: <5796A2CE.7090508@swva.net>

Thread locking adhesive is the answer to this problem.  Loctite, 
Permabond, etc.

73, Joe
K2XX

> john at kk9a.com <mailto:john at kk9a.com>
> Monday, July 25, 2016 12:11 PM
> I concur. If the rotator bolts are loosening, perhaps something else is
> happening like the clamp bracket is stretching or bending.
>
> John KK9A
>
>
> To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
> From: "StellarCAT" <rxdesign at ssvecnet.com>
> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:10:35 -0400
>
> Although rotor bolts can loosen over time generally if they're tightened
> properly initially they won't do so - at least that has been my
> experience. Tower bolts have no issues to speak of as the nuts have lots
> of friction and are not critical to the application (all load is vertical)
> ... Nylocks were the second best and at a much more affordable price -
> that is what M2, Optibeam use on their antennas - and what I choose to
> use.
>
> Gary
> K9RX
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>

From dxdx at optonline.net  Mon Jul 25 19:53:12 2016
From: dxdx at optonline.net (Tony)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 19:53:12 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Military Surplus Light Duty Crankup?
Message-ID: <a655936f-05c6-bd46-81a5-340b13c868b0@optonline.net>

All:

I'm looking for a low-cost free-standing crank-up capable of handling a 
couple of VHF/UHF Yagi's as well as an azimuth and elevation rotor - 
something in the 30 foot range.

I thought about a home-brew crank-up made of heavy square stock but that 
doesn't seem cost effective. I thought I'd ask if anyone knows of a 
military surplus or some other alternative.

Thanks,

73, Tony


From rich at n7tr.com  Tue Jul 26 00:40:56 2016
From: rich at n7tr.com (Rich Hallman - N7TR)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 21:40:56 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] stack yagis on US Tower TX-472MDP?
In-Reply-To: <006b01d1e68f$33af66e0$9b0e34a0$@k4oaq.com>
References: <006b01d1e68f$33af66e0$9b0e34a0$@k4oaq.com>
Message-ID: <184301d1e6f7$e776fae0$b664f0a0$@n7tr.com>

I have done this with bot a Ring Rotor and the AlfaSpid Ring Rotor.  You
need to big versions of these rotors to work on the crank-ups.   Some pics
can be seen on my QRZ page and the mounting that was used on an HDX689.
These also work fine on the HDX-589.

http://www.qrz.com/db/N7TR

Thanks...
Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
FritzOAQ
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 9:11 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] stack yagis on US Tower TX-472MDP?

Before I spend the energy moving my 25G 100 miles from one QTH to another, I
thot I'd ask the question if stacking yagis (only one abt half way up) on a
UST crankup is a possibility. If yes, then can it still be cranked down? If
not cranked down all the way, then enough to tilt over?

73,

Fritz K4OAQ

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From fritz at k4oaq.com  Tue Jul 26 07:35:56 2016
From: fritz at k4oaq.com (FritzOAQ)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:35:56 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] stack yagis on US Tower TX-472MDP?
In-Reply-To: <184301d1e6f7$e776fae0$b664f0a0$@n7tr.com>
References: <006b01d1e68f$33af66e0$9b0e34a0$@k4oaq.com>
	<184301d1e6f7$e776fae0$b664f0a0$@n7tr.com>
Message-ID: <005301d1e731$e0139ad0$a03ad070$@k4oaq.com>

Tks guys for all the answers & the introduction to ring rotators. I must say
I wasn't quite prepared for the price tag tho. :)
I may develop a plan B - tie the lower yagi to the tower with rope pointing
towards EU while I eat beans & rice to save up.
73,
Fritz K4OAQ



From n2icarrl at gmail.com  Tue Jul 26 09:37:08 2016
From: n2icarrl at gmail.com (Steve London)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:37:08 -0600
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop
Message-ID: <57976784.1040707@arrl.net>

K9YC wrote:

>The problem with this (and any) analysis of a lightning event is that it is FAR more >complicated than anything we can compute, simply because the voltages and currents induced >in any system (stuff wired together) will be different in each conductor depending on >WHERE the strike is, the physical geometry of the conductors that make up that system, how >energy from the strike gets to the earth, etc.

I can attest to that ! In 13 years of living on a dry, New Mexico 
hilltop, I have learned a lot about mitigating lightning damage. 
Frankly, the cost and effort of doing lightning protection "perfectly 
right" is prohibitive. The approach I have settled on is simple 
disconnection to keep the bulk of the lightning energy out of the house. 
All RF and control cables to/from the towers (I have 3 towers, with 5 
rotator controls and a number of remote antenna switches) terminate on a 
bulkhead panel about 30 feet from the house. During lightning season 
(May-October), everything is disconnected at the panel, except when I am 
on-the-air. All AC power to the ham shack is disconnected, except when I 
am on-the-air (unplugged - I don't trust the small air gap in switches 
and relays). Yes, this makes it inconvenient to be on-the-air during the 
summer. Even with these measures, I have learned the hard way about 
interconnectedness (K9YC's "stuff wired together"). A nearby or direct 
hit to a tower will destroy USB ports on computers and radios, if they 
are interconnected with a USB cable. I have tried commercial USB 
optoisolators, but have found they generate too much RF noise. The 
latest incident was earlier this week. I had a direct hit. The only 
"stuff wired together" was an Astron power supply, connected to a 2 
meter radio. Just before the storm, these were working fine. I unplugged 
the antenna from the 2 meter radio, and the AC power from the power 
supply. There was still a 3' long power cable connecting the power 
supply and 2 meter radio. After the storm, the power supply blew fuses. 
The root cause was a fried LM723 in the power supply, causing the 
voltage to go high, and the crowbar protection to be activated.

Sometimes I think moving to relatively lightning-free coastal Oregon 
would be a good idea !

73,
Steve, N2IC


From rcblumen at centurylink.net  Tue Jul 26 12:36:56 2016
From: rcblumen at centurylink.net (Dick Blumenstein)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:36:56 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop
In-Reply-To: <57976784.1040707@arrl.net>
References: <57976784.1040707@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <58822c46-fd76-a21f-2b3b-baccbaec79c2@centurylink.net>

Steve-

May the force be with you... (or should I say, it appears the force is 
with you TOO MUCH!).

(Sigh... when man makes plans, G-d laughs.)

Sorry for all your troubles.

I have no idea what I'll be facing here in the western foothills of NC. 
I'll find out, though; I'm sure.

PS - If you move to Oregon, then all your connections and equipment 
might corrode/rust!

Dick, K0CAT

======================


Steve London wrote on 7/26/2016 9:37 AM:
> K9YC wrote:
>
>> The problem with this (and any) analysis of a lightning event is that 
>> it is FAR more >complicated than anything we can compute, simply 
>> because the voltages and currents induced >in any system (stuff wired 
>> together) will be different in each conductor depending on >WHERE the 
>> strike is, the physical geometry of the conductors that make up that 
>> system, how >energy from the strike gets to the earth, etc.
>
> I can attest to that ! In 13 years of living on a dry, New Mexico 
> hilltop, I have learned a lot about mitigating lightning damage. 
> Frankly, the cost and effort of doing lightning protection "perfectly 
> right" is prohibitive. The approach I have settled on is simple 
> disconnection to keep the bulk of the lightning energy out of the 
> house. All RF and control cables to/from the towers (I have 3 towers, 
> with 5 rotator controls and a number of remote antenna switches) 
> terminate on a bulkhead panel about 30 feet from the house. During 
> lightning season (May-October), everything is disconnected at the 
> panel, except when I am on-the-air. All AC power to the ham shack is 
> disconnected, except when I am on-the-air (unplugged - I don't trust 
> the small air gap in switches and relays). Yes, this makes it 
> inconvenient to be on-the-air during the summer. Even with these 
> measures, I have learned the hard way about interconnectedness (K9YC's 
> "stuff wired together"). A nearby or direct hit to a tower will 
> destroy USB ports on computers and radios, if they are interconnected 
> with a USB cable. I have tried commercial USB optoisolators, but have 
> found they generate too much RF noise. The latest incident was earlier 
> this week. I had a direct hit. The only "stuff wired together" was an 
> Astron power supply, connected to a 2 meter radio. Just before the 
> storm, these were working fine. I unplugged the antenna from the 2 
> meter radio, and the AC power from the power supply. There was still a 
> 3' long power cable connecting the power supply and 2 meter radio. 
> After the storm, the power supply blew fuses. The root cause was a 
> fried LM723 in the power supply, causing the voltage to go high, and 
> the crowbar protection to be activated.
>
> Sometimes I think moving to relatively lightning-free coastal Oregon 
> would be a good idea !
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From hanslg at aol.com  Tue Jul 26 13:10:54 2016
From: hanslg at aol.com (Hans Hammarquist)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:10:54 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large ground
	loop
In-Reply-To: <57976784.1040707@arrl.net>
References: <57976784.1040707@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <156283014af-348c-4590@webprd-a28.mail.aol.com>


 Steve,

The LM723 can probably be used as a "static discharge indicator". I don't know if there is a "hardened" version out now-a-days but I had plenty of (bad) experience with tha IC and would never recommend for anything but, maybe, as a fish lure. Unless it is placed in a circuit with plenty of protective circuitry it gives rise to plenty of reliability problem. The (very) good part is that most of the surrounding parts usually never breaks with it which make trouble shooting easy. 

I checked out your place and that looks very, very dry. How do you get any grounding there, a massive, heavy wire mesh over the entire estate?

73 de,

Hans - N2JFS

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve London <n2icarrl at gmail.com>
To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 26, 2016 9:38 am
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large ground loop


........
supply and 2 meter radio. After the storm, the power supply blew fuses. 
The root cause was a fried LM723 in the power supply, causing the 
voltage to go high, and the crowbar protection to be activated.

Sometimes I think moving to relatively lightning-free coastal Oregon 
would be a good idea !

73,
Steve, N2IC

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From w7wll at arrl.net  Tue Jul 26 13:17:28 2016
From: w7wll at arrl.net (Don W7WLL)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:17:28 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
	ground loop
In-Reply-To: <58822c46-fd76-a21f-2b3b-baccbaec79c2@centurylink.net>
References: <57976784.1040707@arrl.net>
	<58822c46-fd76-a21f-2b3b-baccbaec79c2@centurylink.net>
Message-ID: <D0F76829660D4825B897A82BCAA386BE@DonPC>

" . . relatively lightning-free coastal Oregon . . ."

Well, that bit of information is true (http://www.lightningmaps.org is a 
great site to monitor). One of the hams up in Lincoln City feeds into this 
system. On very rare days we may experience some sheet lightning but I've 
not heard of anyone on the coast experiencing a tower strike. Most tower 
grounding I've seen here on the coast is unsophisticated compared to some of 
the systems you folks are posting.

On the ocean side of the OR Coast Range, if you are going to camp, better 
bring dry wood with you!!!!! When we retired we had looked at land to the N 
of Cuba, NM as a place to live. Hummmmmm, maybe the old wet and cool OR 
coast wasn't a bad choice. No heat issues here!! We had a heat wave here a 
week ago, temp got up into the mid 60's.

As to corrosion and rust, I quickly learned every local source and not so 
locally for SS, corrosion resistant Al and corrosion blocking compounds. 
Much of the knowledge base on all of this comes from the marine outfitters 
for the fishing/crabbing fleets in ports such as Newport, Charleston and 
Astoria.

Where ever you live, there is always something one has to deal with.



Don W7WLL

-----Original Message----- 
From: Dick Blumenstein
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 9:36 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large 
ground loop

Steve-

May the force be with you... (or should I say, it appears the force is
with you TOO MUCH!).

(Sigh... when man makes plans, G-d laughs.)

Sorry for all your troubles.

I have no idea what I'll be facing here in the western foothills of NC.
I'll find out, though; I'm sure.

PS - If you move to Oregon, then all your connections and equipment
might corrode/rust!

Dick, K0CAT

======================


Steve London wrote on 7/26/2016 9:37 AM:
> K9YC wrote:
>
>> The problem with this (and any) analysis of a lightning event is that it 
>> is FAR more >complicated than anything we can compute, simply because the 
>> voltages and currents induced >in any system (stuff wired together) will 
>> be different in each conductor depending on >WHERE the strike is, the 
>> physical geometry of the conductors that make up that system, how >energy 
>> from the strike gets to the earth, etc.
>
> I can attest to that ! In 13 years of living on a dry, New Mexico hilltop, 
> I have learned a lot about mitigating lightning damage. Frankly, the cost 
> and effort of doing lightning protection "perfectly right" is prohibitive. 
> The approach I have settled on is simple disconnection to keep the bulk of 
> the lightning energy out of the house. All RF and control cables to/from 
> the towers (I have 3 towers, with 5 rotator controls and a number of 
> remote antenna switches) terminate on a bulkhead panel about 30 feet from 
> the house. During lightning season (May-October), everything is 
> disconnected at the panel, except when I am on-the-air. All AC power to 
> the ham shack is disconnected, except when I am on-the-air (unplugged - I 
> don't trust the small air gap in switches and relays). Yes, this makes it 
> inconvenient to be on-the-air during the summer. Even with these measures, 
> I have learned the hard way about interconnectedness (K9YC's "stuff wired 
> together"). A nearby or direct hit to a tower will destroy USB ports on 
> computers and radios, if they are interconnected with a USB cable. I have 
> tried commercial USB optoisolators, but have found they generate too much 
> RF noise. The latest incident was earlier this week. I had a direct hit. 
> The only "stuff wired together" was an Astron power supply, connected to a 
> 2 meter radio. Just before the storm, these were working fine. I unplugged 
> the antenna from the 2 meter radio, and the AC power from the power 
> supply. There was still a 3' long power cable connecting the power supply 
> and 2 meter radio. After the storm, the power supply blew fuses. The root 
> cause was a fried LM723 in the power supply, causing the voltage to go 
> high, and the crowbar protection to be activated.
>
> Sometimes I think moving to relatively lightning-free coastal Oregon would 
> be a good idea !
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



From john at kk9a.com  Tue Jul 26 13:29:01 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:29:01 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop
Message-ID: <989b7715dc0795a9652f4b0d311bf1f1.squirrel@www11.qth.com>

My towers have been hit a number of times. I think installing a lot of
ground rods and a SPG is a worthwhile investment.

John KK9A


To:	towertalk at contesting.com
Subject:	Re: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
ground loop
From:	Steve London
Date:	Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:37:08 -0600


I can attest to that ! In 13 years of living on a dry, New Mexico hilltop,
I have learned a lot about mitigating lightning damage. Frankly, the cost
and effort of doing lightning protection "perfectly right" is prohibitive.
The approach I have settled on is simple disconnection to keep the bulk of
the lightning energy out of the house. All RF and control cables to/from
the towers (I have 3 towers, with 5 rotator controls and a number of
remote antenna switches) terminate on a bulkhead panel about 30 feet from
the house. During lightning season (May-October), everything is
disconnected at the panel, except when I am on-the-air. All AC power to
the ham shack is disconnected, except when I am on-the-air (unplugged - I
don't trust the small air gap in switches and relays). Yes, this makes it
inconvenient to be on-the-air during the summer. Even with these measures,
I have learned the hard way about interconnectedness (K9YC's "stuff wired
together"). A nearby or direct hit to a tower will destroy USB ports on
computers and radios, if they are interconnected with a USB cable. I have
tried commercial USB optoisolators, but have found they generate too much
RF noise. The latest incident was earlier this week. I had a direct hit.
The only "stuff wired together" was an Astron power supply, connected to a
2 meter radio. Just before the storm, these were working fine. I unplugged
the antenna from the 2 meter radio, and the AC power from the power
supply. There was still a 3' long power cable connecting the power supply
and 2 meter radio. After the storm, the power supply blew fuses. The root
cause was a fried LM723 in the power supply, causing the voltage to go
high, and the crowbar protection to be activated.

Sometimes I think moving to relatively lightning-free coastal Oregon would
be a good idea !

73,
Steve, N2IC


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Tue Jul 26 13:49:16 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:49:16 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop
In-Reply-To: <57976784.1040707@arrl.net>
References: <57976784.1040707@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <6a142818-4074-880b-d6e4-1ff3433e134c@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Tue,7/26/2016 6:37 AM, Steve London wrote:
> Sometimes I think moving to relatively lightning-free coastal Oregon 
> would be a good idea

Well, at least it's a part of the country as beautiful as where you 
currently live! And I feel the same about my QTH.

73, Jim K9YC


From grants2 at pacbell.net  Tue Jul 26 14:21:44 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 11:21:44 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
Message-ID: <5797AA38.7030308@pacbell.net>

  "Ground loops" are an interesting question.  The problem is a "single 
point ground" is often not feasible and is impossible at my QTH.  My 
decision  was to connect everything together.   At my QTH the conductor 
paths are:

1. Buried HV feed to mains transformer which has a Ufer vault ground, 
which then feeds
     2. 200a house service with 2 ground rods at entry
     3. 400a shop/shack entry panels with 2 ground rods and bonding to 
structural steel
     4. Charger and heater at a backup generator on a concrete pad, 
which then feeds back underground to 200a transfer switches at house and 
shop, next to mains entry panels
5. The shop/shack foundation is a perimeter Ufer and the structural 
steel is grounded to it, also the main shack ground is to the Ufer
6. The 3 towers have Ufer bases and ground rod+radial fields
7. The shack coax entry panel is bonded to the steel structure, coax is 
bonded to towers top and for the largest tower to a shed at base entry 
panel, all cables are in buried conduits to the shack
8. Underground control and coax to a 160m wire vertical T with a ground 
rod and shunt inductor from 8 elevated 125' long radials
9. Ethernet, RG6, and control cables are in conduit from shop to house 
(not protected at either end - needs fixed)
10. The Comcast cable entrance is tied to ground rod at house, telephone 
entry is there also, so the house on its own is near single point grounding.
11. The equipment shed at the base of the largest tower has the coax 
entry panel bonded to the rod and radial field.  The shed mains power 
panel is also bonded to the radial field.

Thus, there are a large number of "loops".  This is probably more 
complex than most, but I think it is not uncommon to have loops. Code 
requires much of the above, and white (neutral) is connected to yel/grn 
(earth) at several places.  So my strategy was to bury a large ground 
conductor below the conduit runs when I could, to tie stuff together.  I 
didn't do this initially but wish I had as later DC ground resistance 
measurements showed the buried wires were about 1 ground rod equivalent 
at about 100' of buried bare copper wire (#6).  I note that the Andrew 
lightning protection guide advises against tying towers to building 
entry panels with a separate buried conductor.  Rather they let the 
voltage surge be equalized on the coax and control wires, I think the 
theory is that the differential voltages are less as a result.  If my 
code knowledge is correct, it requires towers to be bonded to "house 
ground", if there is AC at the tower as is true for my motorized crank ups.

I think my shop foundation Ufer plus structural steel frame makes a low 
inductance path from the shack on the opposite corner from the mains 
entry and transfer switch panels.  The tower foundation Ufers and 
rod/radial fields are other "good" low ohms and L grounds with lots of 
surface area.  The code required pair of mains entry panel rods are poor 
grounds in comparison (180 sq ft of concrete per tower in earth contact 
vs 0.1 sq ft per rod.  1000 sq ft of concrete surface in the shop Ufer).

So if "SPG" means a single point ground at shack entry panel for coax, 
control cables, and rigs, then what I have might qualify. Otherwise, it 
is impossible to achieve.

What happens if a nearby strike induces a large current in the several 
100'+ diameter loops is a concern, but given the reality that loops were 
unavoidable, a ground wire mesh seemed to me to be the best strategy.  
As I have progressed re this topic, I now consider #2 bare wire buried 
below every conduit run as the way to go.   Solid is better for longevity.

I also harken back to the days of large "glass house" many refrigerator 
sized box computers which had to have multiple power feeds.  The only 
way to manage the neutral/frame/ground loop problem was a stiff enough 
ground mesh to swamp the frame ground voltage offsets so the single 
ended control signals would be reliable. Later, differential control 
signals and serial interfaces lessened the loop problems and hardened 
the systems for EMI/static discharge.  Some big systems used M-G set 
isolated 3p delta 400Hz power and differential control signals, yet one 
I worked on always crashed with a nearby strike.  A solution at another 
installation I worked at was that the entire computer room power grid 
had to be on isolated M-G power so nearby strike surges didn't couple 
into the system signals from the lighting and general purpose circuits, 
as Jim noted.

An "RF ground" for lightning as the Andrew guide explains is a ground 
rod + radials field that distributes the RF energy of a strike over a 
large area both capacitively and via conduction.  So the 5 ohm DC ground 
resistance target has merit as does the radial wire and ground rod field 
size.  Both are needed.  While buried conductors benefit from the shunt 
earth conductivity, the wire inductance limits the useful length of the 
radials to about 50ft according to Andrew.  The K1TTT analysis shows why 
tower top and bottom coax shield bonding is needed and why elevated coax 
should be avoided if at all possible.

Fortunately, Western Washington has a very low strike frequency, but 
with a tower top 40' above the 110' tree line and on a ridge, my 
attention to lightning protection has significantly increased.

"There is no such thing as ground"  from Vonada's Engineering Maxims.

Grant KZ1W
Redmond, WA

On 7/24/2016 9:04 AM, Dick Blumenstein wrote:
> From everything I've read, the prevailing overall grounding technique 
> is to run a heavy duty copper wire from the grounding system around 
> the tower, back to the ground rod outside the shack wall as well as to 
> run it to the ground rod under where your AC power enters the house.
>
> It just occurred to me that the AC ground wire, besides going into the 
> house and connecting to the chassis ground in the breaker box (where 
> also all the neutral white wires are connected) then proceeds 
> throughout your house and also to your ham radio shack equipment. It 
> is here that the ground wire also connects to all the chassis in your 
> shack as well as the shields on your coax connectors that also finds 
> it way back outside your shack wall to the ground rod; one huge ground 
> loop.  I  know that there are 2 issues here; RF grounding and 
> lightning protection. Any comments about that?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dick, K0CAT
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Tue Jul 26 15:52:16 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:52:16 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <5796A2CE.7090508@swva.net>
References: <d9c93df25c4903af586eca204e16885f.squirrel@www11.qth.com>
	<5796A2CE.7090508@swva.net>
Message-ID: <4376ef77-ba88-36a2-f9f9-eb9b015643a3@tm.net>

For you, or us on a small scale (and time to make sure the bolts are 
clean), it may be, but apparently for industry, it's not.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/25/2016 Monday 7:37 PM, Joe Giacobello, K2XX via TowerTalk wrote:
> Thread locking adhesive is the answer to this problem.  Loctite, 
> Permabond, etc.
>
> 73, Joe
> K2XX
>
>> john at kk9a.com <mailto:john at kk9a.com>
>> Monday, July 25, 2016 12:11 PM
>> I concur. If the rotator bolts are loosening, perhaps something else is
>> happening like the clamp bracket is stretching or bending.
>>
>> John KK9A
>>
>>
>> To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
>> From: "StellarCAT" <rxdesign at ssvecnet.com>
>> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:10:35 -0400
>>
>> Although rotor bolts can loosen over time generally if they're tightened
>> properly initially they won't do so - at least that has been my
>> experience. Tower bolts have no issues to speak of as the nuts have lots
>> of friction and are not critical to the application (all load is 
>> vertical)
>> ... Nylocks were the second best and at a much more affordable price -
>> that is what M2, Optibeam use on their antennas - and what I choose to
>> use.
>>
>> Gary
>> K9RX
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Tue Jul 26 16:41:26 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:41:26 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <5797AA38.7030308@pacbell.net>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
	<5797AA38.7030308@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <6d63ee94-e761-c799-d4fa-27ec874be0ff@audiosystemsgroup.com>

Hi Grant,

I won't quote your entire post, but only some key elements that need a 
comment.

On Tue,7/26/2016 11:21 AM, Grant Saviers wrote:
>  "Ground loops" are an interesting question.  The problem is a "single 
> point ground" is often not feasible and is impossible at my QTH. My 
> decision  was to connect everything together. 

In general, that's the only right (safe) way to do it.

> At my QTH the conductor paths are:
>
> 1. Buried HV feed to mains transformer which has a Ufer vault ground, 
> which then feeds
>     2. 200a house service with 2 ground rods at entry
>     3. 400a shop/shack entry panels with 2 ground rods and bonding to 
> structural steel
>     4. Charger and heater at a backup generator on a concrete pad, 
> which then feeds back underground to 200a transfer switches at house 
> and shop, next to mains entry panels
> 5. The shop/shack foundation is a perimeter Ufer and the structural 
> steel is grounded to it, also the main shack ground is to the Ufer
> 6. The 3 towers have Ufer bases and ground rod+radial fields
> 7. The shack coax entry panel is bonded to the steel structure, coax 
> is bonded to towers top and for the largest tower to a shed at base 
> entry panel, all cables are in buried conduits to the shack

All of this is REALLY GOOD

> 8. Underground control and coax to a 160m wire vertical T with a 
> ground rod and shunt inductor from 8 elevated 125' long radials
> 9. Ethernet, RG6, and control cables are in conduit from shop to house 
> (not protected at either end - needs fixed)

Yes, this is a recipe for destruction, needs serious attention.

> 10. The Comcast cable entrance is tied to ground rod at house, 
> telephone entry is there also, so the house on its own is near single 
> point grounding.
> 11. The equipment shed at the base of the largest tower has the coax 
> entry panel bonded to the rod and radial field.  The shed mains power 
> panel is also bonded to the radial field.
>
> Thus, there are a large number of "loops". 

Of course. The concept of "ground loops" is fundamentally WRONG, and 
causes us to do dumb things. The ONLY context in which a loop is a bad 
thing is magnetic induction.

> This is probably more complex than most, but I think it is not 
> uncommon to have loops. Code requires much of the above, and white 
> (neutral) is connected to yel/grn (earth) at several places. 

TRAIN WRECK!  Good engineering practice, and virtually ALL building 
codes in NA, require that neutral be bonded to ground ONLY at 1) the 
service entrance (where power enters a premises); and 2) where a "new 
system" is established. A new system is established by a transformer. It 
is NOT established by a feed to another building from the main feed to 
the premises.  The ONLY time there should be more than one bond in two 
buildings is if 1) the two buildings have their own service (that is, a 
separate metered connection from the power company; or 2) if the second 
building is fed from the first, and ground is not carried between the 
two buildings. This second scheme is no longer permitted by NEC

SO -- if you have neutral bonded to ground at more than one place, you 
need to change that. It's a VERY big deal.

> So my strategy was to bury a large ground conductor below the conduit 
> runs when I could, to tie stuff together.  I didn't do this initially 
> but wish I had as later DC ground resistance measurements showed the 
> buried wires were about 1 ground rod equivalent at about 100' of 
> buried bare copper wire (#6).  I note that the Andrew lightning 
> protection guide advises against tying towers to building entry panels 
> with a separate buried conductor. Rather they let the voltage surge be 
> equalized on the coax and control wires, I think the theory is that 
> the differential voltages are less as a result.  If my code knowledge 
> is correct, it requires towers to be bonded to "house ground", if 
> there is AC at the tower as is true for my motorized crank ups.

NEC requires that the power system ground MUST be carried to all outlets 
and loads, and it MUST be carried with the phase and neutral conductors 
(in the same conduit or other cable).

> I think my shop foundation Ufer plus structural steel frame makes a 
> low inductance path from the shack on the opposite corner from the 
> mains entry and transfer switch panels.  The tower foundation Ufers 
> and rod/radial fields are other "good" low ohms and L grounds with 
> lots of surface area.  The code required pair of mains entry panel 
> rods are poor grounds in comparison (180 sq ft of concrete per tower 
> in earth contact vs 0.1 sq ft per rod.  1000 sq ft of concrete surface 
> in the shop Ufer).
>
> So if "SPG" means a single point ground at shack entry panel for coax, 
> control cables, and rigs, then what I have might qualify. Otherwise, 
> it is impossible to achieve.

Yes, that's the real world.
>
>
> An "RF ground" for lightning as the Andrew guide explains is a ground 
> rod + radials field that distributes the RF energy of a strike over a 
> large area both capacitively and via conduction. 

Erase the words "RF ground" from your memory bank -- it is a fiction 
that has no meaning. Connections to earth, and bonding between those 
connections is ONLY for lightning safety. The only relationship between 
those connections and "RF" is to realize that lightning is an RF event, 
not a DC event, so that the impedance of those connections and that 
bonding at RF, which is where the energy in lightning is, is what matters.

> So the 5 ohm DC ground resistance target has merit as does the radial 
> wire and ground rod field size.  Both are needed. 

A radial field serves as a low resistance return for antenna current, in 
place of earth, which is a big resistor.  That radial field SHIELDS the 
antenna from the lossy earth. And from the point of view of lightning 
protection, if it is bonded to facilities grounds, it provides 
capacitive coupling to the earth to reduce the impedance to earth at RF.

> While buried conductors benefit from the shunt earth conductivity, the 
> wire inductance limits the useful length of the radials to about 50ft 
> according to Andrew.  The K1TTT analysis shows why tower top and 
> bottom coax shield bonding is needed and why elevated coax should be 
> avoided if at all possible.

Yes on all counts.

>
> Fortunately, Western Washington has a very low strike frequency, but 
> with a tower top 40' above the 110' tree line and on a ridge, my 
> attention to lightning protection has significantly increased.

Lightning enters our premises on MANY conductors -- power line, TELCO, 
CATV -- as well as antennas.

> "There is no such thing as ground"  from Vonada's Engineering Maxims.

Now we're getting closer to the real world. :)

73, Jim K9YC

From jimlux at earthlink.net  Tue Jul 26 17:11:29 2016
From: jimlux at earthlink.net (jimlux)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:11:29 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <4376ef77-ba88-36a2-f9f9-eb9b015643a3@tm.net>
References: <d9c93df25c4903af586eca204e16885f.squirrel@www11.qth.com>
	<5796A2CE.7090508@swva.net>
	<4376ef77-ba88-36a2-f9f9-eb9b015643a3@tm.net>
Message-ID: <b0cfac81-c886-1318-8215-c7c08fc1883b@earthlink.net>

On 7/26/16 12:52 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
> For you, or us on a small scale (and time to make sure the bolts are
> clean), it may be, but apparently for industry, it's not.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>
> On 7/25/2016 Monday 7:37 PM, Joe Giacobello, K2XX via TowerTalk wrote:
>> Thread locking adhesive is the answer to this problem.  Loctite,
>> Permabond, etc.
>>
>> 7

Depends on the industry.  Most automotive applications are heavy users 
of thread locking adhesives. Take a frame, body, or suspension bolt out, 
and likely as not, there's a blue stripe on it.

In space applications, we tend not to use thread locking adhesives: 
tradition, careful measurement of running and final torque, and lots of 
staking of the heads/nuts using external adhesives.  There's also always 
a concern about outgassing, although I'm sure one could find 
threadlocking adhesives that don't outgas.

We do use Solithane sometimes.





From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Tue Jul 26 17:23:16 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:23:16 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <3a3aa877-d38c-cf61-59ab-074ca7f3f8ba@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
	<aa229b15-1c66-da65-acd4-c80f8890e584@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<803237ad-4558-6efc-582b-a24f6ea164e1@centurylink.net>
	<01717a14-fe74-f1b4-0790-93f0e4d08102@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<af15ddda-aac5-6009-1dd0-b2e776308e3f@earthlink.net>
	<3a3aa877-d38c-cf61-59ab-074ca7f3f8ba@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <5fd183d0-7489-8f50-42be-41eb4b1ecf8e@tm.net>

Remember, a lightning strike a mile away can induce as much as a 
thousand volts per meter in a conductor.  It doesn't necessarily need a 
physical connection to the strike.

I would add that the pulse from a nearby lightning strike propagates 
through a building at speeds different than the induced voltages in the 
wiring, let alone the wiring from different sources so it's possible, or 
even quite likely to have voltage differentials in the thousands of 
volts between ends of the house, or even adjacent wires in the same room 
with many thousands of joules capable of starting fires, let alone 
frying delicate electronic equipment.

It's different for every home and every strike. Even the magnetic fields 
can induce voltages that are lethal to equipment and sometimes, humans. 
   Any conductor can turn into something carrying lethal voltages.

My one rig used for weather watching/nets is well protected, but I still 
set it up for locked cross band repeat so the only thing I'm touching is 
the HT.

73

Roger (K8RI)

On 7/25/2016 Monday 5:32 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On Mon,7/25/2016 5:51 AM, jimlux wrote:
>> What you want is everything that is "near" each other connected with 
>> good conductors that are similar in length (so the inductance is 
>> similar, and the voltage rise from the pulse is similar).
>>
>> If you have one piece of gear with a 10 foot cable to the lightning 
>> impulse. And another piece of gear on the bench connected with a 100 
>> foot cable to the lightning impulse, and then you interconnect the 
>> two with a short jumper, you can see that there might be a problem.
>
>
> The problem with this (and any) analysis of a lightning event is that 
> it is FAR more complicated than anything we can compute, simply 
> because the voltages and currents induced in any system (stuff wired 
> together) will be different in each conductor depending on WHERE the 
> strike is, the physical geometry of the conductors that make up that 
> system, how energy from the strike gets to the earth, etc.
>
> Remember that in any given lightning event, voltages/currents are 
> likely to couple into our system (our home) via the power system, via 
> the CATV system, via the telephone system, via our antennas, and 
> directly onto all the wiring within our home. Voltages/currents will 
> be very different between those multiple systems by virtue of THEIR 
> geometry, how they are earthed and bonded, and THEIR proximity to the 
> strike.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From grants2 at pacbell.net  Tue Jul 26 21:35:12 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 18:35:12 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <6d63ee94-e761-c799-d4fa-27ec874be0ff@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
	<5797AA38.7030308@pacbell.net>
	<6d63ee94-e761-c799-d4fa-27ec874be0ff@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <57980FD0.6060808@pacbell.net>

Jim,

Thanks for your comments.  The entrance panels for the two buildings 
have separate meters so they are correctly installed with local bonding.

NEC, if I understand it correctly, does clarify one important point, 
that is that permanently installed outdoor generators can be connected 
to an auxiliary grounding electrode .  Even if I didn't have a separate 
electrode the gen frame is bolted to a reinforced 60 sq ft concrete pad. 
So I have 3 code correct grounding electrode connections.

My logic for the tower shed panel bonding  was to shunt to the radial 
field a large amount of common mode RFI (S9+40) from PWM 240 VAC mains 
amplifiers driving the rotator 180v DC 1/2hp motors.  Even though the 
16KHz PWM amps are 240v sourced they have a bolted frame connection.  
These amps use IGBT's that switch really fast.  I have a shielded 
isolation transformer between them and the panel and balanced 50KHz 
cutoff filters I designed installed on the output of the amps.  This 
bonding is not per code, and if there is downside, I'd like to know what 
that is.   Fortunately, all this suppresses the rotator moving RFI to 
S1-2 for 20m and above, but I need another 60+ db on 40m.  The challenge 
is a filter design that doesn't cause the PWM amp protection circuits to 
trip. This problem is a drift off topic but if others have solved it, 
I'm eager to learn.  The configuration is Green Heron controllers with 
remote power amp turning K0XG rings.  The rotator cable is inside the 
tower, 16ga twisted pair, not shielded per manufacturer's advice (bad 
advice, they should be shielded).  The 180 VDC motors are filtered at 
their frames and can barely be heard on all bands when driven from a 
clean DC source.

Grant KZ1W


On 7/26/2016 13:41 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> I won't quote your entire post, but only some key elements that need a 
> comment.
>
> On Tue,7/26/2016 11:21 AM, Grant Saviers wrote:
>>  "Ground loops" are an interesting question.  The problem is a 
>> "single point ground" is often not feasible and is impossible at my 
>> QTH. My decision  was to connect everything together. 
>
> In general, that's the only right (safe) way to do it.
>
>> At my QTH the conductor paths are:
>>
>> 1. Buried HV feed to mains transformer which has a Ufer vault ground, 
>> which then feeds
>>     2. 200a house service with 2 ground rods at entry
>>     3. 400a shop/shack entry panels with 2 ground rods and bonding to 
>> structural steel
>>     4. Charger and heater at a backup generator on a concrete pad, 
>> which then feeds back underground to 200a transfer switches at house 
>> and shop, next to mains entry panels
>> 5. The shop/shack foundation is a perimeter Ufer and the structural 
>> steel is grounded to it, also the main shack ground is to the Ufer
>> 6. The 3 towers have Ufer bases and ground rod+radial fields
>> 7. The shack coax entry panel is bonded to the steel structure, coax 
>> is bonded to towers top and for the largest tower to a shed at base 
>> entry panel, all cables are in buried conduits to the shack
>
> All of this is REALLY GOOD
>
>> 8. Underground control and coax to a 160m wire vertical T with a 
>> ground rod and shunt inductor from 8 elevated 125' long radials
>> 9. Ethernet, RG6, and control cables are in conduit from shop to 
>> house (not protected at either end - needs fixed)
>
> Yes, this is a recipe for destruction, needs serious attention.
>
>> 10. The Comcast cable entrance is tied to ground rod at house, 
>> telephone entry is there also, so the house on its own is near single 
>> point grounding.
>> 11. The equipment shed at the base of the largest tower has the coax 
>> entry panel bonded to the rod and radial field.  The shed mains power 
>> panel is also bonded to the radial field.
>>
>> Thus, there are a large number of "loops". 
>
> Of course. The concept of "ground loops" is fundamentally WRONG, and 
> causes us to do dumb things. The ONLY context in which a loop is a bad 
> thing is magnetic induction.
>
>> This is probably more complex than most, but I think it is not 
>> uncommon to have loops. Code requires much of the above, and white 
>> (neutral) is connected to yel/grn (earth) at several places. 
>
> TRAIN WRECK!  Good engineering practice, and virtually ALL building 
> codes in NA, require that neutral be bonded to ground ONLY at 1) the 
> service entrance (where power enters a premises); and 2) where a "new 
> system" is established. A new system is established by a transformer. 
> It is NOT established by a feed to another building from the main feed 
> to the premises.  The ONLY time there should be more than one bond in 
> two buildings is if 1) the two buildings have their own service (that 
> is, a separate metered connection from the power company; or 2) if the 
> second building is fed from the first, and ground is not carried 
> between the two buildings. This second scheme is no longer permitted 
> by NEC
>
> SO -- if you have neutral bonded to ground at more than one place, you 
> need to change that. It's a VERY big deal.
>
>> So my strategy was to bury a large ground conductor below the conduit 
>> runs when I could, to tie stuff together.  I didn't do this initially 
>> but wish I had as later DC ground resistance measurements showed the 
>> buried wires were about 1 ground rod equivalent at about 100' of 
>> buried bare copper wire (#6).  I note that the Andrew lightning 
>> protection guide advises against tying towers to building entry 
>> panels with a separate buried conductor. Rather they let the voltage 
>> surge be equalized on the coax and control wires, I think the theory 
>> is that the differential voltages are less as a result.  If my code 
>> knowledge is correct, it requires towers to be bonded to "house 
>> ground", if there is AC at the tower as is true for my motorized 
>> crank ups.
>
> NEC requires that the power system ground MUST be carried to all 
> outlets and loads, and it MUST be carried with the phase and neutral 
> conductors (in the same conduit or other cable).
>
>> I think my shop foundation Ufer plus structural steel frame makes a 
>> low inductance path from the shack on the opposite corner from the 
>> mains entry and transfer switch panels.  The tower foundation Ufers 
>> and rod/radial fields are other "good" low ohms and L grounds with 
>> lots of surface area.  The code required pair of mains entry panel 
>> rods are poor grounds in comparison (180 sq ft of concrete per tower 
>> in earth contact vs 0.1 sq ft per rod.  1000 sq ft of concrete 
>> surface in the shop Ufer).
>>
>> So if "SPG" means a single point ground at shack entry panel for 
>> coax, control cables, and rigs, then what I have might qualify. 
>> Otherwise, it is impossible to achieve.
>
> Yes, that's the real world.
>>
>>
>> An "RF ground" for lightning as the Andrew guide explains is a ground 
>> rod + radials field that distributes the RF energy of a strike over a 
>> large area both capacitively and via conduction. 
>
> Erase the words "RF ground" from your memory bank -- it is a fiction 
> that has no meaning. Connections to earth, and bonding between those 
> connections is ONLY for lightning safety. The only relationship 
> between those connections and "RF" is to realize that lightning is an 
> RF event, not a DC event, so that the impedance of those connections 
> and that bonding at RF, which is where the energy in lightning is, is 
> what matters.
>
>> So the 5 ohm DC ground resistance target has merit as does the radial 
>> wire and ground rod field size. Both are needed. 
>
> A radial field serves as a low resistance return for antenna current, 
> in place of earth, which is a big resistor.  That radial field SHIELDS 
> the antenna from the lossy earth. And from the point of view of 
> lightning protection, if it is bonded to facilities grounds, it 
> provides capacitive coupling to the earth to reduce the impedance to 
> earth at RF.
>
>> While buried conductors benefit from the shunt earth conductivity, 
>> the wire inductance limits the useful length of the radials to about 
>> 50ft according to Andrew.  The K1TTT analysis shows why tower top and 
>> bottom coax shield bonding is needed and why elevated coax should be 
>> avoided if at all possible.
>
> Yes on all counts.
>
>>
>> Fortunately, Western Washington has a very low strike frequency, but 
>> with a tower top 40' above the 110' tree line and on a ridge, my 
>> attention to lightning protection has significantly increased.
>
> Lightning enters our premises on MANY conductors -- power line, TELCO, 
> CATV -- as well as antennas.
>
>> "There is no such thing as ground"  from Vonada's Engineering Maxims.
>
> Now we're getting closer to the real world. :)
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From jim.thom at telus.net  Wed Jul 27 00:33:05 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 21:33:05 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
Message-ID: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>

Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:52:16 -0400
From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison

For you, or us on a small scale (and time to make sure the bolts are 
clean), it may be, but apparently for industry, it's not.

73

Roger (K8RI)

##  say what ?   Blue loctite is used all the time in the automotive and race car world.  Put blue
loctite on the  6 x  .375  SS  bolts that hold an OR-2800  rotor to the rotor plate...and  you wont be
having bolts coming loose anytime soon.   I used blue loctite in loads of places on my Roush mustang,
nothing comes loose... including the new one piece AL driveshaft..which spins at 6500 rpm. 
Plenty of local folks here in town also use Red loctite  for automotive applications.
Purple loctite is weaker than blue loctite, and is another alternative.  Red is the strongest. 

##  I would not use red loctite for small stuff like machine screw size.... otherwise you will never get em out, they will
be as good as welded into place.  

##  UST  uses  nylocks for all   22  pulleys  used on my HDX-689.   Non of them loosen up.   Between  nylocks and 
blue / purple  loctite, you are covered. 

Jim   VE7RF

From cbrown at woods.net  Wed Jul 27 01:30:32 2016
From: cbrown at woods.net (Christopher Brown)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 21:30:32 -0800
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <57980FD0.6060808@pacbell.net>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
	<5797AA38.7030308@pacbell.net>
	<6d63ee94-e761-c799-d4fa-27ec874be0ff@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<57980FD0.6060808@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <579846F8.8040601@woods.net>


The NEC has strict standards for the Grounding Electrode System, and
exactly where and when neutral (ground_ed_ conductor) can be bonded to
ground (ground_ing_ conductor).

It does not limit the number of rods/other that can be used in addition
to the minimums.


Also, additional ground rods/other can be added basically _anywhere_
bonded to a ground lead or equipment chassis.  These are simply NOT part
of the grounding electrode system and cannot substitute for any other
grounding requirement.

If you dig a bit there is language about supplemental and supplementary
grounding electrodes.  I forget which is which, but one is bonded to the
GES via #6 or larger bonding run, the other is not.

They are both allowed, but _do not do not do not_ replace/substitute for
any required grounding/bonding...You can drive a rod and bond it to the
chassis of a AC powered machine, but this does not in any way remove the
requirement of bonding the chassis to the AC grounding conductor in the
AC feed.

On 7/26/16 17:35, Grant Saviers wrote:
> Jim,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.  The entrance panels for the two buildings 
> have separate meters so they are correctly installed with local bonding.
> 
> NEC, if I understand it correctly, does clarify one important point, 
> that is that permanently installed outdoor generators can be connected 
> to an auxiliary grounding electrode .  Even if I didn't have a separate 
> electrode the gen frame is bolted to a reinforced 60 sq ft concrete pad. 
> So I have 3 code correct grounding electrode connections.
> 
> My logic for the tower shed panel bonding  was to shunt to the radial 
> field a large amount of common mode RFI (S9+40) from PWM 240 VAC mains 
> amplifiers driving the rotator 180v DC 1/2hp motors.  Even though the 
> 16KHz PWM amps are 240v sourced they have a bolted frame connection.  
> These amps use IGBT's that switch really fast.  I have a shielded 
> isolation transformer between them and the panel and balanced 50KHz 
> cutoff filters I designed installed on the output of the amps.  This 
> bonding is not per code, and if there is downside, I'd like to know what 
> that is.   Fortunately, all this suppresses the rotator moving RFI to 
> S1-2 for 20m and above, but I need another 60+ db on 40m.  The challenge 
> is a filter design that doesn't cause the PWM amp protection circuits to 
> trip. This problem is a drift off topic but if others have solved it, 
> I'm eager to learn.  The configuration is Green Heron controllers with 
> remote power amp turning K0XG rings.  The rotator cable is inside the 
> tower, 16ga twisted pair, not shielded per manufacturer's advice (bad 
> advice, they should be shielded).  The 180 VDC motors are filtered at 
> their frames and can barely be heard on all bands when driven from a 
> clean DC source.
> 
> Grant KZ1W
> 
> 
> On 7/26/2016 13:41 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> I won't quote your entire post, but only some key elements that need a 
>> comment.
>>
>> On Tue,7/26/2016 11:21 AM, Grant Saviers wrote:
>>>  "Ground loops" are an interesting question.  The problem is a 
>>> "single point ground" is often not feasible and is impossible at my 
>>> QTH. My decision  was to connect everything together. 
>>
>> In general, that's the only right (safe) way to do it.
>>
>>> At my QTH the conductor paths are:
>>>
>>> 1. Buried HV feed to mains transformer which has a Ufer vault ground, 
>>> which then feeds
>>>     2. 200a house service with 2 ground rods at entry
>>>     3. 400a shop/shack entry panels with 2 ground rods and bonding to 
>>> structural steel
>>>     4. Charger and heater at a backup generator on a concrete pad, 
>>> which then feeds back underground to 200a transfer switches at house 
>>> and shop, next to mains entry panels
>>> 5. The shop/shack foundation is a perimeter Ufer and the structural 
>>> steel is grounded to it, also the main shack ground is to the Ufer
>>> 6. The 3 towers have Ufer bases and ground rod+radial fields
>>> 7. The shack coax entry panel is bonded to the steel structure, coax 
>>> is bonded to towers top and for the largest tower to a shed at base 
>>> entry panel, all cables are in buried conduits to the shack
>>
>> All of this is REALLY GOOD
>>
>>> 8. Underground control and coax to a 160m wire vertical T with a 
>>> ground rod and shunt inductor from 8 elevated 125' long radials
>>> 9. Ethernet, RG6, and control cables are in conduit from shop to 
>>> house (not protected at either end - needs fixed)
>>
>> Yes, this is a recipe for destruction, needs serious attention.
>>
>>> 10. The Comcast cable entrance is tied to ground rod at house, 
>>> telephone entry is there also, so the house on its own is near single 
>>> point grounding.
>>> 11. The equipment shed at the base of the largest tower has the coax 
>>> entry panel bonded to the rod and radial field.  The shed mains power 
>>> panel is also bonded to the radial field.
>>>
>>> Thus, there are a large number of "loops". 
>>
>> Of course. The concept of "ground loops" is fundamentally WRONG, and 
>> causes us to do dumb things. The ONLY context in which a loop is a bad 
>> thing is magnetic induction.
>>
>>> This is probably more complex than most, but I think it is not 
>>> uncommon to have loops. Code requires much of the above, and white 
>>> (neutral) is connected to yel/grn (earth) at several places. 
>>
>> TRAIN WRECK!  Good engineering practice, and virtually ALL building 
>> codes in NA, require that neutral be bonded to ground ONLY at 1) the 
>> service entrance (where power enters a premises); and 2) where a "new 
>> system" is established. A new system is established by a transformer. 
>> It is NOT established by a feed to another building from the main feed 
>> to the premises.  The ONLY time there should be more than one bond in 
>> two buildings is if 1) the two buildings have their own service (that 
>> is, a separate metered connection from the power company; or 2) if the 
>> second building is fed from the first, and ground is not carried 
>> between the two buildings. This second scheme is no longer permitted 
>> by NEC
>>
>> SO -- if you have neutral bonded to ground at more than one place, you 
>> need to change that. It's a VERY big deal.
>>
>>> So my strategy was to bury a large ground conductor below the conduit 
>>> runs when I could, to tie stuff together.  I didn't do this initially 
>>> but wish I had as later DC ground resistance measurements showed the 
>>> buried wires were about 1 ground rod equivalent at about 100' of 
>>> buried bare copper wire (#6).  I note that the Andrew lightning 
>>> protection guide advises against tying towers to building entry 
>>> panels with a separate buried conductor. Rather they let the voltage 
>>> surge be equalized on the coax and control wires, I think the theory 
>>> is that the differential voltages are less as a result.  If my code 
>>> knowledge is correct, it requires towers to be bonded to "house 
>>> ground", if there is AC at the tower as is true for my motorized 
>>> crank ups.
>>
>> NEC requires that the power system ground MUST be carried to all 
>> outlets and loads, and it MUST be carried with the phase and neutral 
>> conductors (in the same conduit or other cable).
>>
>>> I think my shop foundation Ufer plus structural steel frame makes a 
>>> low inductance path from the shack on the opposite corner from the 
>>> mains entry and transfer switch panels.  The tower foundation Ufers 
>>> and rod/radial fields are other "good" low ohms and L grounds with 
>>> lots of surface area.  The code required pair of mains entry panel 
>>> rods are poor grounds in comparison (180 sq ft of concrete per tower 
>>> in earth contact vs 0.1 sq ft per rod.  1000 sq ft of concrete 
>>> surface in the shop Ufer).
>>>
>>> So if "SPG" means a single point ground at shack entry panel for 
>>> coax, control cables, and rigs, then what I have might qualify. 
>>> Otherwise, it is impossible to achieve.
>>
>> Yes, that's the real world.
>>>
>>>
>>> An "RF ground" for lightning as the Andrew guide explains is a ground 
>>> rod + radials field that distributes the RF energy of a strike over a 
>>> large area both capacitively and via conduction. 
>>
>> Erase the words "RF ground" from your memory bank -- it is a fiction 
>> that has no meaning. Connections to earth, and bonding between those 
>> connections is ONLY for lightning safety. The only relationship 
>> between those connections and "RF" is to realize that lightning is an 
>> RF event, not a DC event, so that the impedance of those connections 
>> and that bonding at RF, which is where the energy in lightning is, is 
>> what matters.
>>
>>> So the 5 ohm DC ground resistance target has merit as does the radial 
>>> wire and ground rod field size. Both are needed. 
>>
>> A radial field serves as a low resistance return for antenna current, 
>> in place of earth, which is a big resistor.  That radial field SHIELDS 
>> the antenna from the lossy earth. And from the point of view of 
>> lightning protection, if it is bonded to facilities grounds, it 
>> provides capacitive coupling to the earth to reduce the impedance to 
>> earth at RF.
>>
>>> While buried conductors benefit from the shunt earth conductivity, 
>>> the wire inductance limits the useful length of the radials to about 
>>> 50ft according to Andrew.  The K1TTT analysis shows why tower top and 
>>> bottom coax shield bonding is needed and why elevated coax should be 
>>> avoided if at all possible.
>>
>> Yes on all counts.
>>
>>>
>>> Fortunately, Western Washington has a very low strike frequency, but 
>>> with a tower top 40' above the 110' tree line and on a ridge, my 
>>> attention to lightning protection has significantly increased.
>>
>> Lightning enters our premises on MANY conductors -- power line, TELCO, 
>> CATV -- as well as antennas.
>>
>>> "There is no such thing as ground"  from Vonada's Engineering Maxims.
>>
>> Now we're getting closer to the real world. :)
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 

From post at lb3re.com  Wed Jul 27 02:02:14 2016
From: post at lb3re.com (Stein-Roar Brobakken Rag LB3RE )
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 08:02:14 +0200
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>
References: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>
Message-ID: <35a2d5f6781ea33ef191b4ec5f83c4a3.squirrel@webmail.mailadmin.no>

Hi
Loctite have not only Blue 241, but also green, blue and purple :)

Ligth tention 222 Purple
Medium tention 243 Blue
High tention 263  Red
Wicking 290  Green > Need heating to get realesed.

Else you can use Nor-Lock washer to really be safe ...
http://img-europe.electrocomponents.com/images/C180532-63.jpg

73s LB3RE Rag


Den ons, juli 27, 2016, 06:33 skrev Jim Thomson:
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:52:16 -0400
> From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
>
> For you, or us on a small scale (and time to make sure the bolts are
> clean), it may be, but apparently for industry, it's not.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
> ##  say what ?   Blue loctite is used all the time in the automotive and
> race car world.  Put blue
> loctite on the  6 x  .375  SS  bolts that hold an OR-2800  rotor to the
> rotor plate...and  you wont be
> having bolts coming loose anytime soon.   I used blue loctite in loads of
> places on my Roush mustang,
> nothing comes loose... including the new one piece AL driveshaft..which
> spins at 6500 rpm.
> Plenty of local folks here in town also use Red loctite  for automotive
> applications.
> Purple loctite is weaker than blue loctite, and is another alternative.
> Red is the strongest.
>
> ##  I would not use red loctite for small stuff like machine screw
> size.... otherwise you will never get em out, they will
> be as good as welded into place.
>
> ##  UST  uses  nylocks for all   22  pulleys  used on my HDX-689.   Non of
> them loosen up.   Between  nylocks and
> blue / purple  loctite, you are covered.
>
> Jim   VE7RF
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


Best Regards Stein-Roar "Rag"


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Wed Jul 27 02:54:14 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:54:14 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <579846F8.8040601@woods.net>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
	<5797AA38.7030308@pacbell.net>
	<6d63ee94-e761-c799-d4fa-27ec874be0ff@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<57980FD0.6060808@pacbell.net> <579846F8.8040601@woods.net>
Message-ID: <a9807aa6-1521-e9a4-0aec-1659ac613917@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Tue,7/26/2016 10:30 PM, Christopher Brown wrote:
> The NEC has strict standards for the Grounding Electrode System, and
> exactly where and when neutral (ground_ed_ conductor) can be bonded to
> ground (ground_ing_ conductor).
>
> It does not limit the number of rods/other that can be used in addition
> to the minimums.
>
>
> Also, additional ground rods/other can be added basically_anywhere_
> bonded to a ground lead or equipment chassis.  These are simply NOT part
> of the grounding electrode system and cannot substitute for any other
> grounding requirement.

Correct on all counts.

> If you dig a bit there is language about supplemental and supplementary
> grounding electrodes.  I forget which is which, but one is bonded to the
> GES via #6 or larger bonding run, the other is not.

NEC places very little importance on the quality of the connection to 
earth. It calls for some maximum value of resistance to earth (25 
ohms?), and if a single rod does not provide it, a second rod must be 
driven. That's ALL it says!  What matters, and what is says a LOT about, 
is BONDING -- that is, how grounded equipment and earth electrodes and 
parts of the system are connected together.

> They are both allowed, but_do not do not do not_  replace/substitute for
> any required grounding/bonding...You can drive a rod and bond it to the
> chassis of a AC powered machine, but this does not in any way remove the
> requirement of bonding the chassis to the AC grounding conductor in the
> AC feed.

Exactly right. The equipment ground (the green wire) MUST follow the 
path of the phase and neutral conductors and be bonded to exposed metal 
of equipment. The fundamental principle here is that the primary purpose 
of the equipment ground (the green wire) is to blow the fuse or breaker 
if something in the equipment fails and causes the equipment chassis to 
be hot. In other words, it's electrical safety. Using a separate ground 
conductor for this function, even if it is bonded to other grounds, is 
prohibited because the return path is highly inductive, making the 
fuse/breaker blow more slowly.

And using only a driven rod at the equipment with NO ground conductor 
from the panel to the load is CRAZY unsafe, because the earth is 
basically a big resistor, and doesn't conduct enough current to blow the 
breaker. In my life in pro audio, we ran into dumbos who insisted on a 
separate "clean audio ground," not connected to the building ground. 
Mondo unsafe, for the reasons stated, and it does nothing to make audio 
systems cleaner.

73, Jim K9YC


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Wed Jul 27 03:25:40 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 03:25:40 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>
References: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>
Message-ID: <16c23223-b441-85f5-674d-00e28864e54f@tm.net>

I'm referring to major industries, like chemical plants, Petroleum 
industry, etc, not companies that sell to consumers.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/27/2016 Wednesday 12:33 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:52:16 -0400
> From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
>
> For you, or us on a small scale (and time to make sure the bolts are
> clean), it may be, but apparently for industry, it's not.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
> ##  say what ?   Blue loctite is used all the time in the automotive and race car world.  Put blue
> loctite on the  6 x  .375  SS  bolts that hold an OR-2800  rotor to the rotor plate...and  you wont be
> having bolts coming loose anytime soon.   I used blue loctite in loads of places on my Roush mustang,
> nothing comes loose... including the new one piece AL driveshaft..which spins at 6500 rpm.
> Plenty of local folks here in town also use Red loctite  for automotive applications.
> Purple loctite is weaker than blue loctite, and is another alternative.  Red is the strongest.
>
> ##  I would not use red loctite for small stuff like machine screw size.... otherwise you will never get em out, they will
> be as good as welded into place.
>
> ##  UST  uses  nylocks for all   22  pulleys  used on my HDX-689.   Non of them loosen up.   Between  nylocks and
> blue / purple  loctite, you are covered.
>
> Jim   VE7RF
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From cbrown at woods.net  Wed Jul 27 04:56:40 2016
From: cbrown at woods.net (Christopher Brown)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:56:40 -0800
Subject: [TowerTalk] Does prevailing grounding scheme promote large
 ground loop?
In-Reply-To: <a9807aa6-1521-e9a4-0aec-1659ac613917@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <f1bb7e55-63e8-8613-9099-f4bd66f2ccd8@centurylink.net>
	<5797AA38.7030308@pacbell.net>
	<6d63ee94-e761-c799-d4fa-27ec874be0ff@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<57980FD0.6060808@pacbell.net> <579846F8.8040601@woods.net>
	<a9807aa6-1521-e9a4-0aec-1659ac613917@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <57987748.8030405@woods.net>



On 7/26/16 22:54, Jim Brown wrote:
> On Tue,7/26/2016 10:30 PM, Christopher Brown wrote:
>> If you dig a bit there is language about supplemental and supplementary
>> grounding electrodes.  I forget which is which, but one is bonded to the
>> GES via #6 or larger bonding run, the other is not.
> 
> NEC places very little importance on the quality of the connection to 
> earth. It calls for some maximum value of resistance to earth (25 
> ohms?), and if a single rod does not provide it, a second rod must be 
> driven. That's ALL it says!  What matters, and what is says a LOT about, 
> is BONDING -- that is, how grounded equipment and earth electrodes and 
> parts of the system are connected together.

That and maintaining the seperation of the grounded (neutral) and
grounding (green wire) conductors at ALL places except the designated
bond location at the "source" of a SDS (seperately derived system).
Also critical is detecting the prior work of idiots that swap the two
conductors or think that connecting the ground lug of a 3 prong outlet
to the neutral in a faux 2 prong to 2 prong conversion is OK...  A swap
or extra bond + a neutral break is a serious safety hazard.

> And using only a driven rod at the equipment with NO ground conductor 
> from the panel to the load is CRAZY unsafe, because the earth is 
> basically a big resistor, and doesn't conduct enough current to blow the 
> breaker. In my life in pro audio, we ran into dumbos who insisted on a 
> separate "clean audio ground," not connected to the building ground. 
> Mondo unsafe, for the reasons stated, and it does nothing to make audio 
> systems cleaner.
> 
> 73, Jim K9YC

Agreed, absolute safety hazard, totally breaks the function.  Seen that
one many times myself with clueless installers of communications
hardware...Almost as common as using bare copper wire on tin
electroplated wire-wrap posts instead of wire-wrap wire that is itself
electroplated.  Works well enough for audio-band stuff, but BER
nightmare for anything else after 1 - 5 years depending on humidity.

I have seen a few cases where a _DEEP_ driven (20+ foot rod) bonded to
the grounding conductor was useful, but think LONG runs in an unusual
environment (repair facility with both monster conventional and RF
welding systems), and the key there, _not separate_, in addition to the
long grounding conduction that ran with the phase and neutral conductors
all the way back to the panel.






From jdlambrightatty at gmail.com  Sun Jul 24 11:09:12 2016
From: jdlambrightatty at gmail.com (J D Lambright)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 10:09:12 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <98caba32-1990-be6a-ffaa-f932bf7e1d75@bk-lk.com>
References: <CAM7owYZGq8SyePWdVyoQV1=nW8iF2HtaZwTXkerrZHkkeP5VCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<98caba32-1990-be6a-ffaa-f932bf7e1d75@bk-lk.com>
Message-ID: <CAM7owYbvikqXSXquzgB=vanA-JCijYEH650XJnZQV9YdVyRc=g@mail.gmail.com>

I replaced the totally corroded limit switches with the exact same ones
that came with the towers.  The towers had been laying horizontal for
several years, and water had gotten inside the limit switch body.

They are GE CR115LB1 with 1NO - 1NC contacts and 1/2 inch npt fitting.
They are marked type 1,4,13, A600 P300.

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Les Kalmus <w2lk at bk-lk.com> wrote:

> Which kind of limit switch did you buy?
>
> Les W2LK
>
>
> On 7/23/2016 7:43 PM, J D Lambright wrote:
>
>> I have two US Tower HDX-589MDPL towers.  When I purchased them, both
>> control boxes on the towers were extremely rusted inside and in terrible
>> condition.  I started from scratch and built 2 new control boxes with all
>> new components. Also, I replaced the cables running from the control box
>> to
>> the limit switches to the motor, and to the 120v power source. (I also
>> replaced each motor, as they were in really bad condition and locked up).
>> I enclosed each of these cables in flexible conduit with watertight
>> fittings. I simply used the UST wiring diagram and made mine exactly like
>> the original ones.  They are very simple and very inexpensive.
>>
>> I paid around $45 at Home Depot for each metal weatherproof box, and all
>> the other components are very cheap.  I spent less than $100 total on each
>> completed box.  They now look and function like new.
>>
>> One of the limit switches on each tower was completely rusted inside, so I
>> replaced them a couple of weeks ago.  UST's price on the limit switches
>> was
>> way too high, so I bought 5 of them brand new and in the box from a
>> surplus
>> electronics place on the internet.  They cost me $35 each.
>>
>> J D - KF5U
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
>
>

From jdlambrightatty at gmail.com  Sun Jul 24 13:39:55 2016
From: jdlambrightatty at gmail.com (J D Lambright)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:39:55 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box, J D Lambright KF5U
Message-ID: <CAM7owYYFxhGGWCYeKKVvsLBUE15scdQduNnmx4PVcAWVV0BNDg@mail.gmail.com>

I used 3 separate barrier strip terminal blocks.  Two are 4-pole, dual row
and the 3rd is a 3-pole, dual row. Both are readily available at a number
of places for $4 - $6 each.  I may have gotten mine at Fry's Electronics,
but I'm not positive.

The switch is a 3PDT (On / Off / On) that I purchased on the internet. Mine
is labeled Carling Technologies.  It's rated 15A @ 125VAC and 10A @
250VAC.  I paid about $11.  Here is a link where I bought mine.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CARLING-TECHNOLOGIES-HM254-73-Toggle-Switch-3PDT-On-Off-On-/381013062121



The brass cartridge fuse is readily available from Home Depot (SKU #
624138)and elsewhere.  They also have the fuse holder.  Mine is made by
Cooper Bussmann.  They are about $2.50 for a 2-pack.

I used a 10'  x 10" x 4" NEMA 3R metal enclosure (also from Home Depot for
$40.76 - SKU # 328108), The size is perfect for his project.

The rest of the components are crimp on terminals and wire.  It's a very
easy and inexpensive project.

From jdlambrightatty at gmail.com  Sun Jul 24 14:01:34 2016
From: jdlambrightatty at gmail.com (J D Lambright)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 13:01:34 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
Message-ID: <CAM7owYau=YTESRWxBD3ezn6mNtuBGOvvGPCB1_Jhw9hTpbyVsA@mail.gmail.com>

I replaced the totally corroded limit switches with the exact same ones
that came with the HDX-589MDPL towers.  The towers had been laying
horizontal for several years, and water had gotten inside the limit switch
body.

They are GE CR115LB1 with 1NO - 1NC contacts and 1/2 inch npt fitting.
They are marked type 1,4,13, A600 P300.

J D Lambright
KF5U

From jdlambrightatty at gmail.com  Sun Jul 24 22:00:50 2016
From: jdlambrightatty at gmail.com (J D Lambright)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 21:00:50 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: New Control Box
In-Reply-To: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>
References: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>

Here is the wiring diagram for the UST MCL-100 control box.


J D Lambright - KF5U

From jdlambrightatty at gmail.com  Sun Jul 24 22:04:24 2016
From: jdlambrightatty at gmail.com (J D Lambright)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 21:04:24 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
Message-ID: <CAM7owYbfriMi2MLWQyooS3x7q1j2YYifXPVY-a9Z+6SN5bpSRw@mail.gmail.com>

I have a copy of the factory wiring diagram for the UST MCL-100 control
box.  Just send me a note if you would like a copy.


J D Lambright - KF5U

From k6uj at pacbell.net  Wed Jul 27 11:30:38 2016
From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Bob K6UJ)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 08:30:38 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <CAM7owYbvikqXSXquzgB=vanA-JCijYEH650XJnZQV9YdVyRc=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM7owYZGq8SyePWdVyoQV1=nW8iF2HtaZwTXkerrZHkkeP5VCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<98caba32-1990-be6a-ffaa-f932bf7e1d75@bk-lk.com>
	<CAM7owYbvikqXSXquzgB=vanA-JCijYEH650XJnZQV9YdVyRc=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5c55865d-5fa7-b3c1-4a90-c95921676c7d@pacbell.net>

Thanks for the info on the limit switches.  I am going to replace the 
ones on my HDX589MDPL.
They still work OK but it they have been there of quite a few years.
A little preventive maintenance...........

Bob
K6UJ

On 7/24/16 8:09 AM, J D Lambright wrote:
> I replaced the totally corroded limit switches with the exact same ones
> that came with the towers.  The towers had been laying horizontal for
> several years, and water had gotten inside the limit switch body.
>
> They are GE CR115LB1 with 1NO - 1NC contacts and 1/2 inch npt fitting.
> They are marked type 1,4,13, A600 P300.
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Les Kalmus <w2lk at bk-lk.com> wrote:
>
>> Which kind of limit switch did you buy?
>>
>> Les W2LK
>>
>>
>> On 7/23/2016 7:43 PM, J D Lambright wrote:
>>
>>> I have two US Tower HDX-589MDPL towers.  When I purchased them, both
>>> control boxes on the towers were extremely rusted inside and in terrible
>>> condition.  I started from scratch and built 2 new control boxes with all
>>> new components. Also, I replaced the cables running from the control box
>>> to
>>> the limit switches to the motor, and to the 120v power source. (I also
>>> replaced each motor, as they were in really bad condition and locked up).
>>> I enclosed each of these cables in flexible conduit with watertight
>>> fittings. I simply used the UST wiring diagram and made mine exactly like
>>> the original ones.  They are very simple and very inexpensive.
>>>
>>> I paid around $45 at Home Depot for each metal weatherproof box, and all
>>> the other components are very cheap.  I spent less than $100 total on each
>>> completed box.  They now look and function like new.
>>>
>>> One of the limit switches on each tower was completely rusted inside, so I
>>> replaced them a couple of weeks ago.  UST's price on the limit switches
>>> was
>>> way too high, so I bought 5 of them brand new and in the box from a
>>> surplus
>>> electronics place on the internet.  They cost me $35 each.
>>>
>>> J D - KF5U
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>


From keepwalking188 at ac0c.com  Wed Jul 27 09:03:55 2016
From: keepwalking188 at ac0c.com (Jeff AC0C)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 21:03:55 +0800
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <35a2d5f6781ea33ef191b4ec5f83c4a3.squirrel@webmail.mailadmin.no>
References: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>
	<35a2d5f6781ea33ef191b4ec5f83c4a3.squirrel@webmail.mailadmin.no>
Message-ID: <A21ACFD939D946D4A618C85D405F13C5@w520>

I would second Jim's advice on locktite red.  I would use that only on 
something that I really wanted to never come off.  In some cases I have had 
to use a torch on a nut bound by red.  Looking at the stuff you would not 
believe it could hold that well but in some cases it definitely does...

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Stein-Roar Brobakken RagLB3RE
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 2:02 PM
To: Jim Thomson
Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison

Hi
Loctite have not only Blue 241, but also green, blue and purple :)

Ligth tention 222 Purple
Medium tention 243 Blue
High tention 263  Red
Wicking 290  Green > Need heating to get realesed.

Else you can use Nor-Lock washer to really be safe ...
http://img-europe.electrocomponents.com/images/C180532-63.jpg

73s LB3RE Rag


Den ons, juli 27, 2016, 06:33 skrev Jim Thomson:
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:52:16 -0400
> From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
>
> For you, or us on a small scale (and time to make sure the bolts are
> clean), it may be, but apparently for industry, it's not.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
> ##  say what ?   Blue loctite is used all the time in the automotive and
> race car world.  Put blue
> loctite on the  6 x  .375  SS  bolts that hold an OR-2800  rotor to the
> rotor plate...and  you wont be
> having bolts coming loose anytime soon.   I used blue loctite in loads of
> places on my Roush mustang,
> nothing comes loose... including the new one piece AL driveshaft..which
> spins at 6500 rpm.
> Plenty of local folks here in town also use Red loctite  for automotive
> applications.
> Purple loctite is weaker than blue loctite, and is another alternative.
> Red is the strongest.
>
> ##  I would not use red loctite for small stuff like machine screw
> size.... otherwise you will never get em out, they will
> be as good as welded into place.
>
> ##  UST  uses  nylocks for all   22  pulleys  used on my HDX-689.   Non of
> them loosen up.   Between  nylocks and
> blue / purple  loctite, you are covered.
>
> Jim   VE7RF
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


Best Regards Stein-Roar "Rag"

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk 


From k6uj at pacbell.net  Wed Jul 27 12:10:26 2016
From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Bob K6UJ)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 09:10:26 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <16c23223-b441-85f5-674d-00e28864e54f@tm.net>
References: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>
	<16c23223-b441-85f5-674d-00e28864e54f@tm.net>
Message-ID: <dd9c3e81-b8e5-a688-4d99-97deeb1e65f5@pacbell.net>

FWIW,  I retired from Chevron after 28 years.  Worked in three of their 
oil refineries and
the last 7 years at their Research Center in Richmond, CA.
On mechanical fasteners used on vibrating machinery, pumps, compressors, 
etc.  Red locktite
was the standard along with proper torquing.  It should be mentioned in 
this discussion that
you should find the correct torque specification and use a torque wrench 
to tighten the
bolted connections too.  Red locktite and proper torquing should give 
you positive results on all
but the most severe connections.  Having said that, I am impressed with 
the NordLock washers
and am trying them out on my Orion 2800. From what I learned they should 
be the ultimate in locking.
I will report back in about 10 years and let you know how my OR 2800 
bolts are doing. :-)

Bob
K6UJ


On 7/27/16 12:25 AM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
> I'm referring to major industries, like chemical plants, Petroleum 
> industry, etc, not companies that sell to consumers.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>
> On 7/27/2016 Wednesday 12:33 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:52:16 -0400
>> From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
>> To: towertalk at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
>>
>> For you, or us on a small scale (and time to make sure the bolts are
>> clean), it may be, but apparently for industry, it's not.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>> ##  say what ?   Blue loctite is used all the time in the automotive 
>> and race car world.  Put blue
>> loctite on the  6 x  .375  SS  bolts that hold an OR-2800  rotor to 
>> the rotor plate...and  you wont be
>> having bolts coming loose anytime soon.   I used blue loctite in 
>> loads of places on my Roush mustang,
>> nothing comes loose... including the new one piece AL 
>> driveshaft..which spins at 6500 rpm.
>> Plenty of local folks here in town also use Red loctite  for 
>> automotive applications.
>> Purple loctite is weaker than blue loctite, and is another 
>> alternative.  Red is the strongest.
>>
>> ##  I would not use red loctite for small stuff like machine screw 
>> size.... otherwise you will never get em out, they will
>> be as good as welded into place.
>>
>> ##  UST  uses  nylocks for all   22  pulleys  used on my HDX-689.   
>> Non of them loosen up.   Between  nylocks and
>> blue / purple  loctite, you are covered.
>>
>> Jim   VE7RF
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>


From wj4x at amsat.org  Wed Jul 27 13:38:04 2016
From: wj4x at amsat.org (wj4x at amsat.org)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:38:04 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <dd9c3e81-b8e5-a688-4d99-97deeb1e65f5@pacbell.net>
References: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>
	<16c23223-b441-85f5-674d-00e28864e54f@tm.net>
	<dd9c3e81-b8e5-a688-4d99-97deeb1e65f5@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <9f7ee34e-65c6-5a66-6a99-c4ed8b19fc02@gmail.com>

I've had extremely good luck with NordLock washers in high vibration
applications.

http://www.nord-lock.com/nord-lock/wedge-locking/washers/introduction/

73!
 -Adam WJ4X


On 7/27/2016 12:10 PM, Bob K6UJ wrote:
> FWIW,  I retired from Chevron after 28 years.  Worked in three of their
> oil refineries and
> the last 7 years at their Research Center in Richmond, CA.
> On mechanical fasteners used on vibrating machinery, pumps, compressors,
> etc.  Red locktite
> was the standard along with proper torquing.  It should be mentioned in
> this discussion that
> you should find the correct torque specification and use a torque wrench
> to tighten the
> bolted connections too.  Red locktite and proper torquing should give
> you positive results on all
> but the most severe connections.  Having said that, I am impressed with
> the NordLock washers
> and am trying them out on my Orion 2800. From what I learned they should
> be the ultimate in locking.
> I will report back in about 10 years and let you know how my OR 2800
> bolts are doing. :-)
> 
> Bob
> K6UJ
> 

From w2lk at bk-lk.com  Wed Jul 27 14:10:17 2016
From: w2lk at bk-lk.com (Les Kalmus)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:10:17 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <5c55865d-5fa7-b3c1-4a90-c95921676c7d@pacbell.net>
References: <CAM7owYZGq8SyePWdVyoQV1=nW8iF2HtaZwTXkerrZHkkeP5VCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<98caba32-1990-be6a-ffaa-f932bf7e1d75@bk-lk.com>
	<CAM7owYbvikqXSXquzgB=vanA-JCijYEH650XJnZQV9YdVyRc=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5c55865d-5fa7-b3c1-4a90-c95921676c7d@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <d4f5ab55-e344-73a0-c80d-b406c1eb8fb8@bk-lk.com>

Bob,

I have two UST towers. One uses these switches and the other, newer, one 
uses Allen Bradley 802T-AP Ser J switches. I bought one new on eBay for 
a fraction of what UST wanted.

Les W2LK


On 7/27/2016 11:30 AM, Bob K6UJ wrote:
> Thanks for the info on the limit switches.  I am going to replace the 
> ones on my HDX589MDPL.
> They still work OK but it they have been there of quite a few years.
> A little preventive maintenance...........
>
> Bob
> K6UJ
>
> On 7/24/16 8:09 AM, J D Lambright wrote:
>> I replaced the totally corroded limit switches with the exact same ones
>> that came with the towers.  The towers had been laying horizontal for
>> several years, and water had gotten inside the limit switch body.
>>
>> They are GE CR115LB1 with 1NO - 1NC contacts and 1/2 inch npt fitting.
>> They are marked type 1,4,13, A600 P300.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Les Kalmus <w2lk at bk-lk.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Which kind of limit switch did you buy?
>>>
>>> Les W2LK
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/23/2016 7:43 PM, J D Lambright wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have two US Tower HDX-589MDPL towers.  When I purchased them, both
>>>> control boxes on the towers were extremely rusted inside and in 
>>>> terrible
>>>> condition.  I started from scratch and built 2 new control boxes 
>>>> with all
>>>> new components. Also, I replaced the cables running from the 
>>>> control box
>>>> to
>>>> the limit switches to the motor, and to the 120v power source. (I also
>>>> replaced each motor, as they were in really bad condition and 
>>>> locked up).
>>>> I enclosed each of these cables in flexible conduit with watertight
>>>> fittings. I simply used the UST wiring diagram and made mine 
>>>> exactly like
>>>> the original ones.  They are very simple and very inexpensive.
>>>>
>>>> I paid around $45 at Home Depot for each metal weatherproof box, 
>>>> and all
>>>> the other components are very cheap.  I spent less than $100 total 
>>>> on each
>>>> completed box.  They now look and function like new.
>>>>
>>>> One of the limit switches on each tower was completely rusted 
>>>> inside, so I
>>>> replaced them a couple of weeks ago.  UST's price on the limit 
>>>> switches
>>>> was
>>>> way too high, so I bought 5 of them brand new and in the box from a
>>>> surplus
>>>> electronics place on the internet.  They cost me $35 each.
>>>>
>>>> J D - KF5U
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From k6uj at pacbell.net  Wed Jul 27 14:15:25 2016
From: k6uj at pacbell.net (Bob K6UJ)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:15:25 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Looking for UST Control Box
In-Reply-To: <d4f5ab55-e344-73a0-c80d-b406c1eb8fb8@bk-lk.com>
References: <CAM7owYZGq8SyePWdVyoQV1=nW8iF2HtaZwTXkerrZHkkeP5VCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<98caba32-1990-be6a-ffaa-f932bf7e1d75@bk-lk.com>
	<CAM7owYbvikqXSXquzgB=vanA-JCijYEH650XJnZQV9YdVyRc=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5c55865d-5fa7-b3c1-4a90-c95921676c7d@pacbell.net>
	<d4f5ab55-e344-73a0-c80d-b406c1eb8fb8@bk-lk.com>
Message-ID: <ac77c735-4c7c-7f2a-4240-e94fd24fa547@pacbell.net>

thanks Les,
I will check to see which ones my tower uses.

Bob
K6UJ

On 7/27/16 11:10 AM, Les Kalmus wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I have two UST towers. One uses these switches and the other, newer, 
> one uses Allen Bradley 802T-AP Ser J switches. I bought one new on 
> eBay for a fraction of what UST wanted.
>
> Les W2LK
>
>
> On 7/27/2016 11:30 AM, Bob K6UJ wrote:
>> Thanks for the info on the limit switches.  I am going to replace the 
>> ones on my HDX589MDPL.
>> They still work OK but it they have been there of quite a few years.
>> A little preventive maintenance...........
>>
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>>
>> On 7/24/16 8:09 AM, J D Lambright wrote:
>>> I replaced the totally corroded limit switches with the exact same ones
>>> that came with the towers.  The towers had been laying horizontal for
>>> several years, and water had gotten inside the limit switch body.
>>>
>>> They are GE CR115LB1 with 1NO - 1NC contacts and 1/2 inch npt fitting.
>>> They are marked type 1,4,13, A600 P300.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Les Kalmus <w2lk at bk-lk.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Which kind of limit switch did you buy?
>>>>
>>>> Les W2LK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/23/2016 7:43 PM, J D Lambright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have two US Tower HDX-589MDPL towers.  When I purchased them, both
>>>>> control boxes on the towers were extremely rusted inside and in 
>>>>> terrible
>>>>> condition.  I started from scratch and built 2 new control boxes 
>>>>> with all
>>>>> new components. Also, I replaced the cables running from the 
>>>>> control box
>>>>> to
>>>>> the limit switches to the motor, and to the 120v power source. (I 
>>>>> also
>>>>> replaced each motor, as they were in really bad condition and 
>>>>> locked up).
>>>>> I enclosed each of these cables in flexible conduit with watertight
>>>>> fittings. I simply used the UST wiring diagram and made mine 
>>>>> exactly like
>>>>> the original ones.  They are very simple and very inexpensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> I paid around $45 at Home Depot for each metal weatherproof box, 
>>>>> and all
>>>>> the other components are very cheap.  I spent less than $100 total 
>>>>> on each
>>>>> completed box.  They now look and function like new.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the limit switches on each tower was completely rusted 
>>>>> inside, so I
>>>>> replaced them a couple of weeks ago.  UST's price on the limit 
>>>>> switches
>>>>> was
>>>>> way too high, so I bought 5 of them brand new and in the box from a
>>>>> surplus
>>>>> electronics place on the internet.  They cost me $35 each.
>>>>>
>>>>> J D - KF5U
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


From bswadener at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 27 16:22:31 2016
From: bswadener at yahoo.com (Bryan Swadener)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 20:22:31 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <mailman.6503.1469633762.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
References: <mailman.6503.1469633762.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <1389693744.5370229.1469650951855.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>

Thread lock compound isn't really permanent.?Heat causes thread lock compound to release.
I use Loctite 262 "High Strength Stud & Bearing?Mount" to hold the shift?levers in place on my
racecar's A833 four speed.?When it's time to?R&R the gearbox, a propane torch works to
heat it up, and the fasteners can then be?removed. From?Loctite FAQ:

Q:??I cannot get an assembly apart where a threadlocker was used. What solvent will break the
threadlocker down?
A:?No solvent will wick into the joint to break the threadlocker down. This is either hand tool
removable at room temperature or if not, it requires high temperatures of 450-600?F to separate
parts.

vy 73,
Bryan WA7PRC
NHRA ET6201
 
     Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016
From: Jeff AC0C
To: Stein-Roar Brobakken RagLB3RE, Jim Thomson
Cc: TowerTalk
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison

I would second Jim's advice on locktite red.? I would use that only on 
something that I really wanted to never come off.? In some cases I have had 
to use a torch on a nut bound by red.? Looking at the stuff you would not 
believe it could hold that well but in some cases it definitely does...

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
   

From grants2 at pacbell.net  Wed Jul 27 22:15:38 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:15:38 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>
References: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>
Message-ID: <57996ACA.5050707@pacbell.net>

It's generally true that Loctite works, but some cautions.  Most Loctite 
sets when deprived of oxygen and exposed to iron, although there are 
versions for other metals but not likely found at your hardware store.  
Their little bottles are oxygen permeable.  I learned this at a Loctite 
seminar, go if you can find one.

Surfaces need to be clean, the opposite of what is desirable for 
structural fasteners that should be lubricated.  A325 5/8" hot dip 
galvanized structural bolts I've bought for Rohn 65 tower leg flanges 
have had a blue wax coating.  So they are "1 for 3" (no O2 is ok, no 
exposed Fe not ok, not clean not ok) re using Loctite. Hence these bolts 
got NordLocks.  Thru leg bolts in shear such as R25/45  don't have the 
axial stress cycling of flange leg towers, so most any nut that doesn't 
fall off is fine.

If there is a question about Loctite setting up, apply the Activator 
before assembly.  All grades are in my shop and used.

Another place I use Nordlocks is for rotator base bolts.  Since aluminum 
has about 2x the expansion per degree F as steel (alloys and temper make 
big differences), there is temperature cycling of the bolt load.  It is 
also the case that I don't want to mess with Loctited bolts when on the 
tower, but with the cautions, it works. Used rotators I've bought always 
seem to have roughed up base threads, and a Helicoil insert is the 
ultimate fix, since they are stronger than the raw aluminum threads.

Nylocks everywhere else.

Grant KZ1W


On 7/26/2016 21:33 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:52:16 -0400
> From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
>
> For you, or us on a small scale (and time to make sure the bolts are
> clean), it may be, but apparently for industry, it's not.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
> ##  say what ?   Blue loctite is used all the time in the automotive and race car world.  Put blue
> loctite on the  6 x  .375  SS  bolts that hold an OR-2800  rotor to the rotor plate...and  you wont be
> having bolts coming loose anytime soon.   I used blue loctite in loads of places on my Roush mustang,
> nothing comes loose... including the new one piece AL driveshaft..which spins at 6500 rpm.
> Plenty of local folks here in town also use Red loctite  for automotive applications.
> Purple loctite is weaker than blue loctite, and is another alternative.  Red is the strongest.
>
> ##  I would not use red loctite for small stuff like machine screw size.... otherwise you will never get em out, they will
> be as good as welded into place.
>
> ##  UST  uses  nylocks for all   22  pulleys  used on my HDX-689.   Non of them loosen up.   Between  nylocks and
> blue / purple  loctite, you are covered.
>
> Jim   VE7RF
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From gm3sek at ifwtech.co.uk  Thu Jul 28 03:48:35 2016
From: gm3sek at ifwtech.co.uk (Ian White)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:48:35 +0100
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <57996ACA.5050707@pacbell.net>
References: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>
	<57996ACA.5050707@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <00e201d1e8a4$76f085d0$64d19170$@co.uk>

Grant KZ1W wrote:

>Another place I use Nordlocks is for rotator base bolts.  Since
aluminum
>has about 2x the expansion per degree F as steel (alloys and temper
make
>big differences), there is temperature cycling of the bolt load.  It is
>also the case that I don't want to mess with Loctited bolts when on the
>tower, but with the cautions, it works. Used rotators I've bought
always
>seem to have roughed up base threads, and a Helicoil insert is the
>ultimate fix, since they are stronger than the raw aluminum threads.
>

If the threads in aluminium rotator castings aren't too badly damaged, a
simple alternative is to use RED Loctite to fix short threaded studs
permanently into the rotator base. (Even better, insert set-screws from
inside the base casting to leave protruding studs, and again use Red
Loctite.) During installation, the studs pass through the holes in the
tower plate, locating the rotator safely in its correct position even
before you add the nuts and washers.

>Nylocks everywhere else.

Make that NEW Nylocs, every time. 

Threaded studding can also be used to rescue damaged threads in the bell
casting on Ham-IV and similar rotators. Again, clean out the threads and
insert stainless steel studs, fixed permanently in place using Red
Loctite. Then use Nyloc nuts to secure the two castings together.
(Because the original self-tapping screws cause corrosion damage in the
aluminium casting, you may need to re-tap the holes to a slightly larger
size. Although you may lose some thread engagement, the Red Loctite will
help fill the gaps.)  


73 from Ian GM3SEK



From wj4xham at gmail.com  Thu Jul 28 10:45:14 2016
From: wj4xham at gmail.com (Adam WJ4X)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:45:14 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <00e201d1e8a4$76f085d0$64d19170$@co.uk>
References: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>
	<57996ACA.5050707@pacbell.net> <00e201d1e8a4$76f085d0$64d19170$@co.uk>
Message-ID: <0cb288f3-d37a-4570-0fdc-6acec037aa4b@gmail.com>

If you use loctite in aluminum, make sure you use primer or it won't set
properly.

73!
 -Adam
  WJ4X

On 7/28/2016 3:48 AM, Ian White wrote:
> Grant KZ1W wrote:
> 
> 
> If the threads in aluminium rotator castings aren't too badly damaged, a
> simple alternative is to use RED Loctite to fix short threaded studs
> permanently into the rotator base. (Even better, insert set-screws from
> inside the base casting to leave protruding studs, and again use Red
> Loctite.) During installation, the studs pass through the holes in the
> tower plate, locating the rotator safely in its correct position even
> before you add the nuts and washers.
> 

From kf5jra at oneinsane.org  Thu Jul 28 10:46:53 2016
From: kf5jra at oneinsane.org (Ron 'KF5jRA' Rosson)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:46:53 -0600
Subject: [TowerTalk] Roof-Top Tower Raising
Message-ID: <16E0AEEF-1A11-4C12-AB1B-E303104AFFAD@oneinsane.org>

Attn: Anyone in the area of Fort Collins/Loveland, CO area!

I am attempting to install a Glen Martin RT-936 roof-top tower with a Ham-iV rotator, 6? mast, and a K4KIO 6 band hex beam. Everything is staged and ready for installation. The only thing I am missing is additional bodies to help me get it installed and validate what I have.

This is my first major antenna installation and am also looking for validation.  :)

--
73 de KF5JRA
Ron

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Thu Jul 28 13:17:35 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:17:35 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Roof-Top Tower Raising
In-Reply-To: <16E0AEEF-1A11-4C12-AB1B-E303104AFFAD@oneinsane.org>
References: <16E0AEEF-1A11-4C12-AB1B-E303104AFFAD@oneinsane.org>
Message-ID: <5f5df622-6ddc-822f-8495-da4f2bb9cc44@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Thu,7/28/2016 7:46 AM, Ron 'KF5jRA' Rosson wrote:
> The only thing I am missing is additional bodies to help me get it installed and validate what I have.

Are you a member of any local or regional ham clubs? This is where most 
of us find help for projects like this, as well as lots of learning, 
sharing of knowledge, and other support. Some clubs are more dynamic 
than others, so it's worth looking around.

73, Jim K9YC


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Thu Jul 28 20:47:35 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:47:35 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <dd9c3e81-b8e5-a688-4d99-97deeb1e65f5@pacbell.net>
References: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>
	<16c23223-b441-85f5-674d-00e28864e54f@tm.net>
	<dd9c3e81-b8e5-a688-4d99-97deeb1e65f5@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <b0a7fbcd-c0c0-7a73-61eb-77b72b5226e4@tm.net>

That's the first I'd heard from that industry and I'm sure there are 
others, but most I talked to over the years didn't use locktite 
compounds once NordLocks became available.
I worked in a metal stamping plant (first job) and chemical plants in MI 
and KY.  None used LockTite. I don't know the reasoning.

73

Roger (K8RII)

On 7/27/2016 Wednesday 12:10 PM, Bob K6UJ wrote:
> FWIW,  I retired from Chevron after 28 years.  Worked in three of 
> their oil refineries and
> the last 7 years at their Research Center in Richmond, CA.
> On mechanical fasteners used on vibrating machinery, pumps, 
> compressors, etc.  Red locktite
> was the standard along with proper torquing.  It should be mentioned 
> in this discussion that
> you should find the correct torque specification and use a torque 
> wrench to tighten the
> bolted connections too.  Red locktite and proper torquing should give 
> you positive results on all
> but the most severe connections.  Having said that, I am impressed 
> with the NordLock washers
> and am trying them out on my Orion 2800. From what I learned they 
> should be the ultimate in locking.
> I will report back in about 10 years and let you know how my OR 2800 
> bolts are doing. :-)
>
> Bob
> K6UJ
>
>
> On 7/27/16 12:25 AM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
>> I'm referring to major industries, like chemical plants, Petroleum 
>> industry, etc, not companies that sell to consumers.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>>
>> On 7/27/2016 Wednesday 12:33 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
>>> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:52:16 -0400
>>> From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
>>> To: towertalk at contesting.com
>>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
>>>
>>> For you, or us on a small scale (and time to make sure the bolts are
>>> clean), it may be, but apparently for industry, it's not.
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> Roger (K8RI)
>>>
>>> ##  say what ?   Blue loctite is used all the time in the automotive 
>>> and race car world.  Put blue
>>> loctite on the  6 x  .375  SS  bolts that hold an OR-2800 rotor to 
>>> the rotor plate...and  you wont be
>>> having bolts coming loose anytime soon.   I used blue loctite in 
>>> loads of places on my Roush mustang,
>>> nothing comes loose... including the new one piece AL 
>>> driveshaft..which spins at 6500 rpm.
>>> Plenty of local folks here in town also use Red loctite  for 
>>> automotive applications.
>>> Purple loctite is weaker than blue loctite, and is another 
>>> alternative.  Red is the strongest.
>>>
>>> ##  I would not use red loctite for small stuff like machine screw 
>>> size.... otherwise you will never get em out, they will
>>> be as good as welded into place.
>>>
>>> ##  UST  uses  nylocks for all   22  pulleys  used on my HDX-689.   
>>> Non of them loosen up.   Between  nylocks and
>>> blue / purple  loctite, you are covered.
>>>
>>> Jim   VE7RF
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Thu Jul 28 22:24:48 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 22:24:48 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <00e201d1e8a4$76f085d0$64d19170$@co.uk>
References: <1EC92B87E91942E5AADC8A9F554CF479@JimPC>
	<57996ACA.5050707@pacbell.net> <00e201d1e8a4$76f085d0$64d19170$@co.uk>
Message-ID: <10c66644-d61f-f1d8-5c3d-03db7ba66504@tm.net>

There are Helicoil steel thread replacement inserts that work really 
well and were inexpensive the last time I used them.

Others like Nordlocks, while I've had very bad luck with them.  We are 
nowhere near being downwind from industrial centers with the Chicago 
area at near 200 miles, but the Nylon inserts just seem to dissolve away 
in a year or two. None have made it past two years. I'd like them if 
they'd last, but here? They are short term only. If the threads are shot 
a bolt through from the inside with the head epoxied in place has worked 
for me as a stud. The mount to accessory plate is not precision and 
there are usually enough threads left to screw the bolt through.

I can find no reason for their short life. I thought it was IR as nylon 
rope breaks down and gets stiff out in the weather, but others in areas 
with far more sunshine than we have said they had no problems.

I'd advise drilling a small drain hole, but not large enough for 
Muddobbers to get in. They ruined the matching network on an AV640 for me.

The SS bolt with NordLock nuts would be ideal if I could get them to last.

73

Roger (K8RI)



On 7/28/2016 Thursday 3:48 AM, Ian White wrote:
> Grant KZ1W wrote:
>
>> Another place I use Nordlocks is for rotator base bolts.  Since
> aluminum
>> has about 2x the expansion per degree F as steel (alloys and temper
> make
>> big differences), there is temperature cycling of the bolt load.  It is
>> also the case that I don't want to mess with Loctited bolts when on the
>> tower, but with the cautions, it works. Used rotators I've bought
> always
>> seem to have roughed up base threads, and a Helicoil insert is the
>> ultimate fix, since they are stronger than the raw aluminum threads.
>>
> If the threads in aluminium rotator castings aren't too badly damaged, a
> simple alternative is to use RED Loctite to fix short threaded studs
> permanently into the rotator base. (Even better, insert set-screws from
> inside the base casting to leave protruding studs, and again use Red
> Loctite.) During installation, the studs pass through the holes in the
> tower plate, locating the rotator safely in its correct position even
> before you add the nuts and washers.
>
>> Nylocks everywhere else.
> Make that NEW Nylocs, every time.
>
> Threaded studding can also be used to rescue damaged threads in the bell
> casting on Ham-IV and similar rotators. Again, clean out the threads and
> insert stainless steel studs, fixed permanently in place using Red
> Loctite. Then use Nyloc nuts to secure the two castings together.
> (Because the original self-tapping screws cause corrosion damage in the
> aluminium casting, you may need to re-tap the holes to a slightly larger
> size. Although you may lose some thread engagement, the Red Loctite will
> help fill the gaps.)
>
>
> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From jim.thom at telus.net  Thu Jul 28 23:09:05 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:09:05 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
Message-ID: <4294F49A0A4A42E08215F4A17320D166@JimPC>

Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:15:38 -0700
From: Grant Saviers <grants2 at pacbell.net>
To: Jim Thomson <jim.thom at telus.net>, towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison

Surfaces need to be clean, the opposite of what is desirable for 
structural fasteners that should be lubricated.  A325 5/8" hot dip 
galvanized structural bolts I've bought for Rohn 65 tower leg flanges 
have had a blue wax coating.  So they are "1 for 3" (no O2 is ok, no 
exposed Fe not ok, not clean not ok) re using Loctite. Hence these bolts 
got NordLocks.  Thru leg bolts in shear such as R25/45  don't have the 
axial stress cycling of flange leg towers, so most any nut that doesn't 
fall off is fine.

Grant KZ1W

##Ok, so what does Rohn supply for nuts, bolts, flat washers and lockwashers,
on their  25/45/55/65   towers ?? 

##  a buddy with  55G... has had one of the leg bolts fall right out, and ended up at base
of the tower !  That was at the junction  of the top 2 x sections. 

##  Internal tooth  and external tooth lock washers usually work pretty reliable. 

Jim  VE7RF


From hanslg at aol.com  Fri Jul 29 00:09:15 2016
From: hanslg at aol.com (Hans Hammarquist)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:09:15 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <10c66644-d61f-f1d8-5c3d-03db7ba66504@tm.net>
Message-ID: <15634d786ca-b49-449e@webprd-m33.mail.aol.com>

When I put up my tower, the sections were bolted together with a special self locking nut. The nuts had three dents in them and there were friction that made it necessary to use a wrench to put them in place. The tower doesn't shake or vibrate that much but I have a tough time to imagine these nut will unscrew themselves.


Anyone else with experience with these kind of lock nuts?


Hans - N2JFS



-----Original Message-----
From: Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 28, 2016 10:31 pm
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison

There are Helicoil steel thread replacement inserts that work really 
well and were inexpensive the last time I used them.

Others like Nordlocks, while I've had very bad luck with them.  We are 
nowhere near being downwind from industrial centers with the Chicago 
area at near 200 miles, but the Nylon inserts just seem to dissolve away 
in a year or two. None have made it past two years. I'd like them if 
they'd last, but here? They are short term only. If the threads are shot 
a bolt through from the inside with the head epoxied in place has worked 
for me as a stud. The mount to accessory plate is not precision and 
there are usually enough threads left to screw the bolt through.

I can find no reason for their short life. I thought it was IR as nylon 
rope breaks down and gets stiff out in the weather, but others in areas 
with far more sunshine than we have said they had no problems.

I'd advise drilling a small drain hole, but not large enough for 
Muddobbers to get in. They ruined the matching network on an AV640 for me.

The SS bolt with NordLock nuts would be ideal if I could get them to last.

73

Roger (K8RI)



On 7/28/2016 Thursday 3:48 AM, Ian White wrote:
> Grant KZ1W wrote:
>
>> Another place I use Nordlocks is for rotator base bolts.  Since
> aluminum
>> has about 2x the expansion per degree F as steel (alloys and temper
> make
>> big differences), there is temperature cycling of the bolt load.  It is
>> also the case that I don't want to mess with Loctited bolts when on the
>> tower, but with the cautions, it works. Used rotators I've bought
> always
>> seem to have roughed up base threads, and a Helicoil insert is the
>> ultimate fix, since they are stronger than the raw aluminum threads.
>>
> If the threads in aluminium rotator castings aren't too badly damaged, a
> simple alternative is to use RED Loctite to fix short threaded studs
> permanently into the rotator base. (Even better, insert set-screws from
> inside the base casting to leave protruding studs, and again use Red
> Loctite.) During installation, the studs pass through the holes in the
> tower plate, locating the rotator safely in its correct position even
> before you add the nuts and washers.
>
>> Nylocks everywhere else.
> Make that NEW Nylocs, every time.
>
> Threaded studding can also be used to rescue damaged threads in the bell
> casting on Ham-IV and similar rotators. Again, clean out the threads and
> insert stainless steel studs, fixed permanently in place using Red
> Loctite. Then use Nyloc nuts to secure the two castings together.
> (Because the original self-tapping screws cause corrosion damage in the
> aluminium casting, you may need to re-tap the holes to a slightly larger
> size. Although you may lose some thread engagement, the Red Loctite will
> help fill the gaps.)
>
>
> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From grants2 at pacbell.net  Fri Jul 29 00:19:37 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 21:19:37 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <15634d786ca-b49-449e@webprd-m33.mail.aol.com>
References: <15634d786ca-b49-449e@webprd-m33.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <579AD959.90305@pacbell.net>

They are commonly available as distorted thread nuts
http://www.mcmaster.com/#hex-nuts/=13hjsuv

They are one time use, and most make the bolt a one time use as well.

One way, if not the cheapest way, to make a locking nut.

Grant KZ1W

On 7/28/2016 21:09 PM, Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk wrote:
> When I put up my tower, the sections were bolted together with a special self locking nut. The nuts had three dents in them and there were friction that made it necessary to use a wrench to put them in place. The tower doesn't shake or vibrate that much but I have a tough time to imagine these nut will unscrew themselves.
>
>
> Anyone else with experience with these kind of lock nuts?
>
>
> Hans - N2JFS
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
> To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Sent: Thu, Jul 28, 2016 10:31 pm
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
>
> There are Helicoil steel thread replacement inserts that work really
> well and were inexpensive the last time I used them.
>
> Others like Nordlocks, while I've had very bad luck with them.  We are
> nowhere near being downwind from industrial centers with the Chicago
> area at near 200 miles, but the Nylon inserts just seem to dissolve away
> in a year or two. None have made it past two years. I'd like them if
> they'd last, but here? They are short term only. If the threads are shot
> a bolt through from the inside with the head epoxied in place has worked
> for me as a stud. The mount to accessory plate is not precision and
> there are usually enough threads left to screw the bolt through.
>
> I can find no reason for their short life. I thought it was IR as nylon
> rope breaks down and gets stiff out in the weather, but others in areas
> with far more sunshine than we have said they had no problems.
>
> I'd advise drilling a small drain hole, but not large enough for
> Muddobbers to get in. They ruined the matching network on an AV640 for me.
>
> The SS bolt with NordLock nuts would be ideal if I could get them to last.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>
>
> On 7/28/2016 Thursday 3:48 AM, Ian White wrote:
>> Grant KZ1W wrote:
>>
>>> Another place I use Nordlocks is for rotator base bolts.  Since
>> aluminum
>>> has about 2x the expansion per degree F as steel (alloys and temper
>> make
>>> big differences), there is temperature cycling of the bolt load.  It is
>>> also the case that I don't want to mess with Loctited bolts when on the
>>> tower, but with the cautions, it works. Used rotators I've bought
>> always
>>> seem to have roughed up base threads, and a Helicoil insert is the
>>> ultimate fix, since they are stronger than the raw aluminum threads.
>>>
>> If the threads in aluminium rotator castings aren't too badly damaged, a
>> simple alternative is to use RED Loctite to fix short threaded studs
>> permanently into the rotator base. (Even better, insert set-screws from
>> inside the base casting to leave protruding studs, and again use Red
>> Loctite.) During installation, the studs pass through the holes in the
>> tower plate, locating the rotator safely in its correct position even
>> before you add the nuts and washers.
>>
>>> Nylocks everywhere else.
>> Make that NEW Nylocs, every time.
>>
>> Threaded studding can also be used to rescue damaged threads in the bell
>> casting on Ham-IV and similar rotators. Again, clean out the threads and
>> insert stainless steel studs, fixed permanently in place using Red
>> Loctite. Then use Nyloc nuts to secure the two castings together.
>> (Because the original self-tapping screws cause corrosion damage in the
>> aluminium casting, you may need to re-tap the holes to a slightly larger
>> size. Although you may lose some thread engagement, the Red Loctite will
>> help fill the gaps.)
>>
>>
>> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From k6mr at outlook.com  Fri Jul 29 00:30:24 2016
From: k6mr at outlook.com (Ken K6MR)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 21:30:24 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  Lockwasher Comparison
Message-ID: <BLU404-EAS356B264561D61CA013E539E9E010@phx.gbl>

Those are the standard Rohn section bolts for 25 and 45. Never seen one loosen yet.

Ken K6MR



From: Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk

From grants2 at pacbell.net  Fri Jul 29 00:50:03 2016
From: grants2 at pacbell.net (Grant Saviers)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 21:50:03 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <4294F49A0A4A42E08215F4A17320D166@JimPC>
References: <4294F49A0A4A42E08215F4A17320D166@JimPC>
Message-ID: <579AE07B.8070709@pacbell.net>

Not sure what Rohn provides.  My tower was a used AM BCB tower, a couple 
of 10' sections were welded together after bolting.  A BC engineer told 
me this is common practice to increase conductivity. I do have some 
stamped steel dished "kinda look like lockwashers" that came with the 
guy anchors I bought from Rohn.  They look pretty MM so I used Nordlocks 
on the custom shaped U-bolts that go around the tower legs and bracing 
at the same time.  Just had a complete inspection after one year, 
everything was tight.

Standard practice is to put the leg bolts in nut up, so when it falls on 
the ground you see the nut is missing or that the bolt isn't there.  Or 
worse w/o your hard hat if it is a 5/8 x 2".  If you can apply the rated 
torque of 90 to 120 ft-lbs for waxed + galvanized bolts they might not 
need locking washers, but the Nordlock insurance is pretty cheap 
compared to everything else.   A plain A325 5/8 needs 220 ft-lbs. 
http://www.portlandbolt.com/technical/bolt-torque-chart/

Several articles I've read other than the Nordlock video/data seem to 
agree that split ring washers are about useless.

I've never seen hot dip galvanized internal or external tooth 
lockwashers.  I use machine screw sizes internal ones, mostly on K-nuts 
(KEPS) for electronics.

Grant KZ1W

On 7/28/2016 20:09 PM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:15:38 -0700
> From: Grant Saviers <grants2 at pacbell.net>
> To: Jim Thomson <jim.thom at telus.net>, towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
>
> Surfaces need to be clean, the opposite of what is desirable for
> structural fasteners that should be lubricated.  A325 5/8" hot dip
> galvanized structural bolts I've bought for Rohn 65 tower leg flanges
> have had a blue wax coating.  So they are "1 for 3" (no O2 is ok, no
> exposed Fe not ok, not clean not ok) re using Loctite. Hence these bolts
> got NordLocks.  Thru leg bolts in shear such as R25/45  don't have the
> axial stress cycling of flange leg towers, so most any nut that doesn't
> fall off is fine.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
> ##Ok, so what does Rohn supply for nuts, bolts, flat washers and lockwashers,
> on their  25/45/55/65   towers ??
>
> ##  a buddy with  55G... has had one of the leg bolts fall right out, and ended up at base
> of the tower !  That was at the junction  of the top 2 x sections.
>
> ##  Internal tooth  and external tooth lock washers usually work pretty reliable.
>
> Jim  VE7RF
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From jim.thom at telus.net  Fri Jul 29 00:52:50 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 21:52:50 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
Message-ID: <A6BF98E5772C4FBEA27037D2758C17DC@JimPC>

Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:47:35 -0400
From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison

That's the first I'd heard from that industry and I'm sure there are 
others, but most I talked to over the years didn't use locktite 
compounds once NordLocks became available.

I worked in a metal stamping plant (first job) and chemical plants in MI 
and KY.  None used LockTite.   I don't know the reasoning.

73

Roger (K8RII)


##  Nordlocks  would be 100X  faster to install.... vs  prepping
bolt and nut threads to  accept the locite goop.   And zero hassles
when it comes time to undo the nut !   Who wants to have to blow torch
nuts and bolts....when RED loctite has been used.   Esp on tower legs, or
anything way up a tower...pita. 

Jim   VE7RF 

From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Fri Jul 29 01:48:43 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 01:48:43 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <15634d786ca-b49-449e@webprd-m33.mail.aol.com>
References: <15634d786ca-b49-449e@webprd-m33.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <e9e9744c-7561-4d72-2fc4-9d4dbe299fbf@tm.net>

I have boxes of those in SS  and cad plated from either 8 or 10-32 up 
through 1/2".
If you use the SS versions be sure to use antiseize compound. Without it 
they will become one with the screw or bolt, right soon.  Experience 
tells me so.  It's amazing how logical things seem until you had to find 
out for your self.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/29/2016 Friday 12:09 AM, Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk wrote:
> When I put up my tower, the sections were bolted together with a special self locking nut. The nuts had three dents in them and there were friction that made it necessary to use a wrench to put them in place. The tower doesn't shake or vibrate that much but I have a tough time to imagine these nut will unscrew themselves.
>
>
> Anyone else with experience with these kind of lock nuts?
>
>
> Hans - N2JFS
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
> To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Sent: Thu, Jul 28, 2016 10:31 pm
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
>
> There are Helicoil steel thread replacement inserts that work really
> well and were inexpensive the last time I used them.
>
> Others like Nordlocks, while I've had very bad luck with them.  We are
> nowhere near being downwind from industrial centers with the Chicago
> area at near 200 miles, but the Nylon inserts just seem to dissolve away
> in a year or two. None have made it past two years. I'd like them if
> they'd last, but here? They are short term only. If the threads are shot
> a bolt through from the inside with the head epoxied in place has worked
> for me as a stud. The mount to accessory plate is not precision and
> there are usually enough threads left to screw the bolt through.
>
> I can find no reason for their short life. I thought it was IR as nylon
> rope breaks down and gets stiff out in the weather, but others in areas
> with far more sunshine than we have said they had no problems.
>
> I'd advise drilling a small drain hole, but not large enough for
> Muddobbers to get in. They ruined the matching network on an AV640 for me.
>
> The SS bolt with NordLock nuts would be ideal if I could get them to last.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>
>
> On 7/28/2016 Thursday 3:48 AM, Ian White wrote:
>> Grant KZ1W wrote:
>>
>>> Another place I use Nordlocks is for rotator base bolts.  Since
>> aluminum
>>> has about 2x the expansion per degree F as steel (alloys and temper
>> make
>>> big differences), there is temperature cycling of the bolt load.  It is
>>> also the case that I don't want to mess with Loctited bolts when on the
>>> tower, but with the cautions, it works. Used rotators I've bought
>> always
>>> seem to have roughed up base threads, and a Helicoil insert is the
>>> ultimate fix, since they are stronger than the raw aluminum threads.
>>>
>> If the threads in aluminium rotator castings aren't too badly damaged, a
>> simple alternative is to use RED Loctite to fix short threaded studs
>> permanently into the rotator base. (Even better, insert set-screws from
>> inside the base casting to leave protruding studs, and again use Red
>> Loctite.) During installation, the studs pass through the holes in the
>> tower plate, locating the rotator safely in its correct position even
>> before you add the nuts and washers.
>>
>>> Nylocks everywhere else.
>> Make that NEW Nylocs, every time.
>>
>> Threaded studding can also be used to rescue damaged threads in the bell
>> casting on Ham-IV and similar rotators. Again, clean out the threads and
>> insert stainless steel studs, fixed permanently in place using Red
>> Loctite. Then use Nyloc nuts to secure the two castings together.
>> (Because the original self-tapping screws cause corrosion damage in the
>> aluminium casting, you may need to re-tap the holes to a slightly larger
>> size. Although you may lose some thread engagement, the Red Loctite will
>> help fill the gaps.)
>>
>>
>> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Fri Jul 29 01:54:37 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 01:54:37 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <BLU404-EAS356B264561D61CA013E539E9E010@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU404-EAS356B264561D61CA013E539E9E010@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ae00949d-7b67-ecd4-5af1-71949d93640e@tm.net>

Not on my 45G around 2001
It had the two nuts with the top one being of the stamped spring type 
used on "ALL" nuts. Tower junction, guy anchor saddles...every nut.
I've had 25Gs with heavy galvanization that made them tough to seat, but 
no staking as I remember.
73

Roger (K8RI)

On 7/29/2016 Friday 12:30 AM, Ken K6MR wrote:
> Those are the standard Rohn section bolts for 25 and 45. Never seen one loosen yet.
>
> Ken K6MR
>
>
>
> From: Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Fri Jul 29 02:10:02 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 02:10:02 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <A6BF98E5772C4FBEA27037D2758C17DC@JimPC>
References: <A6BF98E5772C4FBEA27037D2758C17DC@JimPC>
Message-ID: <5a869c06-ae45-15c5-ee41-40dabcb37e72@tm.net>

<LOL> in those chemical plants we occasionally would see liquid that 
looked like water running off connections . Far from it, That was the O2 
condensing out of the air and running off the connectors.

Not too long ago they didn't get one purged properly.  Liquid H2 in the 
presence of liquid O2 doesn't need an ignition source that I know of. 
The resulting bang removed the rear of the truck and was heard for some 
miles. No one was hurt except for their hearing and possibly nerves.  I 
understand there were a few workers with "ringing ears" for a few hours.

The problem was caused by the improper purging of the lines.

73,

Roger (K8RI)



On 7/29/2016 Friday 12:52 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:47:35 -0400
> From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
>
> That's the first I'd heard from that industry and I'm sure there are
> others, but most I talked to over the years didn't use locktite
> compounds once NordLocks became available.
>
> I worked in a metal stamping plant (first job) and chemical plants in MI
> and KY.  None used LockTite.   I don't know the reasoning.
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RII)
>
>
> ##  Nordlocks  would be 100X  faster to install.... vs  prepping
> bolt and nut threads to  accept the locite goop.   And zero hassles
> when it comes time to undo the nut !   Who wants to have to blow torch
> nuts and bolts....when RED loctite has been used.   Esp on tower legs, or
> anything way up a tower...pita.
>
> Jim   VE7RF
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Fri Jul 29 08:12:16 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:12:16 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd:  Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <15634d786ca-b49-449e@webprd-m33.mail.aol.com>
References: <15634d786ca-b49-449e@webprd-m33.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <6E9484B4B47345F5B5B43BA1F25C0CBC@RXDesignDell>

I can't stand the new dimpled nuts that Rohn has gone to on towers. I sent 
them back and found a place to get the older ones with standard nuts. I've 
never ever had a nut come off of a Rohn tower leg (horizontal bolt as used 
in G series). ALL of the load is vertical. There's no reason for the nuts to 
ever come off. Also there is enough galvanizing on their bolts that even the 
standard nuts take a bit of force to install. On the new ones I literally 
could not get the nut on one of the bolts - it went about 1/2 way and 
froze - not even a very large wrench would do it. The other 5 were all VERY 
difficult. That to me is an example of over-reacting to someone's failure to 
install the proper hardware.

As for the guy that had one fall out - I'd guess he wasn't using Rohn 
galvanized bolts and nuts or they were used and re-used. New ones have 
plenty of galvanizing to keep the nut in place when tightened sufficiently 
to the leg.

Gary
K9RX


-----Original Message----- 
From: Hans Hammarquist
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 12:09 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Lockwasher Comparison

When I put up my tower, the sections were bolted together with a special 
self locking nut. The nuts had three dents in them and there were friction 
that made it necessary to use a wrench to put them in place. The tower 
doesn't shake or vibrate that much but I have a tough time to imagine these 
nut will unscrew themselves.


Anyone else with experience with these kind of lock nuts?


Hans - N2JFS



-----Original Message-----
From: Roger (K8RI) on TT <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 28, 2016 10:31 pm
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison

There are Helicoil steel thread replacement inserts that work really
well and were inexpensive the last time I used them.

Others like Nordlocks, while I've had very bad luck with them.  We are
nowhere near being downwind from industrial centers with the Chicago
area at near 200 miles, but the Nylon inserts just seem to dissolve away
in a year or two. None have made it past two years. I'd like them if
they'd last, but here? They are short term only. If the threads are shot
a bolt through from the inside with the head epoxied in place has worked
for me as a stud. The mount to accessory plate is not precision and
there are usually enough threads left to screw the bolt through.

I can find no reason for their short life. I thought it was IR as nylon
rope breaks down and gets stiff out in the weather, but others in areas
with far more sunshine than we have said they had no problems.

I'd advise drilling a small drain hole, but not large enough for
Muddobbers to get in. They ruined the matching network on an AV640 for me.

The SS bolt with NordLock nuts would be ideal if I could get them to last.

73

Roger (K8RI)



On 7/28/2016 Thursday 3:48 AM, Ian White wrote:
> Grant KZ1W wrote:
>
>> Another place I use Nordlocks is for rotator base bolts.  Since
> aluminum
>> has about 2x the expansion per degree F as steel (alloys and temper
> make
>> big differences), there is temperature cycling of the bolt load.  It is
>> also the case that I don't want to mess with Loctited bolts when on the
>> tower, but with the cautions, it works. Used rotators I've bought
> always
>> seem to have roughed up base threads, and a Helicoil insert is the
>> ultimate fix, since they are stronger than the raw aluminum threads.
>>
> If the threads in aluminium rotator castings aren't too badly damaged, a
> simple alternative is to use RED Loctite to fix short threaded studs
> permanently into the rotator base. (Even better, insert set-screws from
> inside the base casting to leave protruding studs, and again use Red
> Loctite.) During installation, the studs pass through the holes in the
> tower plate, locating the rotator safely in its correct position even
> before you add the nuts and washers.
>
>> Nylocks everywhere else.
> Make that NEW Nylocs, every time.
>
> Threaded studding can also be used to rescue damaged threads in the bell
> casting on Ham-IV and similar rotators. Again, clean out the threads and
> insert stainless steel studs, fixed permanently in place using Red
> Loctite. Then use Nyloc nuts to secure the two castings together.
> (Because the original self-tapping screws cause corrosion damage in the
> aluminium casting, you may need to re-tap the holes to a slightly larger
> size. Although you may lose some thread engagement, the Red Loctite will
> help fill the gaps.)
>
>
> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



From jim.thom at telus.net  Fri Jul 29 09:56:44 2016
From: jim.thom at telus.net (Jim Thomson)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 06:56:44 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison
Message-ID: <2AEE173C3B234F1EA143512DA3DF6E32@JimPC>

Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 21:50:03 -0700
From: Grant Saviers <grants2 at pacbell.net>
To: Jim Thomson <jim.thom at telus.net>, towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lockwasher Comparison

Not sure what Rohn provides.  My tower was a used AM BCB tower, a couple 
of 10' sections were welded together after bolting.  A BC engineer told 
me this is common practice to increase conductivity. I do have some 
stamped steel dished "kinda look like lockwashers" that came with the 
guy anchors I bought from Rohn.  They look pretty MM so I used Nordlocks 
on the custom shaped U-bolts that go around the tower legs and bracing 
at the same time.  Just had a complete inspection after one year, 
everything was tight.

Standard practice is to put the leg bolts in nut up, so when it falls on 
the ground you see the nut is missing or that the bolt isn't there.  Or 
worse w/o your hard hat if it is a 5/8 x 2".  If you can apply the rated 
torque of 90 to 120 ft-lbs for waxed + galvanized bolts they might not 
need locking washers, but the Nordlock insurance is pretty cheap 
compared to everything else.   A plain A325 5/8 needs 220 ft-lbs. 
http://www.portlandbolt.com/technical/bolt-torque-chart/

Several articles I've read other than the Nordlock video/data seem to 
agree that split ring washers are about useless.

I've never seen hot dip galvanized internal or external tooth 
lockwashers.  I use machine screw sizes internal ones, mostly on K-nuts 
(KEPS) for electronics.

Grant KZ1W

##  Per that chart from Portland bolt  ( same place I bought my 12 x anchor rods from)
you will notice that way less tq is required if the threads are lubricated.... like with 
never seize goop.   Marine grade never seize + nordlocks, whether galvanized or SS
bolts + nuts used, would be the ticket.   Look at G8 bolts...say  .375 size.  Lubricated,
they only require  1/2 the tq  vs no lubricant used.   Ditto with .625 bolts, ( 106 vs 212 ft lbs). 

##  In the end, you are after clamp load.. not tq.   For stuff like the flange plates used on R-65,
you want to mash the surfaces  together, and by lubricating the bolts 1st, then you dont require any where 
near the tq of the same bolt...that?s not lubricated.   I use never seize on lugs on my car..and slightly less tq.
They dont loosen up, yet are easy to remove, when I swap to rain tires in the fall. 

Jim  VE7RF



From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Fri Jul 29 11:12:30 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 11:12:30 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Lockwasher Comparison
In-Reply-To: <6E9484B4B47345F5B5B43BA1F25C0CBC@RXDesignDell>
References: <15634d786ca-b49-449e@webprd-m33.mail.aol.com>
	<6E9484B4B47345F5B5B43BA1F25C0CBC@RXDesignDell>
Message-ID: <0ef5f52a-2e7c-9a42-236a-4ff35dad8471@tm.net>

I agree.  Over the years, ROHN has tried several approaches and I've 
tried a few. I even used SS and wished I hadn't. Even with Never Seize 
after many years, I've had them become one on occasion.

