Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+66\-Foot\s+$20\.1\s+meter$\s+Vertical\s+$overlap\s+of\s+tubing$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+66\-Foot\s+$20\.1\s+meter$\s+Vertical\s+$overlap\s+of\s+tubing$\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TowerTalk] 66-Foot (20.1 meter) Vertical (overlap of tubing) (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:45:28 -0500; I'd never try 66' (20 m) of tubing each section 6' (1.8 m) long held only with hose clamps. That bottom clamp will be holding too much weight. Short and sweet: if you want that height and you want to; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00358.html (9,327 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] 66-Foot (20.1 meter) Vertical (overlap of tubing) (score: 1): Author: "Dick Williams" <k8ztt@mho.com>; Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:32:52 -0600; Rob, I would totally agree with you as far as not using hose clamps (especially on the bottom) of a 66 ft vertical. However, I will disagree with you needing alum lattice tower. I constructed a 80 mt; /archives//html/Towertalk/2009-03/msg00374.html (11,486 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]