Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+Re\:\s+mast\s+disaster\s+avoidance\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+Re\:\s+mast\s+disaster\s+avoidance\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [Towertalk] Re: mast disaster avoidance (score: 1): Author: n2mg@eham.net (Mike Gilmer); Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:16:03 -0300; I agree with most of N2EA's post except: This is not true. As has been oft-discussed on this reflector in the past (and still misunderstood), judicious use of "added pulleys" can reduce the total loa; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00289.html (6,822 bytes)
2. [Towertalk] Re: mast disaster avoidance (score: 1): Author: n2mg@eham.net (Mike Gilmer, N2MG); Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:28:26 -0300; Jim, Wrong pulley/wrong place. A "movable" pulley, located at the mast (load) in a common "block and tackle" arrangement serves to reduce the force necessary to lift the mast (by 2:1). This reduction; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00296.html (8,965 bytes)
3. [Towertalk] Re: mast disaster avoidance (score: 1): Author: n2mg@eham.net (Michael Gilmer, N2MG); Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:24:27 -0400; Correct. Yes! 33lb to lift so total force on ginpole is 133lb. A 66lb reduction! 73 Mike N2MG; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00321.html (7,235 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]