Galvanized bolts are ungraded AFAIK but you don't need grade 8, or even 
grade 5 in shear. Double galvanized, ungraded are fine and the nuts do 
come off only when needed. Never forget to use a taper pin punch to 
enlarge the bolt holes to a snug fit if needed. Never thread the bolts 
through the hole in the tower leg and never drill them out! (ROHN's 
instructions)

I've never needed a lubricant, or Never Seize with ROHN nuts and bolts.

73

Roger (K8RI)

On 7/29/2016 Friday 8:12 AM, StellarCAT wrote:
> I can't stand the new dimpled nuts that Rohn has gone to on towers. I 
> sent them back and found a place to get the older ones with standard 
> nuts. I've never ever had a nut come off of a Rohn tower leg 
> (horizontal bolt as used in G series). ALL of the load is vertical. 
> There's no reason for the nuts to ever come off. Also there is enough 
> galvanizing on their bolts that even the standard nuts take a bit of 
> force to install. On the new ones I literally could not get the nut on 
> one of the bolts - it went about 1/2 way and froze - not even a very 
> large wrench would do it. The other 5 were all VERY difficult. That to 
> me is an example of over-reacting to someone's failure to install the 
> proper hardware.
>
> As for the guy that had one fall out - I'd guess he wasn't using Rohn 
> galvanized bolts and nuts or they were used and re-used. New ones have 
> plenty of galvanizing to keep the nut in place when tightened 
> sufficiently to the leg.
>
> Gary
> K9RX


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From n2pp at frontiernet.net  Fri Jul 29 12:01:33 2016
From: n2pp at frontiernet.net (Victor Walz   N2PP)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:01:33 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Strong FM Station Impact on Antenna Analyzer Use in VHF
Message-ID: <005401d1e9b2$7a8bfc60$6fa3f520$@net>

I have two antenna analyzers:   MFJ-259 and Rig Expert AA-230PRO.

 

I am having trouble obtaining resonance (low SWR) at 144 MHz with 2
commercially made 144 MHz yagis.  I am wondering if both antenna analyzers
are being adversely impacted by a 50 KW FM station on 107 MHz located about
0.5 miles away.  The antennas are being tested at 35 ft out in the open
supported by a tram.

 

Does anybody have any experience with this?

 

My next step is to use a 2 meter HT and an SWR bridge which will probably
answer this question, but I am interested in whether this is a typical
problem with these antenna analyzers.

 

Vic  N2PP


From ersmar at verizon.net  Fri Jul 29 12:12:14 2016
From: ersmar at verizon.net (ersmar)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:12:14 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Strong FM Station Impact on Antenna Analyzer Use in
	VHF
Message-ID: <0349todyp8ha2mi6hlwcfffp.1469808734250@email.android.com>

Vic:

The 259 analyzer is affected by mf and hf sigs and mfj sells an outboard tuneable filter. Check to see if their filter covers vhf as well.

73 de
Gene Smar AD3F

-------- Original message --------
From: Victor Walz   N2PP <n2pp at frontiernet.net> 
Date: 07/29/2016  12:01 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: towertalk at contesting.com 
Subject: [TowerTalk] Strong FM Station Impact on Antenna Analyzer Use in VHF 
 
I have two antenna analyzers:?? MFJ-259 and Rig Expert AA-230PRO.



I am having trouble obtaining resonance (low SWR) at 144 MHz with 2
commercially made 144 MHz yagis.? I am wondering if both antenna analyzers
are being adversely impacted by a 50 KW FM station on 107 MHz located about
0.5 miles away.? The antennas are being tested at 35 ft out in the open
supported by a tram.



Does anybody have any experience with this?



My next step is to use a 2 meter HT and an SWR bridge which will probably
answer this question, but I am interested in whether this is a typical
problem with these antenna analyzers.



Vic? N2PP

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From jd0 at broadsci.com  Fri Jul 29 12:14:07 2016
From: jd0 at broadsci.com (Jeff DePolo)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:14:07 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Strong FM Station Impact on Antenna Analyzer Use in
	VHF
In-Reply-To: <005401d1e9b2$7a8bfc60$6fa3f520$@net>
References: <005401d1e9b2$7a8bfc60$6fa3f520$@net>
Message-ID: <579891D8B2484876B5D9F8213F0A2E67@OUTLAW>

> I am having trouble obtaining resonance (low SWR) at 144 MHz with 2
> commercially made 144 MHz yagis.  I am wondering if both 
> antenna analyzers
> are being adversely impacted by a 50 KW FM station on 107 MHz 
> located about
> 0.5 miles away.  The antennas are being tested at 35 ft out 
> in the open
> supported by a tram.

Assuming the yagi is mounted in the clear and can be rotated, first point it
at the FM station and make a measurement, and then rotate it 90 degrees
(broadside) and take another measurement.  If the apparent match/VSWR
changes as the orientation is varied, that would be a good indication that
the test instrument is being overloaded or otherwise adversely affected by
the high-level off-channel RF.

At 1/2 mile, the free-space path loss is about 70 dB at 100 MHz, so the 50
kW FM would yield about +7 dBm using a unity-gain receiving antenna at that
location.  I don't know those two specific devices well enough to know
whether or not a signal of that amplitude (plus or minus the yagi's
gain/loss at 100 MHz) that far off-channel would be an issue.

					--- Jeff WN3A


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From charlie at thegallos.com  Fri Jul 29 13:42:49 2016
From: charlie at thegallos.com (charlie at thegallos.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:42:49 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Strong FM Station Impact on Antenna Analyzer Use in
 VHF
In-Reply-To: <579891D8B2484876B5D9F8213F0A2E67@OUTLAW>
References: <005401d1e9b2$7a8bfc60$6fa3f520$@net>
	<579891D8B2484876B5D9F8213F0A2E67@OUTLAW>
Message-ID: <a7bd46169f8403132f35c1267ae7ae05.squirrel@emailmg.ipower.com>

Speaking of Broadcast band interference

I always see that you should run a BCB filter if you are "Close" to a
transmitter - but define "close"?  I'm 7.8 miles from the highest power AM
Stick in the nation (two 50KW stations on one stick), Roughly 4 miles from
a few FM stations, and of course, 11 miles from all the transmitters in
Manhattan

Thoughts?

73 de KG2V
Charlie




From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Fri Jul 29 14:08:58 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 11:08:58 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Strong FM Station Impact on Antenna Analyzer Use in
 VHF
In-Reply-To: <579891D8B2484876B5D9F8213F0A2E67@OUTLAW>
References: <005401d1e9b2$7a8bfc60$6fa3f520$@net>
	<579891D8B2484876B5D9F8213F0A2E67@OUTLAW>
Message-ID: <ec08663b-da4b-86dd-72b8-2d48bd48ac02@audiosystemsgroup.com>

The limitation of this approach is that any Yagi has its intended 
directivity only within a few percent of its design frequency. Away from 
that frequency its directivity is best described as "undefined."  So 
while I agree that rotating the antenna may CHANGE the pickup from the 
FM station, don't expect it to change much, or in any predictable manner. :)

73, Jim K9YC

  Fri,7/29/2016 9:14 AM, Jeff DePolo wrote:
> Assuming the yagi is mounted in the clear and can be rotated, first point it
> at the FM station and make a measurement, and then rotate it 90 degrees
> (broadside) and take another measurement.  If the apparent match/VSWR
> changes as the orientation is varied, that would be a good indication that
> the test instrument is being overloaded or otherwise adversely affected by
> the high-level off-channel RF.



From wa4jqs at mikrotec.com  Fri Jul 29 14:13:05 2016
From: wa4jqs at mikrotec.com (Anthony W. DePrato)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:13:05 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
In-Reply-To: <CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.g
	mail.com>
References: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>
	<CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160729181305.8F4D61D813A@mailhost.mis.net>

Dayton hamvention news just came out Hara has closed its doors.. 
working on a new place for  2017
73 Tony WA4JQS


Anthony W.DePrato WA4JQS since 1962
CQ DX HALL OF FAME  # 35
DXCC HONOR ROLL
DXPEDITION OF THE YEAR 1992 VP8SSI
DXPEDITION OF THE YEAR 1993/1994 3Y0PI
VP8SSI 3Y0PI VP8BZL V31SS
ZD8JQS WA4JQS/ZS1 WA4JQS/KC4


From w9ac at arrl.net  Fri Jul 29 14:23:02 2016
From: w9ac at arrl.net (Paul Christensen)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:23:02 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
In-Reply-To: <20160729181305.8F4D61D813A@mailhost.mis.net>
References: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>	<CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160729181305.8F4D61D813A@mailhost.mis.net>
Message-ID: <002301d1e9c6$40478380$c0d68a80$@arrl.net>

Happy/Sad at the same time.  Would like to the committee explore the Ohio
State Fair Grounds in Columbus or better still, a venue in Cincinnati (my
favorite U.S. city).

Paul, W9AC  

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Anthony W. DePrato
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 2:13 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS

Dayton hamvention news just came out Hara has closed its doors.. 
working on a new place for  2017
73 Tony WA4JQS


Anthony W.DePrato WA4JQS since 1962
CQ DX HALL OF FAME  # 35
DXCC HONOR ROLL
DXPEDITION OF THE YEAR 1992 VP8SSI
DXPEDITION OF THE YEAR 1993/1994 3Y0PI
VP8SSI 3Y0PI VP8BZL V31SS
ZD8JQS WA4JQS/ZS1 WA4JQS/KC4

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From TexasRF at aol.com  Fri Jul 29 14:24:42 2016
From: TexasRF at aol.com (TexasRF at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:24:42 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Strong FM Station Impact on Antenna Analyzer Use in
	VHF
Message-ID: <37bca.400c0c2a.44ccf96a@aol.com>

Perhaps measuring the vswr while rotating would work better. There will  
directions with lobes and others with nulls. If the instrument reading is 
steady  then you could assume the extra rf from the broadcast station is not an 
issue.  Maybe?
 
Gerald K5GW
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/29/2016 1:10:01 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
jim at audiosystemsgroup.com writes:

The  limitation of this approach is that any Yagi has its intended 
directivity  only within a few percent of its design frequency. Away from 
that  frequency its directivity is best described as "undefined."  So 
while  I agree that rotating the antenna may CHANGE the pickup from the 
FM  station, don't expect it to change much, or in any predictable manner.  
:)

73, Jim K9YC

Fri,7/29/2016 9:14 AM, Jeff DePolo  wrote:
> Assuming the yagi is mounted in the clear and can be rotated,  first 
point it
> at the FM station and make a measurement, and then  rotate it 90 degrees
> (broadside) and take another measurement.   If the apparent match/VSWR
> changes as the orientation is varied, that  would be a good indication 
that
> the test instrument is being  overloaded or otherwise adversely affected 
by
> the high-level  off-channel  RF.


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk  mailing  list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From n8de at thepoint.net  Fri Jul 29 14:32:10 2016
From: n8de at thepoint.net (n8de at thepoint.net)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:32:10 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
In-Reply-To: <002301d1e9c6$40478380$c0d68a80$@arrl.net>
References: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>
	<CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160729181305.8F4D61D813A@mailhost.mis.net>
	<002301d1e9c6$40478380$c0d68a80$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <20160729143210.ry82pj23kgc8g8wc@webmail.win.net>

Better still would be moving it to Wright-Patterson AFB ... more space  
under roof (hangers) and more PAVED PARKING.

73
Don
N8DE


Quoting Paul Christensen <w9ac at arrl.net>:

> Happy/Sad at the same time.  Would like to the committee explore the Ohio
> State Fair Grounds in Columbus or better still, a venue in Cincinnati (my
> favorite U.S. city).
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Anthony W. DePrato
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 2:13 PM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
>
> Dayton hamvention news just came out Hara has closed its doors..
> working on a new place for  2017
> 73 Tony WA4JQS
>
>
> Anthony W.DePrato WA4JQS since 1962
> CQ DX HALL OF FAME  # 35
> DXCC HONOR ROLL
> DXPEDITION OF THE YEAR 1992 VP8SSI
> DXPEDITION OF THE YEAR 1993/1994 3Y0PI
> VP8SSI 3Y0PI VP8BZL V31SS
> ZD8JQS WA4JQS/ZS1 WA4JQS/KC4
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>




From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Fri Jul 29 14:34:17 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 11:34:17 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Strong FM Station Impact on Antenna Analyzer Use in
 VHF
In-Reply-To: <a7bd46169f8403132f35c1267ae7ae05.squirrel@emailmg.ipower.com>
References: <005401d1e9b2$7a8bfc60$6fa3f520$@net>
	<579891D8B2484876B5D9F8213F0A2E67@OUTLAW>
	<a7bd46169f8403132f35c1267ae7ae05.squirrel@emailmg.ipower.com>
Message-ID: <d43194c7-568c-f6ca-2f8f-caedf2d8a4da@audiosystemsgroup.com>

At one QTH where I lived in Chicago, I was about 2.5 miles from the 
Hancock building and 3.5 miles from Sears Tower, where virtually ALL of 
the FM and TV transmitters in Chicago were located. I had a good-sized 
FM/TV VHF/UHF Yagi on the roof pointed midway between those two sites, 
with passive splitters to an excellent Technics FM RX with 6-section 
variable capacitor front end. Over a period of about 5 years, I heard 
intermod only once, and it occurred during a late night maintenance 
period. It was there for perhaps an hour and then gone. And I heard that 
intermod on the FM RX, not in my ham rigs. In those days, my only VHF 
operation was 2M via repeaters.

Because these transmitters were all on tall buildings >1,200 ft and east 
of the Mississippi River, ERPs of the FMs and low-band VHF TVs were in 
the range of 6kW, high-band VHF TV in the range of 100 kW, and UHF TV in 
the range of 300 kW.

I was on the tech committee maintaining 2M, 220 MHz, and 440 MHz 
repeaters in the Chicago loop. The 2M repeater was at about 1,000 ft, in 
the shadow of Sears and a mile or so from Hancock. We could not use an 
on-site RX on 2M because the intermod and phase noise from 50+ broadcast 
transmitters and a thousand or so 2-way sites was so bad that it 
couldn't hear a talkie less than a mile away. Instead, we used voted RX 
sites 30 miles to the S and 15 miles to the N. The 440 MHz system used 
only on-site RX, and intermod was low enough that it worked quite well.

As to AM band -- I was within a few miles of a couple of low power 
(250-1,000W) stations, and roughly 15 miles from five 50KW clear channel 
stations. I often heard WBBM's second harmonic, but not very loud (780 
kHz, 50 kW), and had intermittent intermods on 160M from several 
stations that I never identified. These came and went, so I always 
suspected they were generated by flaky connections in structure or 
wiring and re-radiated.  NONE of this would have been helped by a BCB 
filter, because it occurred outside my station.

A BCB filter only helps when the signal is overloading the receiver in 
YOUR station. If you're using bandpass filter sets, it's likely that 
they provide at least as much suppression in the BCB as do low cost BCB 
filters, and for many filter sets, a lot more suppression. I DID use BCB 
filters when I lived in Chicago, but I wasn't convinced that they did 
much. :)  I was mostly using pretty decent rigs -- K2, TS850, OmniV, 
which also helps.

73, Jim K9YC



I later moved about 3 miles N,

On Fri,7/29/2016 10:42 AM, charlie at thegallos.com wrote:
> Speaking of Broadcast band interference
>
> I always see that you should run a BCB filter if you are "Close" to a
> transmitter - but define "close"?  I'm 7.8 miles from the highest power AM
> Stick in the nation (two 50KW stations on one stick), Roughly 4 miles from
> a few FM stations, and of course, 11 miles from all the transmitters in
> Manhattan


From r_bakalov at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 29 14:34:22 2016
From: r_bakalov at yahoo.com (Rudy Bakalov)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:34:22 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
In-Reply-To: <002301d1e9c6$40478380$c0d68a80$@arrl.net>
References: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>
	<CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160729181305.8F4D61D813A@mailhost.mis.net>
	<002301d1e9c6$40478380$c0d68a80$@arrl.net>
Message-ID: <4CCC2DC8-D1F4-461C-AA28-F6D1A7314138@yahoo.com>

How about a venue that 

1) Knows how to run events
2) Can be leveraged to spread the word about ham radio
3) Spouses would want to visit as well
4) Reasonably priced to get to/from

Examples include Las Vegas, Orlando, San Diego, Toronto, to name a few.

Rudy N2WQ

Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.


> On Jul 29, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Paul Christensen <w9ac at arrl.net> wrote:
> 
> Happy/Sad at the same time.  Would like to the committee explore the Ohio
> State Fair Grounds in Columbus or better still, a venue in Cincinnati (my
> favorite U.S. city).
> 
> Paul, W9AC  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Anthony W. DePrato
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 2:13 PM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
> 
> Dayton hamvention news just came out Hara has closed its doors.. 
> working on a new place for  2017
> 73 Tony WA4JQS
> 
> 
> Anthony W.DePrato WA4JQS since 1962
> CQ DX HALL OF FAME  # 35
> DXCC HONOR ROLL
> DXPEDITION OF THE YEAR 1992 VP8SSI
> DXPEDITION OF THE YEAR 1993/1994 3Y0PI
> VP8SSI 3Y0PI VP8BZL V31SS
> ZD8JQS WA4JQS/ZS1 WA4JQS/KC4
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


From EZRhino at fastmovers.biz  Fri Jul 29 14:58:34 2016
From: EZRhino at fastmovers.biz (EZ Rhino)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:58:34 -0600
Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
In-Reply-To: <4CCC2DC8-D1F4-461C-AA28-F6D1A7314138@yahoo.com>
References: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>
	<CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160729181305.8F4D61D813A@mailhost.mis.net>
	<002301d1e9c6$40478380$c0d68a80$@arrl.net>
	<4CCC2DC8-D1F4-461C-AA28-F6D1A7314138@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <76B55DC9-4508-4BDD-9FCE-01487F67002C@fastmovers.biz>

WOW!  This is really going to shake things up.

Remember, this is DARA's baby...they aren't going to give up the cash cow, and they aren't going to do it out of state.  At least they will die trying to get it moved to another venue.

Now that doesn't mean some enterprising person(s) can't try to pick up the ball and run with it in a west coast location....which would make me happy since it's closer to where I live.

chris
kf7p






On Jul 29, 2016, at 12:34 , Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:

How about a venue that 

1) Knows how to run events
2) Can be leveraged to spread the word about ham radio
3) Spouses would want to visit as well
4) Reasonably priced to get to/from

Examples include Las Vegas, Orlando, San Diego, Toronto, to name a few.

Rudy N2WQ

Sent using a tiny keyboard.  Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate autocorrect.


> On Jul 29, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Paul Christensen <w9ac at arrl.net> wrote:
> 
> Happy/Sad at the same time.  Would like to the committee explore the Ohio
> State Fair Grounds in Columbus or better still, a venue in Cincinnati (my
> favorite U.S. city).
> 
> Paul, W9AC  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Anthony W. DePrato
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 2:13 PM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
> 
> Dayton hamvention news just came out Hara has closed its doors.. 
> working on a new place for  2017
> 73 Tony WA4JQS
> 
> 
> Anthony W.DePrato WA4JQS since 1962
> CQ DX HALL OF FAME  # 35
> DXCC HONOR ROLL
> DXPEDITION OF THE YEAR 1992 VP8SSI
> DXPEDITION OF THE YEAR 1993/1994 3Y0PI
> VP8SSI 3Y0PI VP8BZL V31SS
> ZD8JQS WA4JQS/ZS1 WA4JQS/KC4
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



From fishflorida at gmail.com  Fri Jul 29 15:07:53 2016
From: fishflorida at gmail.com (Mickey Baker)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:07:53 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
In-Reply-To: <4CCC2DC8-D1F4-461C-AA28-F6D1A7314138@yahoo.com>
References: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>
	<CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160729181305.8F4D61D813A@mailhost.mis.net>
	<002301d1e9c6$40478380$c0d68a80$@arrl.net>
	<4CCC2DC8-D1F4-461C-AA28-F6D1A7314138@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAOB+T5ZjX2hYdQ-vLzqq6Lg-7p42MFMgQ1eo4GuWKPADM=6-+g@mail.gmail.com>

It is very much a midwest event - people drive to Dayton with truckloads of
stuff. I don't think it will move too far.

Wright-Pat might be a security issue... they might work with the museum,
but it attracts a large crown on it's own, so they may see an overflow
problem.

Fairgrounds with exhibit buildings are ideal, as long as the exhibit halls
and infrastructure would handle 15k people and is safe.

Not that it counts for anything, but the Warren County Fairgrounds look
good on an Internet search. Lots of space and all of May next year looks
open on their current calendar...

http://www.warrencountyfairohio.org/rentals-and-storage/facility-rental-%2B-events-3/

Let us know, I'd come next year just to check out a new site...

73,

Mickey N4MB

From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Fri Jul 29 15:18:22 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:18:22 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Strong FM Station Impact on Antenna Analyzer Use in
 VHF
In-Reply-To: <37bca.400c0c2a.44ccf96a@aol.com>
References: <37bca.400c0c2a.44ccf96a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <75cb69ef-8d5f-a907-e91c-0cefcaa5ed35@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Fri,7/29/2016 11:24 AM, TexasRF--- via TowerTalk wrote:
> Perhaps measuring the vswr while rotating would work better. There will
> directions with lobes and others with nulls. If the instrument reading is
> steady  then you could assume the extra rf from the broadcast station is not an
> issue.  Maybe?

I think you've got it right, Gerald. Exception would be the extent to 
which the Yagi's feedpoint Z might be perturbed by surrounding objects, 
so we'd want to keep it as much in the clear as practical.

73, Jim


From EZRhino at fastmovers.biz  Fri Jul 29 15:18:58 2016
From: EZRhino at fastmovers.biz (EZ Rhino)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:18:58 -0600
Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
In-Reply-To: <CAOB+T5ZjX2hYdQ-vLzqq6Lg-7p42MFMgQ1eo4GuWKPADM=6-+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>
	<CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160729181305.8F4D61D813A@mailhost.mis.net>
	<002301d1e9c6$40478380$c0d68a80$@arrl.net>
	<4CCC2DC8-D1F4-461C-AA28-F6D1A7314138@yahoo.com>
	<CAOB+T5ZjX2hYdQ-vLzqq6Lg-7p42MFMgQ1eo4GuWKPADM=6-+g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1800B57D-24BB-485C-8AC6-68A0249B5553@fastmovers.biz>

	http://hamvention.org/dayton-hamvention-2017-venue-announcement/

Chris










On Jul 29, 2016, at 13:07 , Mickey Baker wrote:

It is very much a midwest event - people drive to Dayton with truckloads of
stuff. I don't think it will move too far.

Wright-Pat might be a security issue... they might work with the museum,
but it attracts a large crown on it's own, so they may see an overflow
problem.

Fairgrounds with exhibit buildings are ideal, as long as the exhibit halls
and infrastructure would handle 15k people and is safe.

Not that it counts for anything, but the Warren County Fairgrounds look
good on an Internet search. Lots of space and all of May next year looks
open on their current calendar...

http://www.warrencountyfairohio.org/rentals-and-storage/facility-rental-%2B-events-3/

Let us know, I'd come next year just to check out a new site...

73,

Mickey N4MB
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Fri Jul 29 15:29:36 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:29:36 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
In-Reply-To: <4CCC2DC8-D1F4-461C-AA28-F6D1A7314138@yahoo.com>
References: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>
	<CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160729181305.8F4D61D813A@mailhost.mis.net>
	<002301d1e9c6$40478380$c0d68a80$@arrl.net>
	<4CCC2DC8-D1F4-461C-AA28-F6D1A7314138@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <419da066-1c10-124f-e00c-2988c02cb34b@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Fri,7/29/2016 11:34 AM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
> How about a venue that
>
> 1) Knows how to run events
> 2) Can be leveraged to spread the word about ham radio
> 3) Spouses would want to visit as well
> 4) Reasonably priced to get to/from
>
> Examples include Las Vegas, Orlando, San Diego, Toronto, to name a few.

And charge BIG money to promoters and exhibitors. Talk to any mfr who's 
ever had a booth at a trade show in any one of those places. I've 
attended lots of trade shows in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los 
Angeles, Las Vegas and Orlando, and one in Toronto.

And NONE of these "well run" venues would allow a flea market like 
Dayton, or allow free parking of RVs. Cost of renting these venues is 
far higher than ham events can afford, which also cause registration 
fees to go through the roof.

Finding suitable places for hamfests and conventions requires lots of 
"outside the box" thinking by organizers who also understand those 
aspects of the business. Several years ago, K6MM and K6TD led a team 
that moved the Visalia DX Convention to a larger venue in the same town. 
It has been a quite successful in almost all respects, except that there 
are not enough rooms within walking distance of the venue, which in turn 
seriously limits the late-night hangout sessions that are the major 
reason many of us attend.

73, Jim K9YC



From robrk at nidhog.net  Fri Jul 29 15:31:08 2016
From: robrk at nidhog.net (RCM)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:31:08 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
In-Reply-To: <419da066-1c10-124f-e00c-2988c02cb34b@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>
	<CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160729181305.8F4D61D813A@mailhost.mis.net>
	<002301d1e9c6$40478380$c0d68a80$@arrl.net>
	<4CCC2DC8-D1F4-461C-AA28-F6D1A7314138@yahoo.com>
	<419da066-1c10-124f-e00c-2988c02cb34b@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <53CA0426-4265-4F5B-93D4-D34011892FF6@nidhog.net>


> On Jul 29, 2016, at 15:29, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri,7/29/2016 11:34 AM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
>> How about a venue that
>> 



http://www.arrl.org/news/good-bye-hara-arena-hamvention-to-relocate-in-2017 <http://www.arrl.org/news/good-bye-hara-arena-hamvention-to-relocate-in-2017>



From herbert.schoenbohm at gmail.com  Fri Jul 29 16:08:51 2016
From: herbert.schoenbohm at gmail.com (Herbert Schoenbohm)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:08:51 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
In-Reply-To: <1469820604780.1023152211@boxbe>
References: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>
	<CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160729181305.8F4D61D813A@mailhost.mis.net>
	<002301d1e9c6$40478380$c0d68a80$@arrl.net>
	<4CCC2DC8-D1F4-461C-AA28-F6D1A7314138@yahoo.com>
	<1469820604780.1023152211@boxbe>
Message-ID: <e26b0e46-2785-bc1b-7eef-17e7b4f26720@gmail.com>

Hopefully some thought will be given to the venues near major airports 
in the U.S. Driving from Cincinnati or Columbus in a rental car for 
amateurs that can only fly in was problematic at times.  Getting in and 
out of Dayton wasn't always possible on the same day. IMHO a perfect 
venue would be near Cincinnati or even near some airport that had metro 
rail transport to or nearby the venue.   For the XYL's enjoyment an 
underutilized theme park or something like Branson, Missouri would be 
great.  I have even done some show at Gaylords in Nashville and they had 
a place for RV's. Don't know how they would accommodate tail-enders and 
the location is maybe a bit to far to the East.  But it is very 
nice....especially the grits and gravy in the morning.


On 7/29/2016 3:29 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> Boxbe <https://www.boxbe.com/overview> This message is eligible for 
> Automatic Cleanup! (jim at audiosystemsgroup.com) Add cleanup rule 
> <https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Fkey%3DaTliOxNc1hn0Bu0qcsnlYkUkr2rxqRuZG71cDzNtJiM%253D%26token%3DqOooCCiU5lDbmp5FWkWcoxhDcIRTCuOvO5azkLCtS57qiEJ4vL3uHmIs657Gif6yf6e2gcACGND%252BJtXJNgOZL1O%252Bg7%252FNOdhLj9M4t4Bl4RvvTdyCFKTpFjUb1zOUy0qkc9IdscBRFP9mNoXj8wiPEA%253D%253D&tc_serial=26257298995&tc_rand=727116082&utm_source=stf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADD&utm_content=001> 
> | More info 
> <http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=26257298995&tc_rand=727116082&utm_source=stf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADD&utm_content=001> 
>
> On Fri,7/29/2016 11:34 AM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
>> How about a venue that
>>
>> 1) Knows how to run events
>> 2) Can be leveraged to spread the word about ham radio
>> 3) Spouses would want to visit as well
>> 4) Reasonably priced to get to/from
>>
>> Examples include Las Vegas, Orlando, San Diego, Toronto, to name a few.
>
> And charge BIG money to promoters and exhibitors. Talk to any mfr 
> who's ever had a booth at a trade show in any one of those places. 
> I've attended lots of trade shows in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, 
> Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Orlando, and one in Toronto.
>
> And NONE of these "well run" venues would allow a flea market like 
> Dayton, or allow free parking of RVs. Cost of renting these venues is 
> far higher than ham events can afford, which also cause registration 
> fees to go through the roof.
>
> Finding suitable places for hamfests and conventions requires lots of 
> "outside the box" thinking by organizers who also understand those 
> aspects of the business. Several years ago, K6MM and K6TD led a team 
> that moved the Visalia DX Convention to a larger venue in the same 
> town. It has been a quite successful in almost all respects, except 
> that there are not enough rooms within walking distance of the venue, 
> which in turn seriously limits the late-night hangout sessions that 
> are the major reason many of us attend.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From K7LXC at aol.com  Fri Jul 29 16:16:38 2016
From: K7LXC at aol.com (K7LXC at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:16:38 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
Message-ID: <3f51cf.4e3b6ee9.44cd13a6@aol.com>

Yes, I'm happy/sad to hear the news but this is  TOWERTALK. Let's keep it 
that way. Tnx. 
 
Cheers,
Steve      K7LXC
TT ADMIN

From paul at n1bug.com  Fri Jul 29 17:07:03 2016
From: paul at n1bug.com (N1BUG)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:07:03 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Strong FM Station Impact on Antenna Analyzer Use in
 VHF
In-Reply-To: <579891D8B2484876B5D9F8213F0A2E67@OUTLAW>
References: <005401d1e9b2$7a8bfc60$6fa3f520$@net>
	<579891D8B2484876B5D9F8213F0A2E67@OUTLAW>
Message-ID: <579BC577.10809@n1bug.com>

On 07/29/2016 12:14 PM, Jeff DePolo wrote:
> At 1/2 mile, the free-space path loss is about 70 dB at 100 MHz, so the 50
> kW FM would yield about +7 dBm using a unity-gain receiving antenna at that
> location.  I don't know those two specific devices well enough to know
> whether or not a signal of that amplitude (plus or minus the yagi's
> gain/loss at 100 MHz) that far off-channel would be an issue.

We found that none of three MFJ units could function in an 
environment where the free space path loss was about 50 to 60 dB 
from a 1 kW transmitter on 162 MHz. Not only could they not provide 
reasonable readings at 146 MHz, but they could not at HF either. 
This was without external filters of any kind. I am not certain this 
is relevant, but I measured the output of one MFJ 259B at 144 MHz 
and found it to be +8 dBm.

73,
Paul N1BUG

From herbert.schoenbohm at gmail.com  Fri Jul 29 18:23:04 2016
From: herbert.schoenbohm at gmail.com (Herbert Schoenbohm)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:23:04 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HARA CLOSED DOORS
In-Reply-To: <e26b0e46-2785-bc1b-7eef-17e7b4f26720@gmail.com>
References: <0004CA8F-D925-4586-AE97-2BF5F019E951@gmail.com>
	<CAM7owYYfo4EQ9B=3xW5Uv7PE1Wo2U3OP8YNaEofhu78k69ebmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160729181305.8F4D61D813A@mailhost.mis.net>
	<002301d1e9c6$40478380$c0d68a80$@arrl.net>
	<4CCC2DC8-D1F4-461C-AA28-F6D1A7314138@yahoo.com>
	<1469820604780.1023152211@boxbe>
	<e26b0e46-2785-bc1b-7eef-17e7b4f26720@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <569d73fb-1e09-0263-3881-69bb23989b73@gmail.com>



On 7/29/2016 4:08 PM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
>
> Hopefully some thought will be given to the venues near major airports 
> in the U.S. Driving from Cincinnati or Columbus in a rental car for 
> amateurs that can only fly in was problematic at times.  Getting in 
> and out of Dayton wasn't always possible on the same day. IMHO a 
> perfect venue would be near Cincinnati or even near some airport that 
> had metro rail transport to or nearby the venue.   For the XYL's 
> enjoyment an underutilized theme park or something like Branson, 
> Missouri would be great. I have even done some show at Gaylords in 
> Nashville and they had a place for RV's.  Don't know how they would 
> accommodate tail-enders and the location is maybe a bit to far to the 
> East. But it is very nice....especially the grits and gravy in the 
> morning.
>
>
> On 7/29/2016 3:29 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> Boxbe <https://www.boxbe.com/overview> This message is eligible for 
>> Automatic Cleanup! (jim at audiosystemsgroup.com) Add cleanup rule 
>> <https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Fkey%3DaTliOxNc1hn0Bu0qcsnlYkUkr2rxqRuZG71cDzNtJiM%253D%26token%3DqOooCCiU5lDbmp5FWkWcoxhDcIRTCuOvO5azkLCtS57qiEJ4vL3uHmIs657Gif6yf6e2gcACGND%252BJtXJNgOZL1O%252Bg7%252FNOdhLj9M4t4Bl4RvvTdyCFKTpFjUb1zOUy0qkc9IdscBRFP9mNoXj8wiPEA%253D%253D&tc_serial=26257298995&tc_rand=727116082&utm_source=stf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADD&utm_content=001> 
>> | More info 
>> <http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=26257298995&tc_rand=727116082&utm_source=stf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADD&utm_content=001> 
>>
>> On Fri,7/29/2016 11:34 AM, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk wrote:
>>> How about a venue that
>>>
>>> 1) Knows how to run events
>>> 2) Can be leveraged to spread the word about ham radio
>>> 3) Spouses would want to visit as well
>>> 4) Reasonably priced to get to/from
>>>
>>> Examples include Las Vegas, Orlando, San Diego, Toronto, to name a few.
>>
>> And charge BIG money to promoters and exhibitors. Talk to any mfr 
>> who's ever had a booth at a trade show in any one of those places. 
>> I've attended lots of trade shows in New York, Chicago, San 
>> Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Orlando, and one in Toronto.
>>
>> And NONE of these "well run" venues would allow a flea market like 
>> Dayton, or allow free parking of RVs. Cost of renting these venues is 
>> far higher than ham events can afford, which also cause registration 
>> fees to go through the roof.
>>
>> Finding suitable places for hamfests and conventions requires lots of 
>> "outside the box" thinking by organizers who also understand those 
>> aspects of the business. Several years ago, K6MM and K6TD led a team 
>> that moved the Visalia DX Convention to a larger venue in the same 
>> town. It has been a quite successful in almost all respects, except 
>> that there are not enough rooms within walking distance of the venue, 
>> which in turn seriously limits the late-night hangout sessions that 
>> are the major reason many of us attend.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>


From scotty at ashiko.com  Sat Jul 30 06:38:06 2016
From: scotty at ashiko.com (Scotty)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 03:38:06 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] Help needed to wire up Yaesu G-800S Rotor cable to the
	controller
Message-ID: <9DF9A4847F45483FBA86206E86F8A18D@sPC>

My Ham friend had a stroke and cannot find his color-code to pin-number paper for the 5 wires coming from the Yaesu 800S rotor on his tower.

What tests using a multimeter, etc. can I perform to the end of the rotor cable in his radio room to find out what color wire goes to which of the 5 pins on the controller box?

Thanks for any ideas you can give.
Scotty W7SW
W7SW at ARRL.NET

From k1ttt at arrl.net  Sat Jul 30 08:03:15 2016
From: k1ttt at arrl.net (David Robbins)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:03:15 +0000
Subject: [TowerTalk] Help needed to wire up Yaesu G-800S Rotor cable to
	the	controller
In-Reply-To: <9DF9A4847F45483FBA86206E86F8A18D@sPC>
References: <9DF9A4847F45483FBA86206E86F8A18D@sPC>
Message-ID: <00c201d1ea5a$5b4b6900$11e23b00$@arrl.net>

Between 2 of the wires there should be a very low resistance, those are the
motor.  The other 3 are the pot, there should be 500 ohms between the two
ends of the pot and the left over wire is the wiper.  


David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
web: http://wiki.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://k1ttt.net:7373



-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Scotty
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 10:38
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Help needed to wire up Yaesu G-800S Rotor cable to the
controller

My Ham friend had a stroke and cannot find his color-code to pin-number
paper for the 5 wires coming from the Yaesu 800S rotor on his tower.

What tests using a multimeter, etc. can I perform to the end of the rotor
cable in his radio room to find out what color wire goes to which of the 5
pins on the controller box?

Thanks for any ideas you can give.
Scotty W7SW
W7SW at ARRL.NET
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From co8dm at frcuba.co.cu  Sat Jul 30 15:39:01 2016
From: co8dm at frcuba.co.cu (Douglas Ruz / CO8DM)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 15:39:01 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HAM IV rotor and 2 antennas ???
References: <9DF9A4847F45483FBA86206E86F8A18D@sPC>
Message-ID: <859AE356555E4CF4A44A59E5FEE4A7BB@frc9077ac2cdc5>

Hi all,

I have a HAM IV rotor here...I see in the manual the maximum wind load area 
is 15 sq ft installed inside the tower.

I have a HD spiderbeam for 10, 15 and 20m...The spiderbeam wind load area is 
3,5 sq ft.

I want to know if I can install a 2 element 40m antenna few feet below the 
spiderbeam without broken the HAM IV ?

What kind of 40m beam I can install to keep the wind load area as low as 
possible ?

Thoughts?.

Thanks,

Doug, CO8DM


From john at kk9a.com  Sat Jul 30 21:39:32 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 21:39:32 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HAM IV rotor and 2 antennas ???
Message-ID: <000d01d1eacc$635f8f50$2a1eadf0$@com>

I would be more concerned about interaction between the two antennas that
will only be a few (3?)feet apart.

John KK9A


To:	<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject:	[TowerTalk] HAM IV rotor and 2 antennas ???
From:	"Douglas Ruz / CO8DM" <co8dm at frcuba.co.cu>
Date:	Sat, 30 Jul 2016 15:39:01 -0400
List-post:	<towertalk at contesting.com">mailto:towertalk at contesting.com>
Hi all,

I have a HAM IV rotor here...I see in the manual the maximum wind load area
is 15 sq ft installed inside the tower.

I have a HD spiderbeam for 10, 15 and 20m...The spiderbeam wind load area is
3,5 sq ft.

I want to know if I can install a 2 element 40m antenna few feet below the
spiderbeam without broken the HAM IV ?

What kind of 40m beam I can install to keep the wind load area as low as
possible ?

Thoughts?.

Thanks,

Doug, CO8DM


From john at kk9a.com  Sat Jul 30 21:42:20 2016
From: john at kk9a.com (john at kk9a.com)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 21:42:20 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] Help needed to wire up Yaesu G-800S Rotor cable to
	the	controller
Message-ID: <000e01d1eacc$c7d33270$57799750$@com>

It seems like with would be easier to unplug the cable at the rotor and look
at the wiring.

John KK9A


To:	<towertalk at contesting.com>
Subject:	[TowerTalk] Help needed to wire up Yaesu G-800S Rotor cable
to the	controller
From:	"Scotty" <scotty at ashiko.com>
Date:	Sat, 30 Jul 2016 03:38:06 -0700
List-post:	<towertalk at contesting.com">mailto:towertalk at contesting.com>
My Ham friend had a stroke and cannot find his color-code to pin-number
paper 
for the 5 wires coming from the Yaesu 800S rotor on his tower.

What tests using a multimeter, etc. can I perform to the end of the rotor
cable 
in his radio room to find out what color wire goes to which of the 5 pins on

the controller box?

Thanks for any ideas you can give.
Scotty W7SW
W7SW at ARRL.NET


From fishflorida at gmail.com  Sat Jul 30 22:44:54 2016
From: fishflorida at gmail.com (Mickey Baker)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:44:54 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] HAM IV rotor and 2 antennas ???
In-Reply-To: <859AE356555E4CF4A44A59E5FEE4A7BB@frc9077ac2cdc5>
References: <9DF9A4847F45483FBA86206E86F8A18D@sPC>
	<859AE356555E4CF4A44A59E5FEE4A7BB@frc9077ac2cdc5>
Message-ID: <CAOB+T5Y17gx=FRf7+QFthVL2cubsCSEOon5BWUamD0bsyQkVWg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Douglas Ruz / CO8DM <co8dm at frcuba.co.cu>
wrote:

> I want to know if I can install a 2 element 40m antenna few feet below the
> spiderbeam without broken the HAM IV ?


?Perhaps. Lasting through the next big windstorm is another story. The HAM
IV is a fairly light rotor. If you considered a lightweight 40m yagi,
perhaps.? It's rated at 1.4 sq m wind load. But you're a long way from
that. The issue is the moment limitation - 2800 ft pounds. You can
calculate "K Factor" - lots of places to find the method, but here's the
Yaesu explanation at a Hamstation web site:
http://www.hamstation.com/yg800sdxa.htm

?This is an answer to the rotator question... no discussion of other
stacking issues...?


Mickey Baker, N4MB
Palm Beach Gardens
*?Tell me, and I will listen. Show me, and I will understand. Involve me,
and I will learn.? *Teton Lakota, American Indian Saying.

From jdlambrightatty at gmail.com  Sat Jul 30 14:51:05 2016
From: jdlambrightatty at gmail.com (J D Lambright)
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:51:05 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] UST MCL-100 control box diagram
In-Reply-To: <1964a0.30ef2fdc.44cbad21@aol.com>
References: <1964a0.30ef2fdc.44cbad21@aol.com>
Message-ID: <CAM7owYYu_yFfe_S4B+mNeP=YEAf=oJeWFvRe6XxaqOjY=q6oHw@mail.gmail.com>

Greg, Fred,

Here is the wiring diagram for the US Tower MCL 100.  I have also attached
a photo of the new tower control box that I constructed for each of my UST
HDX-589MDPL towers.

J D Lambright - KF5U




On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:46 PM, <Gasrenateu at aol.com> wrote:

> Hell Jim,
>
> Please send the diagram.
>
> Tks.
> 73,wi1p,Greg
>

From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sun Jul 31 01:50:04 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 01:50:04 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height
Message-ID: <7755882c-91f3-ec85-c951-c857103c252b@tm.net>

FD operation got me to thinking about this.

On HF (depending on band conditions) there is a statistically preferred 
height for the distance to be worked.

On VHF particularly 6-meters where long haul is Sporadic E, Tropo, 
occasionally F, or Aurora.

Local work is usually the higher the better. I've normally had the 7L 
C3i (boom just a few inches short of 30 feet) at 115 feet and excellent 
results for single and double hop Sporadic E as well a F and Au.

Keeping in mind that the ideal height for HF is statistically derived, 
where is the point (frequency) where we should typically be switching 
over from the way we figure HF antenna height to the higher the better?  
The FD station had their 6-meter antenna height calculated the same way 
we usually figure HF antenna height, meaning, I could about jump high 
enough to touch the antenna. That is, if I could still jump.  They were 
shooting through the trees.

A typical 6-meter antenna would have a "bunch" of lobes between the 
horizon and vertical

-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Sun Jul 31 04:44:43 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 01:44:43 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height
In-Reply-To: <7755882c-91f3-ec85-c951-c857103c252b@tm.net>
References: <7755882c-91f3-ec85-c951-c857103c252b@tm.net>
Message-ID: <9871f7d8-bf32-e233-e1b3-f0f0c31b6d07@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Sat,7/30/2016 10:50 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
> Keeping in mind that the ideal height for HF is statistically derived, 
> where is the point (frequency) where we should typically be switching 
> over from the way we figure HF antenna height to the higher the better? 

I've worked 6M since I was a kid -- I was in WV for the great 1957-58 
solar cycle when we worked South Africa in the morning, then W6, then 
KH6, and then JA. For weeks at a time! It was all AM, and 50W was high 
power. I also worked a lot of AU on 6 in those days all CW, of course.

I worked 6M again from Chicago in the '70s the'80s, and the '00s. 100W 
and a pair of PAR loops at about 50 ft. I remember working a guy in Long 
Island with an antenna in his basement, and he had a pretty good signal.

Before I had a SteppIR at 120 ft, I loaded high 80/40 fan dipoles on 6M 
and made at least a couple of dozen double hop QSOs, including at least 
one KH6.

6M is primarily tropo and Sporadic-E, and sporadic is the key word. We 
don't even know the mechanism that establishes a cloud in the E-layer, 
and I strongly suspect that we want to hit that cloud at various angles 
depending on how far away it is. But I'm only guessing. I've worked no 
AU from my CA QTH -- I'm too far S. But I have worked some meteor 
scatter and tropo. My guess is that higher is better for these modes, 
but again, I'm guessing. Tropo, for example, includes ducting.

My QTH is looking into a ridge to the N, E, and SE that rises 200 - 600 
ft from my ground level, so higher is better. That SteppIR at 120 ft 
gives me a horizon between about 12 and 15 degrees to all of NA. And 
it's looking into a dense stand of redwoods in all directions. But I've 
still managed to work 352 grids and confirm 342 in ten seasons. This was 
a bad season, and it still yielded 11 new grids.

73, Jim K9YC


From jlangdon1 at austin.rr.com  Sun Jul 31 05:57:23 2016
From: jlangdon1 at austin.rr.com (John Langdon)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 04:57:23 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height
In-Reply-To: <9871f7d8-bf32-e233-e1b3-f0f0c31b6d07@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <7755882c-91f3-ec85-c951-c857103c252b@tm.net>
	<9871f7d8-bf32-e233-e1b3-f0f0c31b6d07@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <00c901d1eb11$ef73cc50$ce5b64f0$@austin.rr.com>

I have only been on 6M for the last few years.  I have one yagi at 195' and
another at 65' (on two different towers), and often notice dramatic
differences between the two, with the relative signal strengths changing
rapidly even over a few minutes.  I have been told I should have one antenna
at 25' or so, because both of mine are 'very high' for 6M.

I am not sure 6M DXCC (non EME) is a reasonable goal anymore.  I don't think
I have ever experienced F2 propagation on 6M, and may not in this lifetime!
:)

My next project is to set up to do diversity reception with the two 6M
yagis.

73 John N5CQ


-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Brown
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 3:45 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height

On Sat,7/30/2016 10:50 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
> Keeping in mind that the ideal height for HF is statistically derived, 
> where is the point (frequency) where we should typically be switching 
> over from the way we figure HF antenna height to the higher the better?

I've worked 6M since I was a kid -- I was in WV for the great 1957-58 solar
cycle when we worked South Africa in the morning, then W6, then KH6, and
then JA. For weeks at a time! It was all AM, and 50W was high power. I also
worked a lot of AU on 6 in those days all CW, of course.

I worked 6M again from Chicago in the '70s the'80s, and the '00s. 100W and a
pair of PAR loops at about 50 ft. I remember working a guy in Long Island
with an antenna in his basement, and he had a pretty good signal.

Before I had a SteppIR at 120 ft, I loaded high 80/40 fan dipoles on 6M and
made at least a couple of dozen double hop QSOs, including at least one KH6.

6M is primarily tropo and Sporadic-E, and sporadic is the key word. We don't
even know the mechanism that establishes a cloud in the E-layer, and I
strongly suspect that we want to hit that cloud at various angles depending
on how far away it is. But I'm only guessing. I've worked no AU from my CA
QTH -- I'm too far S. But I have worked some meteor scatter and tropo. My
guess is that higher is better for these modes, but again, I'm guessing.
Tropo, for example, includes ducting.

My QTH is looking into a ridge to the N, E, and SE that rises 200 - 600 ft
from my ground level, so higher is better. That SteppIR at 120 ft gives me a
horizon between about 12 and 15 degrees to all of NA. And it's looking into
a dense stand of redwoods in all directions. But I've still managed to work
352 grids and confirm 342 in ten seasons. This was a bad season, and it
still yielded 11 new grids.

73, Jim K9YC

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From nn4x at embarqmail.com  Sun Jul 31 08:11:00 2016
From: nn4x at embarqmail.com (Steve Sacco NN4X)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 08:11:00 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 163, Issue 120
In-Reply-To: <mailman.6717.1469954692.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
References: <mailman.6717.1469954692.3256.towertalk@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <2670e6a4-2d14-1820-b07a-fd81d3d0a35d@embarqmail.com>

Roger -

I've been on 6M since the mid-90's, with various antennas an power levels.

An important thing to remember about 6M is that a wavelength is only 
about 20', so as you raise its height, an antenna quickly acts as if 
it's in free space, and the takeoff angle is barely affected by the ground.

One lesson I learned the hard way is that "higher is most definitely 
NOT" always better on 6M.  For years, my high antenna has been a 7/7 
stack at 160'/140', and for as long as I've had it, I've felt that I 
don't hear very well.  During the last cycle peak, I was regularly 
outgunned by a local who was using a much lower and worse antenna, and 
he was able to work a lot of new ones that I couldn't even hear.  I've 
re-added a low antenna 6L at 40' to the mix, and find that it's much 
quieter, and I'm frequently able to hear with that what I can't with the 
7/7.

This all made sense when I finally realized that the high antenna, while 
incredible for ground-wave QSO's, the reciprocal was that also hearing 
noise from that many more local sources.   Some quick math shows that 
the high antenna is exposed to ~4.5 times more local noise than the 40' 
antenna to local noise.  I frequently observe a 8 - 10 dB higher noise 
floor on the high antenna.

Toss in loss due to the coax having to be longer to reach the high 
antenna, and the case for a high antenna gets even worse.

A couple of weeks ago, I worked 4L/DL7ZM via terrestrial path on 6M - a 
6,500 mile distance - on the low antenna, because it heard him better 
than the high antenna (which is currently only 7L due to a problem with 
the phasing harness).

Regarding Sporadic E prop:
- QST, August 2016: "The World Above 50 MHz" (which includes a link to: 
http://k9la.us/html/vhf.html)
- 
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1993JIMO...21..182M&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES

Hope this helps,

73,
Steve
NN4X


 > Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 01:50:04 -0400
 > From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
 > To: "towertalk at contesting.com" <towertalk at contesting.com>
 > Subject: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height
 > Message-ID: <7755882c-91f3-ec85-c951-c857103c252b at tm.net>
 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
 >
 > FD operation got me to thinking about this.
 >
 > On HF (depending on band conditions) there is a statistically preferred
 > height for the distance to be worked.
 >
 > On VHF particularly 6-meters where long haul is Sporadic E, Tropo,
 > occasionally F, or Aurora.
 >
 > Local work is usually the higher the better. I've normally had the 7L
 > C3i (boom just a few inches short of 30 feet) at 115 feet and excellent
 > results for single and double hop Sporadic E as well a F and Au.
 >
 > Keeping in mind that the ideal height for HF is statistically derived,
 > where is the point (frequency) where we should typically be switching
 > over from the way we figure HF antenna height to the higher the better?
 > The FD station had their 6-meter antenna height calculated the same way
 > we usually figure HF antenna height, meaning, I could about jump high
 > enough to touch the antenna. That is, if I could still jump. They were
 > shooting through the trees.
 >
 > A typical 6-meter antenna would have a "bunch" of lobes between the
 > horizon and vertical
 >



From lists at subich.com  Sun Jul 31 10:16:53 2016
From: lists at subich.com (Joe Subich, W4TV)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 10:16:53 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height
In-Reply-To: <9871f7d8-bf32-e233-e1b3-f0f0c31b6d07@audiosystemsgroup.com>
References: <7755882c-91f3-ec85-c951-c857103c252b@tm.net>
	<9871f7d8-bf32-e233-e1b3-f0f0c31b6d07@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Message-ID: <f96f4f43-47e7-9a27-5ac5-0fe9ce556303@subich.com>


On 7/31/2016 4:44 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>
> My QTH is looking into a ridge to the N, E, and SE that rises 200 - 600
> ft from my ground level, so higher is better. That SteppIR at 120 ft
> gives me a horizon between about 12 and 15 degrees to all of NA. And
> it's looking into a dense stand of redwoods in all directions. But I've
> still managed to work 352 grids and confirm 342 in ten seasons. This was
> a bad season, and it still yielded 11 new grids.

I'm not convinced that says much about antenna height on six meters ...
I've managed to work 413 and confirm 388 grids (49 states - need AK)
in five seasons with nothing more than essentially a double zepp at
about 25 feet.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV

From ruler55 at gmail.com  Sun Jul 31 10:34:11 2016
From: ruler55 at gmail.com (Robie Elms)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 09:34:11 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height
In-Reply-To: <f96f4f43-47e7-9a27-5ac5-0fe9ce556303@subich.com>
References: <7755882c-91f3-ec85-c951-c857103c252b@tm.net>
	<9871f7d8-bf32-e233-e1b3-f0f0c31b6d07@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<f96f4f43-47e7-9a27-5ac5-0fe9ce556303@subich.com>
Message-ID: <EF8338D0-E3DF-45C3-87D8-D6D9B10A214B@gmail.com>

I would love to have a good yagi at 40-50 feet or so.  However, I am like Joe and mostly use a dipole @ 30 ft and sometimes a 3 el yagi at the same height and my results are similar to Joe's.  Yesterday, KL7 was being worked from EL29 (my grid) by locals with high antennas (K5RK specifically).  I could not copy the KL7.  I feel that I could have worked him with a higher antenna! 

Perhaps I will be more successful today.

Robie - AJ4F

> On Jul 31, 2016, at 09:16, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists at subich.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 7/31/2016 4:44 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> 
>> My QTH is looking into a ridge to the N, E, and SE that rises 200 - 600
>> ft from my ground level, so higher is better. That SteppIR at 120 ft
>> gives me a horizon between about 12 and 15 degrees to all of NA. And
>> it's looking into a dense stand of redwoods in all directions. But I've
>> still managed to work 352 grids and confirm 342 in ten seasons. This was
>> a bad season, and it still yielded 11 new grids.
> 
> I'm not convinced that says much about antenna height on six meters ...
> I've managed to work 413 and confirm 388 grids (49 states - need AK)
> in five seasons with nothing more than essentially a double zepp at
> about 25 feet.
> 
> 73,
> 
>  ... Joe, W4TV
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

From paul at n1bug.com  Sun Jul 31 11:02:54 2016
From: paul at n1bug.com (N1BUG)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 11:02:54 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height
In-Reply-To: <f96f4f43-47e7-9a27-5ac5-0fe9ce556303@subich.com>
References: <7755882c-91f3-ec85-c951-c857103c252b@tm.net>
	<9871f7d8-bf32-e233-e1b3-f0f0c31b6d07@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<f96f4f43-47e7-9a27-5ac5-0fe9ce556303@subich.com>
Message-ID: <579E131E.9040504@n1bug.com>

Purely anecdotal, but... I have been using the same 7 element, 33 
foot boom 6 meter yagi for over 12 years. During that time I have 
had it at heights of 30, 70, and 105 feet.

30 feet worked very well for single hop Es and quite well on double 
hop. I believe on average I got stronger signals from stations out 
to 2000 miles or so at that height. On DX beyond two hop range, I 
did not do well compared to the stations around me who have high 
antennas. I worked a lot of DX, but I did not get as many openings 
as the high antenna boys around me, nor was I able to work as far in 
each opening.

At 70 feet, long haul DX was very much better. I would get more and 
longer openings to Europe, Africa, and the middle east. I could 
compete better with the "big guns" around who get the most DX. 
Signals within one hop range may have been down somewhat compared to 
the lower height.

At 105 feet I was often able to open and close the band on long haul 
off-continent Es. This did not happen at either of the lower 
heights. There consistently seemed to be a marked advantage at this 
height for DX. This height was also clearly best for tropo, such as 
during VHF contests when there was no other propagation. One hop Es 
signals were on average quite a bit weaker but still very workable 
since we don't need 40 dB over S9 to work a station.

A year ago I relocated the antenna from 105 feet back to 30 feet. 
How very disappointing! Now I sit listening to the high antenna boys 
all around me working DX that doesn't exist for me, but I am still 
doing very well with single and double hop stuff. It had been a 
number of years since I had operated with the antenna at this 
height. Oh yes... now I remember.

For me the moral of the story is I need another tower. I am 
fortunate to have what I do, but cannot have all my antennas up high 
at the same time.

73,
Paul N1BUG FN55mf

From rxdesign at ssvecnet.com  Sun Jul 31 11:38:26 2016
From: rxdesign at ssvecnet.com (StellarCAT)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 11:38:26 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height
In-Reply-To: <00c901d1eb11$ef73cc50$ce5b64f0$@austin.rr.com>
References: <7755882c-91f3-ec85-c951-c857103c252b@tm.net><9871f7d8-bf32-e233-e1b3-f0f0c31b6d07@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<00c901d1eb11$ef73cc50$ce5b64f0$@austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <FEFB86AADAD24AD48265C5D3A6AA6666@RXDesignDell>

interesting - when I was in Arizona I worked 10 European countries on 6 as 
well as ZL/VK/FK8, JA and others ... 7 elements at 50'. This was from about 
2007 - 2012 ... not at my radio computer so I don't remember when precisely 
but they were all worked. Not F2?

g.





-----Original Message----- 
From: John Langdon
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 5:57 AM
To: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com ; towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height

I have only been on 6M for the last few years.  I have one yagi at 195' and
another at 65' (on two different towers), and often notice dramatic
differences between the two, with the relative signal strengths changing
rapidly even over a few minutes.  I have been told I should have one antenna
at 25' or so, because both of mine are 'very high' for 6M.

I am not sure 6M DXCC (non EME) is a reasonable goal anymore.  I don't think
I have ever experienced F2 propagation on 6M, and may not in this lifetime!
:)

My next project is to set up to do diversity reception with the two 6M
yagis.

73 John N5CQ


-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Brown
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 3:45 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height

On Sat,7/30/2016 10:50 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
> Keeping in mind that the ideal height for HF is statistically derived,
> where is the point (frequency) where we should typically be switching
> over from the way we figure HF antenna height to the higher the better?

I've worked 6M since I was a kid -- I was in WV for the great 1957-58 solar
cycle when we worked South Africa in the morning, then W6, then KH6, and
then JA. For weeks at a time! It was all AM, and 50W was high power. I also
worked a lot of AU on 6 in those days all CW, of course.

I worked 6M again from Chicago in the '70s the'80s, and the '00s. 100W and a
pair of PAR loops at about 50 ft. I remember working a guy in Long Island
with an antenna in his basement, and he had a pretty good signal.

Before I had a SteppIR at 120 ft, I loaded high 80/40 fan dipoles on 6M and
made at least a couple of dozen double hop QSOs, including at least one KH6.

6M is primarily tropo and Sporadic-E, and sporadic is the key word. We don't
even know the mechanism that establishes a cloud in the E-layer, and I
strongly suspect that we want to hit that cloud at various angles depending
on how far away it is. But I'm only guessing. I've worked no AU from my CA
QTH -- I'm too far S. But I have worked some meteor scatter and tropo. My
guess is that higher is better for these modes, but again, I'm guessing.
Tropo, for example, includes ducting.

My QTH is looking into a ridge to the N, E, and SE that rises 200 - 600 ft
from my ground level, so higher is better. That SteppIR at 120 ft gives me a
horizon between about 12 and 15 degrees to all of NA. And it's looking into
a dense stand of redwoods in all directions. But I've still managed to work
352 grids and confirm 342 in ten seasons. This was a bad season, and it
still yielded 11 new grids.

73, Jim K9YC

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



From kstover at ac0h.net  Sun Jul 31 12:24:52 2016
From: kstover at ac0h.net (Kevin)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 11:24:52 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height
In-Reply-To: <579E131E.9040504@n1bug.com>
References: <7755882c-91f3-ec85-c951-c857103c252b@tm.net>
	<9871f7d8-bf32-e233-e1b3-f0f0c31b6d07@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<f96f4f43-47e7-9a27-5ac5-0fe9ce556303@subich.com>
	<579E131E.9040504@n1bug.com>
Message-ID: <1465f1eb-092f-ce8a-9aa4-3368d1aeb8de@ac0h.net>

Paul,

Sounds like you need another antenna or two.

Put one at 50' and the other at 75' and another at 100' and switch 
between them as the band changes.

The 25' stacking distance is what M2 recommends for their 6M7JHV antenna.


On 7/31/2016 10:02 AM, N1BUG wrote:
> Purely anecdotal, but... I have been using the same 7 element, 33 foot 
> boom 6 meter yagi for over 12 years. During that time I have had it at 
> heights of 30, 70, and 105 feet.
>
> 30 feet worked very well for single hop Es and quite well on double 
> hop. I believe on average I got stronger signals from stations out to 
> 2000 miles or so at that height. On DX beyond two hop range, I did not 
> do well compared to the stations around me who have high antennas. I 
> worked a lot of DX, but I did not get as many openings as the high 
> antenna boys around me, nor was I able to work as far in each opening.
>
> At 70 feet, long haul DX was very much better. I would get more and 
> longer openings to Europe, Africa, and the middle east. I could 
> compete better with the "big guns" around who get the most DX. Signals 
> within one hop range may have been down somewhat compared to the lower 
> height.
>
> At 105 feet I was often able to open and close the band on long haul 
> off-continent Es. This did not happen at either of the lower heights. 
> There consistently seemed to be a marked advantage at this height for 
> DX. This height was also clearly best for tropo, such as during VHF 
> contests when there was no other propagation. One hop Es signals were 
> on average quite a bit weaker but still very workable since we don't 
> need 40 dB over S9 to work a station.
>
> A year ago I relocated the antenna from 105 feet back to 30 feet. How 
> very disappointing! Now I sit listening to the high antenna boys all 
> around me working DX that doesn't exist for me, but I am still doing 
> very well with single and double hop stuff. It had been a number of 
> years since I had operated with the antenna at this height. Oh yes... 
> now I remember.
>
> For me the moral of the story is I need another tower. I am fortunate 
> to have what I do, but cannot have all my antennas up high at the same 
> time.
>
> 73,
> Paul N1BUG FN55mf
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>

-- 
R. Kevin Stover
AC0H
ARRL
FISTS #11993
SKCC #215
NAQCC #3441


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From jim at audiosystemsgroup.com  Sun Jul 31 12:56:32 2016
From: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com (Jim Brown)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 09:56:32 -0700
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height
In-Reply-To: <f96f4f43-47e7-9a27-5ac5-0fe9ce556303@subich.com>
References: <7755882c-91f3-ec85-c951-c857103c252b@tm.net>
	<9871f7d8-bf32-e233-e1b3-f0f0c31b6d07@audiosystemsgroup.com>
	<f96f4f43-47e7-9a27-5ac5-0fe9ce556303@subich.com>
Message-ID: <d3404f48-6a0a-685d-aeca-512254258ee8@audiosystemsgroup.com>

On Sun,7/31/2016 7:16 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> I'm not convinced that says much about antenna height on six meters ...

That was exactly my point!

> I've managed to work 413 and confirm 388 grids (49 states - need AK)
> in five seasons with nothing more than essentially a double zepp at
> about 25 feet. 

Not surprising. Look at the 6M maps at dxmaps.com on a day to day basis. 
Those of you in the eastern half of the US get a LOT more openings in a 
lot more directions than we do in northern W6, and there are a lot more 
active hams in single-hop range. I had to go to meteor scatter and tropo 
(using ISCAT) for a couple of dozen mid-range grids, most of those from 
expeditions to those grids by a half dozen enterprising hams. K7BV alone 
is responsible for a dozen very rare grids that he activated on trips to 
and from hamfests. Dennis works for Yaesu in marketing. KB7Q is another 
grid warrior. I think you and I worked on 6M CW either this season or 
last. I'm going from memory -- my email computer is not in my shack.

W6JTI, a great CW op, gave me and several of my friends CM79 by hiking 
up a 3 mile trail that climbs 1,000 ft. In the last couple of weeks, 
Frank and I have completed skeds for CN70 (a portable setup with his K3 
and a 3-el Yagi) and CN80 (from his mountain-top contesting shack). He's 
planning CN71 next month from a site near where he'll be staying 
overnight with a relative. This is all very sparsely populated area, 
where the principal crop is green and smokable. :)

73, Jim K9YC


From lstoskopf at cox.net  Sun Jul 31 15:00:39 2016
From: lstoskopf at cox.net (lstoskopf at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 15:00:39 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6M antenna height
In-Reply-To: <RU0B1t00U32TbLd01U0C0h>
Message-ID: <20160731150039.TBFQJ.12007.imail@eastrmwml205>

HFTA is often your friend.  N0UU
  

From n7rt at cox.net  Sun Jul 31 15:47:34 2016
From: n7rt at cox.net (Hardy Landskov)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 15:47:34 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6M antenna height
In-Reply-To: <RX0o1t00S32TbLd01X14py>
References: <RU0B1t00U32TbLd01U0C0h> <RX0o1t00S32TbLd01X14py>
Message-ID: <010a01d1eb64$62abfab0$2803f010$@net>

I have been wondering myself about 6 mtr height. CT1HZE says about 50 feet.
I have mine at 70 feet. We will see. I am in Florida now.
73 N7T/4

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
lstoskopf at cox.net
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 3:01 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Cc: towertalk-request at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 6M antenna height

HFTA is often your friend.  N0UU
  
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From mikflathead at aol.com  Sun Jul 31 15:59:50 2016
From: mikflathead at aol.com (mikflathead at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 15:59:50 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6M antenna height
In-Reply-To: <010a01d1eb64$62abfab0$2803f010$@net>
Message-ID: <156428a88c9-7f09-4624@webprd-a46.mail.aol.com>


 

 It's always disappointing  to watch the DX clusters and see 1's working the central US and you hear nothing :(

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hardy Landskov <n7rt at cox.net>
To: lstoskopf <lstoskopf at cox.net>; towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Cc: towertalk-request <towertalk-request at contesting.com>
Sent: Sun, Jul 31, 2016 3:48 pm
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 6M antenna height

I have been wondering myself about 6 mtr height. CT1HZE says about 50 feet.
I have mine at 70 feet. We will see. I am in Florida now.
73 N7T/4

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
lstoskopf at cox.net
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 3:01 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Cc: towertalk-request at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 6M antenna height

HFTA is often your friend.  N0UU
  
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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


From K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net  Sun Jul 31 17:49:08 2016
From: K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:49:08 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6-meter antenna height
In-Reply-To: <7755882c-91f3-ec85-c951-c857103c252b@tm.net>
References: <7755882c-91f3-ec85-c951-c857103c252b@tm.net>
Message-ID: <43fe1cb1-49d4-f7a2-6bbc-1509e9347e50@tm.net>

I should add that I've had that 7L @ 115' for over 2 full sunspot cycles.
I've probably worked close to as many or maybe more countries on six. On 
the peak, two cycles ago, I basically could have had WAC within 10 
minuted as the whole world was audible with strong signals at one time. 
I missed a station in Guam because he had a stateside call, did not 
identify his location and was the loudest signal on the band. Later I 
heard him working a pileup which is when I heard mention of his 
location.  I didn't call as I was burnt out from working that opening 
for hours.

That was the day I worked the Central American who had a piece of wire 
stuck in the coax connector with his rig on the work bench.
In pileups I usually worked them on the first call and that was with 
just 100 W.

http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/Tower29.htm
I've often posted the link to this photo. I was working on the TH5 
tribander at 100 feet, the 7L 6-meter Yagi is the first antenna above 
it, so there was a lot of Aluminum above and below it.

There was a ham (I've forgotten his call and name) about 20 miles NNW of 
me with a huge quadrature array of much longer antennas than mine.  I 
don't remember the height, but they were high. no one in the area out 
talked him regardless of antenna height.

I have seen days where long openings (> 1000 miles) on 144 favored lower 
antennas and my co-linear vertical at 50 feet would out do  my stacked 
12s at 130 feet, but that was a long time ago so I don't remember the 
particulars, no is it in the log notes.

As forgiving up on 6-m DXCC, I've seen a number of openings in the past 
couple of weeks to just about all continents.  Unfortunately at present 
I only have some wire antennas for 40 and 75 working.

I see those openings 
http://www.dxmaps.com/spots/map.php?Lan=E&Frec=50&Map=NA and really wish 
I could at least get that 7L back up.
As I write this post there is/are openings from the mid West and 
particularly New England into SA.

73

Roger (K8RI)


On 7/31/2016 Sunday 1:50 AM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
> FD operation got me to thinking about this.
>
> On HF (depending on band conditions) there is a statistically 
> preferred height for the distance to be worked.
>
> On VHF particularly 6-meters where long haul is Sporadic E, Tropo, 
> occasionally F, or Aurora.
>
> Local work is usually the higher the better. I've normally had the 7L 
> C3i (boom just a few inches short of 30 feet) at 115 feet and 
> excellent results for single and double hop Sporadic E as well a F and 
> Au.
>
> Keeping in mind that the ideal height for HF is statistically derived, 
> where is the point (frequency) where we should typically be switching 
> over from the way we figure HF antenna height to the higher the 
> better?  The FD station had their 6-meter antenna height calculated 
> the same way we usually figure HF antenna height, meaning, I could 
> about jump high enough to touch the antenna. That is, if I could still 
> jump.  They were shooting through the trees.
>
> A typical 6-meter antenna would have a "bunch" of lobes between the 
> horizon and vertical
>


-- 

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



From gmuller885 at aol.com  Sun Jul 31 19:16:34 2016
From: gmuller885 at aol.com (gmuller885)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:16:34 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] 10 and 6 meter beams.
Message-ID: <p9nm5ugrnji2t9a5gtpiwgmn.1470006994754@email.android.com>


    
I am getting ready to put up a 10 meter 4 element beam and a 6 meter 5 element beam on a 30 ft tower. What I want to know is what is the recommended distance and off set for the two beams?

Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy? Note 4.

From jlangdon1 at austin.rr.com  Sun Jul 31 19:54:11 2016
From: jlangdon1 at austin.rr.com (John Langdon)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:54:11 -0500
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6M antenna height
In-Reply-To: <20160731150039.TBFQJ.12007.imail@eastrmwml205>
References: <RU0B1t00U32TbLd01U0C0h>
	<20160731150039.TBFQJ.12007.imail@eastrmwml205>
Message-ID: <002c01d1eb86$d5d4e7a0$817eb6e0$@austin.rr.com>

As I understand it, HFTA statistically does not account for sporadic E hops,
so it's usefulness for 6M may be in question.

I learned for USA domestic F2 propagation on 20-15-10 with my sloping
foregrounds, it is very easy to get too high.

73 John N5CQ
 

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
lstoskopf at cox.net
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 2:01 PM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Cc: towertalk-request at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 6M antenna height

HFTA is often your friend.  N0UU
  
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


From lists at subich.com  Sun Jul 31 20:20:52 2016
From: lists at subich.com (Joe Subich, W4TV)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 20:20:52 -0400
Subject: [TowerTalk] 6M antenna height
In-Reply-To: <002c01d1eb86$d5d4e7a0$817eb6e0$@austin.rr.com>
References: <RU0B1t00U32TbLd01U0C0h>
	<20160731150039.TBFQJ.12007.imail@eastrmwml205>
	<002c01d1eb86$d5d4e7a0$817eb6e0$@austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f6eea86a-9ad2-8b45-c678-6e17ed4100dd@subich.com>


On 7/31/2016 7:54 PM, John Langdon wrote:
> As I understand it, HFTA statistically does not account for sporadic
> Ehops, so it's usefulness for 6M may be in question.

HFTA does not include propagation values for 6 meters.  If you look
at the *.PRN files you will see values for 80/40/30/20/17/12/10 but
not 160 or 6.

When using HFTA on 6 meters (or anywhere on VHF/UHF), the 10 meter
propagation values are used because HFTA uses the next lowest values
(enter 20 MHz and you will see that the 17 meter values are used).

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV

On 7/31/2016 7:54 PM, John Langdon wrote:
> As I understand it, HFTA statistically does not account for sporadic E hops,
> so it's usefulness for 6M may be in question.
>
> I learned for USA domestic F2 propagation on 20-15-10 with my sloping
> foregrounds, it is very easy to get too high.
>
> 73 John N5CQ
>
>