Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+FW\:\s+AM\s+tower\s+available\,\s+Ham\s+or\s+broadcast\s+use\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] FW: AM tower available, Ham or broadcast use (score: 1)
Author: "Rob Atkinson, K5UJ" <k5uj@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:47:32 +0000
FYI Broadcaster in CT has a 200' AM tower for anyone who will pay for it to be taken down and removed. Doesn't want it taken down by anyone except a professional crew. rob/k5uj From: "WSHU Engineerin
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-09/msg00485.html (7,953 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] FW: AM tower available, Ham or broadcast use (score: 1)
Author: "David Robbins" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:22:36 -0000
$3500 for an almost 50 year old tower seems a bit expensive to me. That would be the equivalent of $175 for a 10' section. David Robbins K1TTT e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net web: http://www.k1ttt.net
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-09/msg00486.html (9,514 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] FW: AM tower available, Ham or broadcast use (score: 1)
Author: "Keith Dutson" <kdutson@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:13:58 -0500
One other note to add... I think this tower was not designed to handle a large rotating antenna. The bracing is flat, which is great for climbing, but not good for twisting. 73, Keith NM5G $3500 for
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-09/msg00491.html (10,988 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] FW: AM tower available, Ham or broadcast use (score: 1)
Author: "D. Scott MacKenzie" <kb0fhp@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:38:20 -0400
HOWEVER - it would be absolutely dynamite on 160M and 80M.....with a professional radial system to boot.. now with a couple of beverages...... Since they are moving... I wonder if they would be willi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-09/msg00495.html (12,337 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] FW: AM tower available, Ham or broadcast use (score: 1)
Author: Blake Bowers <bbowers@townsqr.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:08:19 -0500
And with the exception of HAM use, it is pretty much useless. No carrier would go onto it as a rental tower. _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self S
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-09/msg00499.html (8,360 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] FW: AM tower available, Ham or broadcast use (score: 1)
Author: <paul@w8aef.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:59:37 -0000
There's assets, and there's liabilities. de Paul, W8AEF _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and l
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-09/msg00506.html (9,605 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] FW: AM tower available, Ham or broadcast use (score: 1)
Author: <donovanf@starpower.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:41:37 -0400
A heads up to any ham interested in this AM tower... Although the website says "similar to Rohn 55," this tower is dissimilar in at least one very important aspect: it does not have diagonal bracing.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-09/msg00514.html (10,800 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu