Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Thrust\s+Bearing\,\s+etc\:\s+more\s+answers\s+from\s+UST\s+calcs\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TowerTalk] Thrust Bearing, etc: more answers from UST calcs (score: 1)
Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:29:26 -0800
It's an interesting question about the strength of the top section in a crank up, so I looked at the UST calcs for the HDX589, 85mph 3 sec gust, 71mph fastest mile (EIA-222-F). I'm not a PE so this n
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-02/msg00155.html (13,691 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Thrust Bearing, etc: more answers from UST calcs (score: 1)
Author: Glenn Rattmann <k6na@cts.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 18:01:05 -0800
Anecdote follows: Frank Clement, W6KPC (SK), who owned Tri-Ex for many years, told me in personal conversation that their crankups were designed so that if a catastrophic failure were to occur with t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-02/msg00156.html (15,960 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Thrust Bearing, etc: more answers from UST calcs (score: 1)
Author: SPWoo <jj_2_woo@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 19:54:37 -0800 (PST)
Regarding failure points: I've seen photos of two fallen US Tower retractable towers and both of them failed at the very bottom.  The problem with designing a retractable tower such that it will fail
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-02/msg00157.html (8,777 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Thrust Bearing, etc: more answers from UST calcs (score: 1)
Author: EZ Rhino <EZRhino@fastmovers.biz>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 21:00:32 -0700
Sounds like a US Tower problem to me... :-) Chris KF7P (tri-ex owner...knock on wood) Regarding failure points: I've seen photos of two fallen US Tower retractable towers and both of them failed at t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-02/msg00158.html (7,145 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Thrust Bearing, etc: more answers from UST calcs (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 06:28:39 -0800
On 2/8/13 7:54 PM, SPWoo wrote: Regarding failure points: I've seen photos of two fallen US Tower retractable towers and both of them failed at the very bottom. The problem with designing a retractab
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-02/msg00163.html (9,648 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Thrust Bearing, etc: more answers from UST calcs (score: 1)
Author: Michael Tope <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 08:21:38 -0800
Jim, With regard to your comments below, are you assuming laminar or turbulent flow? I just grabbed my copy of Leeson's "Physical Design of Yagi Antennas" and he discusses this same issue of a rapid
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-02/msg00166.html (10,635 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Thrust Bearing, etc: more answers from UST calcs (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 08:43:41 -0800
With regard to your comments below, are you assuming laminar or turbulent flow? I just grabbed my copy of Leeson's "Physical Design of Yagi Antennas" and he discusses this same issue of a rapid chang
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-02/msg00167.html (12,094 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Thrust Bearing, etc: more answers from UST calcs (score: 1)
Author: K8RI <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 14:12:52 -0500
With regard to your comments below, are you assuming laminar or turbulent flow? I just grabbed my copy of Leeson's "Physical Design of Yagi Antennas" and he discusses this same issue of a rapid chang
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-02/msg00169.html (14,473 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Thrust Bearing, etc: more answers from UST calcs (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 16:13:29 -0800
On 2/9/13 11:12 AM, K8RI wrote: On 2/9/2013 11:43 AM, Jim Lux wrote: On 2/9/13 8:21 AM, Michael Tope wrote: Jim, Laminar flow is when you have undisturbed air (e.g. clean airplane wings) and my own e
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-02/msg00176.html (16,666 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] Thrust Bearing, etc: more answers from UST calcs (score: 1)
Author: "KM5VI" <km5vi@flukey.cc>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:21:38 -0600
The drag coefficient may be 1/2, but when multiplied by 400% more face area is the drag not 2x? KM5VI And I'm not sure that specifying "round members" is valid. Members in the 1-4" range at 70mi/hr
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-02/msg00186.html (11,152 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] Thrust Bearing, etc: more answers from UST calcs (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:02:40 -0800
The drag coefficient may be 1/2, but when multiplied by 400% more face area is the drag not 2x? Doh.. yes.. 4 times the diameter, twice the drag. _______________________________________________ _____
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-02/msg00190.html (8,993 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] Thrust Bearing, etc: more answers from UST calcs (score: 1)
Author: Michael Tope <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:09:29 -0800
On 2/9/2013 8:43 AM, Jim Lux wrote: He then states "conservative design, however, dictates a less aggressive choice", referring to the choice between assuming turbulent flow or laminar flow when doin
/archives//html/Towertalk/2013-02/msg00199.html (10,789 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu