Mail Archive Search: <+from:ag0n@arrl.net>

Results:

References: [ +from:ag0n@arrl.net: 95 ]

Total 95 documents matching your query.

41. [Towertalk] covering unused PL259 ? de n9vv (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:03:19 -0600; Yuck! ;o) Ever tried removing that stuff after it has been there awhile? Wouldn't touch it. It seals very well, if put on correctly, but the negatives outweigh the positives as far as I'm concerned.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-04/msg00539.html (8,803 bytes)
42. [Towertalk] Re: Help! Heavy Wind Batters Beam and Rotor (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:20:37 -0600; Check out the clamshell bolts too. I don't remember if it was on the T2X or my other one but I discovered them loose once. Gary a g 0 n at a r r l dot n e t http colon slash slash mcduffie dot ws --; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-04/msg00943.html (7,346 bytes)
43. [Towertalk] Virus (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:36:20 -0600; Gentlemen, please check your systems! I've received three virii today in separate mailings. I don't have a way to confirm what group triggered them, but two of them had ham callsign return addresses.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-04/msg00947.html (7,183 bytes)
44. [Towertalk] Virus (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 19:22:54 -0600; By the way, they are all (apparently) coming from mfjenterprises. ;o) Received a 4th one this afternoon. Gary a g 0 n at a r r l dot n e t http colon slash slash mcduffie dot ws --; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-04/msg00959.html (7,067 bytes)
45. [Towertalk] FYI - Virus Address Spoofing (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:19:34 -0600; If that was directed at me, it wasn't threaded properly. If it WAS directed at me, please re-read my statement. It APPEARS to have come from mfjenterprises. gm a g 0 n at a r r l dot n e t http colon; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-04/msg00998.html (7,594 bytes)
46. [Towertalk] Explain this! (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 06:44:01 -0600; I guess the strangest part is that it didn't seem odd enough to go investigate at the time! The moon is pretty bright these days, but you didn't mention it. gm a g 0 n at a r r l dot n e t http colon; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-04/msg01017.html (8,058 bytes)
47. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:23:03 -0700; Uh....how about also taking info from people who have NOT had a problem, so that viewers of your info can also see that a properly maintained system doesn't normally have that problem? It's too easy; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00214.html (8,187 bytes)
48. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:02:56 -0700; Cables last longer when they have tension on them. Letting tension off allows more room for water to ingress. gm -- There is no x in my ISPs domain name.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00240.html (9,109 bytes)
49. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:01:44 -0700; I'd be interested in hearing the full story on that one. I've often worried about that myself. Another thread (please) would be in order, but I think others would be interested too. gm -- There is no; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00242.html (9,029 bytes)
50. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:41:18 -0700; I would guess that there is MUCH less stress applied to a pull-down cable. Mind you, I've never been around a tower that had positive pull-down, but my guess would be that you should leave it with fu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00245.html (9,376 bytes)
51. [Towertalk] crankup towers (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:52:33 -0700; http://championradio.com/ Look for Prelube6 on the Misc page. or direct: http://www.championradio.com/cgi-bin/WebStore/web_store.cgi?page=misc.html&category=yes&cart_id=6874389_6819 Get two, their ch; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00246.html (7,448 bytes)
52. [Towertalk] crankup towers (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:16:52 -0700; Wow....can't tell I worked a 22 hour day, can you! -- There is no x in my ISPs domain name.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00247.html (7,052 bytes)
53. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:43:15 -0700; Read what you've written, Jim. Everything you say negative is brought about by unwise decisions. If the tower can "settle" an extra inch or so, then you have already broken the first rule! Pay attent; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00264.html (9,557 bytes)
54. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:38:59 -0700; I have no problem climbing a safe tower, and have done it for the last 40 years. Due to age and increasing weight problems, I don't do it as much as I used to. I've not been above about 700', but I'm; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00271.html (9,950 bytes)
55. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS - Not a panacea (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:46:05 -0700; That's one thing I did NOT say, but I know others did. If you have read my web page on putting up my HG54HD, you'll know I ran into the same thing you allude to. My wife and I managed to get the TH7D; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00288.html (11,634 bytes)
56. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS - Not a panacea (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:54:51 -0700; By the way, all of my statements about crankups have been regarding TILT over, NOT FOLD OVER. I have only one experience with a fold over tower and it spooked me! Not saying it can't be done right, b; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00290.html (10,150 bytes)
57. [Towertalk] 1.7 db gain (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:38:18 -0700; Hi Al. Long time! You nailed it. With a reasonably good signal, 1-2 db is nothing. But when you're in the noise floor it can be all the difference in the world. Gary -- There is no x in my ISPs domai; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00418.html (7,057 bytes)
58. [Towertalk] When are permits needed for antennas? (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:28:24 -0700; Obviously, there are benefits to living in a rural area like this, and your experience will NO DOUBT vary from mine. But since you asked... A situation presented itself a few years ago where I could; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00530.html (7,552 bytes)
59. [Towertalk] KT 34A Bible (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 07:09:18 -0700; I would have kept that if I had known what it was and it went to the group. Do you know the message title, or who it was from? I can search this folder a bit later today. If you come across it, I'd b; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00545.html (7,040 bytes)
60. [Towertalk] XA Boom Failure (score: 1): Author: ag0n@arrl.net (ag0n@arrl.net); Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:58:52 -0700; The picture mentioned in an earlier post by Steve, K7LXC, is posted at: www.actcom.net/~mcduffie/xaboom.jpg It is about 108k, so give it a minute or two. If anyone knows what has happened to qrz.net; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00584.html (6,661 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 60
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]