Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:km5vi@flukey.cc: 80 ]

Total 80 documents matching your query.

61. [TowerTalk] FW: Determining coax length? (score: 1)
Author: "KM5VI" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:20:44 -0600
John makes an important point about taking time to confirm the polarity of the baluns - I have seen two baluns from the same manufacturer with identical part numbers that were wired with the load sid
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-11/msg00210.html (9,192 bytes)

62. [TowerTalk] FW: Determining coax length? (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:24:07 -0600
Thanks John for teaching me something new! I modeled 2-stack array this evening and you are correct - the performance & pattern are predicted to tolerate quite a bit of phase shift before things star
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-11/msg00229.html (10,480 bytes)

63. [TowerTalk] FW: Birds! (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:55:47 -0600
This may not be applicable but here's a suggestion. I have a similar problem at home with non-migratory birds that perch in a position of safety where they can easily access food on the ground. My el
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-11/msg00231.html (9,716 bytes)

64. [TowerTalk] FW: Stubs (score: 1)
Author: "KM5VI" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:51:05 -0600
output of the amp, or do I need to subtract the length from the output of the exciter to the output of the tuner? The stub's electrical length is from the "T" connection to the end of the stub so no
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-11/msg00246.html (7,302 bytes)

65. [TowerTalk] FW: FW: Stubs (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:53:03 -0600
setup. band. Just not really sure about where to put the stub in the line from the radio. I've gotten lots of good info so think I'm good to go. Hi Tom, Adding all the info together it sounds like y
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-11/msg00272.html (9,947 bytes)

66. [TowerTalk] FW: Crank up questions. (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 02:28:48 -0600
This may or may not be of use to you but thought I would offer an alternative. I have 4 cranks-ups and 2 don't have raising fixtures. For each of these without fixtures I elongated the foundation exc
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-11/msg00452.html (8,171 bytes)

67. [TowerTalk] FW: [Amps] Fw: Crimp connector die sizes (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:24:49 -0600
I have a spreadsheet to cross-reference crimp dies for the open frame (military style) crimpers. After reading in this thread that this info is hard to come by, I put it up on the web for everyone's
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-11/msg00477.html (9,295 bytes)

68. [TowerTalk] FW: FW: Crank up questions. (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:07:10 -0600
I put some up here: http://www.flukey.cc/km5vi/New%20Station/Hoist%20Supports/Hoist%20Supports.p hp Matt KM5VI Hi Matt. Do you have any pictures of your setup? 73, de Nate >> -- "The optimist proclai
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-11/msg00499.html (9,081 bytes)

69. [TowerTalk] FW: FW: FW: Crank up questions. (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:45:58 -0600
For some reason the link got truncated. Go to the main page www.flukey.cc/km5vi click on "New Station Progress" and then "Hoist Supports" Matt KM5VI I put some up here: http://www.flukey.cc/km5vi/New
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-11/msg00500.html (10,184 bytes)

70. [TowerTalk] FW: FW: FW: FW: Crank up questions. (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:45:05 -0600
the old rebar setup. The tower base is not separate from the rebar. The bases for the two Triex towers are my own design as I wanted provisions for adjustable leveling and potential for future tower
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-11/msg00514.html (10,203 bytes)

71. [TowerTalk] FW: More crank-up questions (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 00:44:49 -0600
Regarding the 3.5x3.5x7.5 base dimension, a copy of Tri-ex hand calculations dated from 1965 shows the assumption was 4,660 psi soil bearing strength @ 7' below grade and 1,550 @ 28" below grade. The
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-12/msg00002.html (9,907 bytes)

72. [TowerTalk] FW: More crank-up questions (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 12:23:17 -0600
welded instead of tied. good enough for the manufacturer, then it's good enough for me. Be aware that normal grade rebar should not be welded - the heat destroys its strength. There is a separate gr
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-12/msg00013.html (8,556 bytes)

73. [TowerTalk] FW: FW: More crank-up questions (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 12:29:05 -0600
Yea - you are right Ken. Seems like every time the ASCE updates the code.... Matt KM5VI It is interesting how base requirements have changed over the years. Back in 1970, I had a 64' freestanding alu
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-12/msg00014.html (9,671 bytes)

74. [TowerTalk] FW: More crank-up questions (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 12:38:03 -0600
You are correct Ken - the discussion is mostly academic, but an area of my personal interest. Matt KM5VI anyone aware of a tower base failure due to strength of the concrete or lack of rebar? (Except
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-12/msg00015.html (9,028 bytes)

75. [TowerTalk] FW: Rust & paint (score: 1)
Author: "KM5VI" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:55:20 -0600
Opinion: I used Rustoleum Rust Reformer once on some lawn furniture 2 years ago and I just was not very impressed. I did not see that it reformed any surface rust (after pre-brushing) and two years l
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-12/msg00023.html (7,908 bytes)

76. [TowerTalk] FW: Change in SWR (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:42:19 -0600
For what it's worth, I modeled a resonant 160m dipole @ 10' below a generic 40m beam at 64'. The model predicted almost no interaction between the two antennas on 40m. I modeled the 160m dipole as a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-12/msg00093.html (11,158 bytes)

77. [TowerTalk] FW: Change in SWR (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:44:24 -0600
Well put Earl! It is easy science and engineering to make the tower base infinitely large, the cable permanently greasy, the ground plane perfectly conductive, and the guy anchors infinitely stout. T
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-12/msg00094.html (9,545 bytes)

78. [TowerTalk] Sad Day at OH8X (score: 1)
Author: "KM5VI" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:56:22 -0600
I was saddened to hear that 160m tower at OH8X recently collapsed in a winter storm. Matt KM5VI http://dx-world.net/2013/oh8x-tower-collapse/ North, you will now find the wintry landscape more naked
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-12/msg00136.html (8,163 bytes)

79. [TowerTalk] FW: Re-orienting a crank-up tower (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:56:20 -0600
ideas on how practical/feasible it would be to do #3? Don't know if this will help but I essentially did #3 on a couple of Triex towers. There are some updated pictures on my website - look about ha
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-12/msg00203.html (8,033 bytes)

80. [TowerTalk] FW: FW: Re-orienting a crank-up tower (score: 1)
Author: "Matt" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:16:25 -0600
Kelly, I probably should have explained that my thoughts better for implementing your existing embedded tabs or (2) fabricate an adapter that uses anchor bolts. The later would require you to cut you
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-12/msg00204.html (10,172 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu