Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+ma550\s+question\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+ma550\s+question\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] ma550 question (score: 1): Author: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@verizon.net>; Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:22:09 -0400; The argument for the MA550 is completely aesthetic, in my mind. The real question is whether, if motorized, one could convince zoning to rate safety based on a retracted tower. It would be easy to ha; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-09/msg00509.html (7,635 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:26:22 -0700; This would be fine for safety, if safety is defined as "minimizing probability of expensive damage to the equipment being protected", where the maximum downside exposure is the cost of the equipment.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-09/msg00525.html (11,996 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question (score: 1): Author: "Kelly Johnson" <n6kj.kelly@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:33:06 -0700; I wouldn't want to depend on the "automatic lowering" system to protect me and/or my neighbors either, but ... it HAS been done...with a building permit. I know a ham that has an MA850 with a MonstIR; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-09/msg00526.html (8,750 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question (score: 1): Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:40:06 -0700 (PDT); You could always get an 85 foot mast and have engineering drawings done on it based on only being cranked up to 55 feet (or whatever it could do at 90 MPH). You would have to convince the city that y; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-09/msg00527.html (7,764 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:50:59 -0400; Since storms frequently cause power outages, you would also need an automatic backup source. This seems like the most difficult way to possibly satisfy the ordinance. KK9A This would be fine for safe; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-09/msg00535.html (12,091 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:24:53 -0700; I would be interested to read the actual conditions and know some more details about the automatic lowering system. _______________________________________________ ___________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-09/msg00539.html (10,054 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question (score: 1): Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:45:41 -0700; Exactly.. every direction you turn, there's some other issue or problem you'll have to address. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTa; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-09/msg00540.html (7,821 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]