Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:w9ac@arrl.net: 391 ]

Total 391 documents matching your query.

21. [Towertalk] ABC Home Owners Assoc Expose (score: 1)
Author: w9ac@arrl.net (Paul Christensen)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:17:11 -0400
I'm with you Brian. I am in Jacksonville and Naples is nearly a mirror image only its a bit newer and overall, a "nicer" place to live since the Gulf coast of Florida is absolutely gorgeous. Unless y
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-04/msg00825.html (15,551 bytes)

22. [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS (score: 1)
Author: w9ac@arrl.net (Paul Christensen)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:30:12 -0500
Isn't a major point in owning a crank-up tower that the operator completely or at least partially nests the tower when not actively operating? -Paul, W9AC
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00222.html (8,699 bytes)

23. [Towertalk] deed restrictions (score: 1)
Author: w9ac@arrl.net (Paul Christensen)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:50:00 -0500
Generally, the Homeowner's Association is entitled to immediate injunctive relief, pending the outcome of the case if a complaint is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. Know what you agreed
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00302.html (9,373 bytes)

24. [Towertalk] deed restrictions (score: 1)
Author: w9ac@arrl.net (Paul Christensen)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:29:14 -0500
Of course, the best solution is to remove the applicable language altogether. Unfortunately, most, if not all developers will not negotiate the terms of the CC&R provisions. I do know of two cases wh
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00308.html (12,389 bytes)

25. [Towertalk] deed restrictions (score: 1)
Author: w9ac@arrl.net (Paul Christensen)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 11:24:20 -0500
Putting myself in the position of the FCC for a moment, I would have ruled as they did. In my opinion, only the state and federal legislatures should have the authority to void a private contract te
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00356.html (12,791 bytes)

26. [Towertalk] Tower + Hazer package (score: 1)
Author: w9ac@arrl.net (Paul Christensen)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 15:03:00 -0500
allow What is the potential safety risk in this? The very thought of periodically disengaging a guy cable seems like a dangerous proposition to me. I assume that *very little* tension is present on
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-03/msg00600.html (7,971 bytes)

27. Re: [TowerTalk] N4XM Match Info request (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen, Esq." <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:21:36 -0500
I suppose he is the master of his offer. However, it would be nice to at least state the price (on his web page) of the models before wasting the customer's time in sending $3 only to find that the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00003.html (8,927 bytes)

28. Re: [TowerTalk] N4XM Match Info request (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen, Esq." <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:42:38 -0500
While I do not have experience as a patent examiner, I do have several patents pending with the USPTO. I agree with John's assessment of the XMatch patent. The validity of any patent stands or falls
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00009.html (13,017 bytes)

29. Re: [TowerTalk] N4XM Match Info request (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen, Esq." <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:17:16 -0500
My reply, like yours, is a personal opinion. I assume you skipped the preamble of my reply. I personally would not rely on it to protect I to Get a grip Bill. My opinion is a personal opinion. Go ba
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00109.html (9,598 bytes)

30. Re: [TowerTalk] N4XM Match Info request (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen, Esq." <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:23:56 -0500
Major operator error on my part: Bill Ralston's message was sent privately, not to the group. I should have been more careful in my use of the "reply all" button and in not seeing the towertalk addre
/archives//html/Towertalk/2003-12/msg00113.html (14,330 bytes)

31. Re: [TowerTalk] Anti-climb measures (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:18:27 -0400
Tower owners and owners of all "attractive nuisance" property need to take all reasonable precautions to prevent against personal injury. Any time a property owner, by his own act, creates a man-mad
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-06/msg00298.html (9,459 bytes)

32. [TowerTalk] SteppIR MonstIR Modeling (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 19:56:02 -0500
I am negotiating the placement of a 4-element MonstIR on top of a 200' tower at the St. Johns inlet of the Atlantic Ocean. If I proceed, only one antenna can be used and it must be placed at the 200'
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00048.html (6,900 bytes)

33. Re: [TowerTalk] SteppIR MonstIR Modeling (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 10:45:09 -0500
Yes, due to the cost of tower rent. I don't mind paying the rental amount due to the excellent location on the ocean, but if I'm going to be stuck with mediocre performance on the upper bands to any
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00059.html (7,786 bytes)

34. Re: [TowerTalk] K9AY loops-- phased (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:13:40 -0500
I'm jumping into this thread a bit late. Has anyone on the list had an opportunity to compare the K9AY directional loop with the DX Engineering switched 4-Square with optimized spacing on 160M? Paul,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-12/msg00728.html (7,630 bytes)

35. Re: [TowerTalk] Evaluating a Mosley TA-33 for purchase (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:44:15 -0500
Prior to the purchase, I would assemble the driven element and elevate it at least 16' above ground. Connect suitable cabling and check VSWR on 20/15/10 meters. This will provide a clue if the traps
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-01/msg00664.html (8,972 bytes)

36. Re: [TowerTalk] Current imbalance on 450 ohm Ladder Line (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:16:53 -0400
Not if it's a link-coupled balanced tuner. Paul, W9AC _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-03/msg00250.html (7,707 bytes)

37. Re: [TowerTalk] Got a tower/antenna in a CC&R subdivision? (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:28:44 -0400
I believe the larger fear is that a "slippery slope" condition is created. First, the ham tower/antenna is erected. Then, a neighbor seeing the tower installation decides to break a covenant by inst
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00323.html (10,540 bytes)

38. Re: [TowerTalk] antennas (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:43:06 -0400
talked to anybody who actually was using one. Even in the 1950s, Gotham prices seemed impossibly low. I always wondered if they worked and how well they were constructed? And if nobody bought them,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00378.html (9,458 bytes)

39. Re: [TowerTalk] Gotham antennas (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:39:58 -0400
The beam antennas actually worked remarkably well although they certainly were not "Plug-'n-Play." The building experience was more akin to a magazine construction project with Gotham supplying most
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00432.html (9,437 bytes)

40. Re: [TowerTalk] base below ground level/drainage (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:12:29 -0400
The area of dirt from the tower base center to a short radius away can be counter-sunk several inches below the surrounding ground. In essence, a round or square pan is created that can be filled wi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00631.html (8,502 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu