- 1. [TowerTalk] square towers (score: 1)
- Author: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@comcast.net>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:01:37 -0000
- I'm no engineer, but it would seem to me that a 4 legged tower would have 33% more material than a 3 legged tower. I would also think that the diagonal bracing seen on Rohn, for example, provides gre
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-01/msg00440.html (8,146 bytes)
- 2. Re: [TowerTalk] square towers (score: 1)
- Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:18:45 -0500
- At 05:01 PM 1/25/04 +0000, Jim Jarvis wrote: I've requested pricing, but my expectation would be that this design will prove 30-50% more expensive than a triangular design of equivalent specification
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-01/msg00441.html (8,614 bytes)
- 3. Re: [TowerTalk] square towers (score: 1)
- Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:49:24 -0800
- Comments on Jim's comments below 1) Indeed, this square design does have more material (potentially) than a triangular tower.. but, mass of material isn't everything (otherwise, we'd make towers out
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-01/msg00443.html (10,373 bytes)
- 4. Re: [TowerTalk] square towers (score: 1)
- Author: Alan Beagley <AB2OS@att.net>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:42:41 -0500
- I have heard that they are now being built in the US. Alan AB2OS On 01/25/04 12:01 pm Jim Jarvis put fingers to keyboard and launched the following message into cyberspace: Then, there is the factor
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-01/msg00451.html (7,754 bytes)
- 5. FW: [TowerTalk] square towers (score: 1)
- Author: "Noel" <y.yaesurigs@verizon.net>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:07:58 -0500
- Yeah well they better reduce the price... I have heard that they are now being built in the US. Alan AB2OS On 01/25/04 12:01 pm Jim Jarvis put fingers to keyboard and launched the following message i
- /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-01/msg00456.html (8,840 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu