I called my insurance company today and was told that all my ham equipment
including my antennas are covered as personal property, same as TV sets,
VCRs, and other electronic equipment, against theft, lightning, windstorm,
and all the other perils that personal property is covered for. The tower is
covered as an additional structure. I specifically asked about special
schedules and limits and was very clearly told (by the underwriter himself)
there is no requirement for special schedules for electronic equipment, and
no exclusion for communications equipment, amateur radio, etc. I also asked
about grounding systems, and he said that, for insurance purposes, my ground
system just has to comply with the electrical code. The limit on personal
property is 75% of the overall dwelling coverage... far more than what I
have here... which seems to cover just about everything. It would appear
that, at least here in PA, I wouldn't need any coverage other than my normal
homeowner's policy. Or am I missing something here?
Jerry K3BZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "WD4K" <WD4K2@charter.net>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 11:07 AM
Subject: [TowerTalk] Grounding and Insurance WD4K
> After the recent rash of terrible tornado and thunderstorms here I called
my
> agent and raised the limit on my tower to $15K. I totally agree with Billy
> and his methods using Polyphaser. The only drawback is cost. (I understand
> pay me now or pay me later:) Three years ago I attended the Polyphaser
> lecture in Dayton and spent quite a bit of time talking to the reps about
> the system. A general cost figure for their demo was in excess of $10K. A
> LOT of money. Granted it can be done more cheaply but then what is the
> compromised value if it is not done correctly...then the position of the
> insurance company on what is or is not correct. My point is that if some
of
> us are lucky enough to have avoided extreme damage so far, that it would
be
> prudent NOW to go ahead and up the insurance TODAY...possibly to the "max
> plus" to help with a fix and subsequent new polyphaser system. If you have
> the ability or even to some lesser extent, to follow Billy's
> suggestions..great...just do it, it is very good advice. If not, certainly
> call your agents today and cover yourself. I did and I am sleeping a
little
> better. 73, Tommy
> As an aside, I found that my insurance that covered my losses during the
F4
> tornado here 5 years ago did NOT now cover the same type of
equipment...they
> sneaked in a limit that I did not realize and limited the coverage to $1k
> max. Glad the storms prompted the call and that I asked. I have taken care
> of that also. Better to ask and insure NOW, rather than after the damage.
T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of
> towertalk-request@contesting.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:53 AM
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 5, Issue 40
>
>
> Send TowerTalk mailing list submissions to
> towertalk@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> towertalk-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> towertalk-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of TowerTalk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. wire rope (Roger Borowski)
> 2. Tri Ex LM-470D question
> 3. Re: grounding (Billy Cox)
> 4. Re: CB operator charged under new city law (Michael Tope)
> 5. Re: Combining ant elevation pattern data with propagation
> predictionsto produce a contest bandplan (Jim Smith)
> 6. RE: CB operator charged under new city law (David Robbins K1TTT)
> 7. Re: EHS Guy wire (3/16) (Pete Smith)
> 8. Re: grounding (Pete Smith)
> 9. Stacking Distances (Paul Christensen, Esq.)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 21:39:18 -0400
> From: "Roger Borowski" <K9RB@bellsouth.net>
> To: "z-TowerTalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] wire rope
> Message-ID: <0b5101c32002$f63fb6e0$0200a8c0@rog>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Precedence: list
> Reply-To: Roger Borowski <K9RB@arrl.net>
> Message: 1
>
> About a year or so ago, someone posted a link to a wire rope surplus =
> page, where cut-off pieces of various lengths were listed for purchase. =
> If someone has this link, I'd appreciate it once more.=20
> Thanks and 73, Rog-K9RB=3D-From barrie@centric.net Wed May 21 21:55:25
2003
> Received: from mail.centric.net (mail.centric.net [204.248.26.71])
> by contesting.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4M1tPBN021361
> for <towertalk@contesting.com>; Wed, 21 May 2003 21:55:25 -0400
> Received: from smith [63.160.64.137] by mail.centric.net
> (SMTPD32-7.13) id AD0A90F00D4; Wed, 21 May 2003 19:51:06 -0600
> Message-ID: <000901c32005$34904020$8940a03f@smith>
> From: "Barrie Smith" <barrie@centric.net>
> To: "John Paul Dooley" <portscom@hotmail.com>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
> References: <Law9-OE30cKjAI6qLVj000160e0@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] feeding a crank-up tower
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 19:55:22 -0600
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
> X-RBL-Warning: REVDNS: This E-mail was sent from a mail server
63.160.64.137
> with no reverse DNS entry.
> X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Centric Internet Services for spam.
> X-BeenThere: towertalk@contesting.com
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
> Precedence: list
> List-Id: Tower and HF antenna construction topics.
> <towertalk.contesting.com>
> List-Unsubscribe:
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>,
> <mailto:towertalk-request@contesting.com?subject=unsubscribe>
> List-Archive: <http://dayton.akorn.net/pipermail/towertalk>
> List-Post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
> List-Help: <mailto:towertalk-request@contesting.com?subject=help>
> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>,
> <mailto:towertalk-request@contesting.com?subject=subscribe>
>
> I ran my 1 5/8 up to the top of the first section, then LMR-600.
>
> Barrie, W7ALW
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Paul Dooley" <portscom@hotmail.com>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 2:03 PM
> Subject: [TowerTalk] feeding a crank-up tower
>
>
> I have aquired a very nice US Towers TMM433SS and want to feed a multi
> band yagi from the tower to my shack at abt 100'. I have well over 100'
> of Andrew ?" superflex and connectors but I'm concerned if raising and
> lowering the mast will cause me problems. What about feeding the hard
> line to the base and then running a short section of 9913F up to the
> rotatable yagi??? Questions, questions. Hi
> John W6ZIP
> Victorville, Ca.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with
any
> questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 23:04:52 EDT
> From: EL34GUY@aol.com
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Tri Ex LM-470D question
> Message-ID: <1d5.9fb4dd8.2bfd9854@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 2
>
> Hello,
>
> I just bought a motorized crankup(LM470) and was wondering what the
largest
> rotor anyone has ever got into that thing? What have you guys had success
> with? I want to use the alfa spid if possible. 73
>
> Mark
> W0NCL
> ------------------------------
>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 22:43:20 -0500
> From: "Billy Cox" <aa4nu@ix.netcom.com>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] grounding
> Message-ID: <021501c32014$4b7ca300$6501a8c0@rthfrd01.tn.comcast.net>
> References: <Law14-F103n9JntYnHC000075e4@hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 3
>
> >Most hams in houses don't have all these options and disconnecting
> >everything isn't real expensive. Again, this isn't meant to advocate
> >giving up and doing nothing, it's just to make the point that these
> >extensive, extremely thorough techniques seem to come from folks
> >who aren't in touch with every day ham life.
>
> As to every day ham life ...
>
> There's another side of this ... try living in a nice wide open area, one
> where your towers are the highest points ... and being hit several times
> with varying amount of damage ... and filing such with your insurance
> company. Been there, done that, and was canceled after many years
> with the same firm. THEN try to get 'reasonable' insurance ... <sigh>
>
> I then invested into much Polyphaser equipment, and worked with their
> engineer who is also a ham who provided me much welcome advice
> as to "doing it right" this time.
>
> Since then ... ZERO problems here ... and also was able to use the better
> protection to obtain reasonable insurance again. If I was doing it over,
I'd
> done this when we first moved out here many moons ago ...
>
> Just another data point ...
>
> 73 Billy AA4NU
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 21:26:44 -0700
> From: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
> To: "M. Kent Miller" <K4MK@triad.rr.com>, "Steve Katz" <stevek@jmr.com>,
> "'KD8OK'" <kd8ok@n-focus.com>, <TowerTalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] CB operator charged under new city law
> Message-ID: <039c01c3201a$5a1303e0$0100a8c0@1800XP>
> References: <DC6063575EF1D4118C300050040D2E93B8DF43@mail.jmr.com>
> <02a601c32001$6235b950$6401a8c0@CPQ14190774464>
> Precedence: list
> Message: 4
>
> The only thing that disturbed me about this affair was the press
> coverage. To me the news article cited will just reinforce a
> misconception that I believe is already common among the
> general public, namely that RFI is always the fault of the station
> doing the transmitting. "All you have to do is log the interference
> for four weeks" and if more than one person complains, the cops
> bust down the door and take the offending radio operator away to
> jail.
>
> Of course, I suppose expecting the average man on the street to
> have a lucid understanding of EMI susceptibility in consumer
> products is too much to hope for :):)
>
> 73 de Mike, W4EF.......................
>
> > > >
> > > > By KRISTIN GORDON, kgordon@nncogannett.com
> > > > The Eagle-Gazette Staff
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > ----
> > > >
> > > > Complaints from a group of neighbors experiencing interference on
> > > > household
> > > > appliances from phones and TVs to baby monitors have resulted in a
> court
> > > > case against a local citizens band radio operator.
> > > >
> > > > James A. Disbennet, 48, 427 Harrison Ave., is charged with operating
a
> > CB
> > > > radio exceeding 4 watts, a first-degree misdemeanor, and two counts
of
> > > > operating a CB radio without certification, a fourth-degree
> misdemeanor.
> > > > Disbennet, whose handle is "Sugar Bear," answered a summons in
> Fairfield
> > > > County Municipal Court last Tuesday and was released on a
recognizance
> > > > bond.
> > > >
> > > > In August 2002, Lancaster City Council was the first in the U.S. to
> pass
> > > > such an ordinance, allowing the city to enforce rules set by the
> Federal
> > > > Communication Commission regulating the strength of CB radios, said
> > > > Assistant City Law Director Dave Trimmer.
> > > >
> > > > According to the ordinance, the definition of CB radio "includes all
> > > > private, two-way, short-distance voice communications service for
> > personal
> > > > or business activities of the general public."
> > > >
> > > > In January, local residents began to log feedback problems they
> > > > experienced,
> > > > Trimmer said. Noise was reported on Harrison, Fifth and Washington
> > > > avenues.
> > > >
> > > > One woman had problems almost every time she used her telephone. She
> > said
> > > > it
> > > > interfered with calls such as learning a family member was in the
> > > > hospital.
> > > >
> > > > Another woman heard interference over a baby monitor she keeps near
> her
> > > > husband who suffered from a stroke. When she heard calls from a CB
> radio
> > > > operator named "Sugar Bear" late at night, she would have to turn
off
> > the
> > > > monitor so it wouldn't wake her husband.
> > > >
> > > > "Complainants must have a log of the interference for a minimum of
> four
> > > > weeks and there has to be more than one complainant in order to file
> > > > charges," Trimmer said.
> > > >
> > > > After a phone conversation with a woman on Harrison Avenue where he
> > could
> > > > hear interference himself, Trimmer went to the neighborhood to
> > > > investigate,
> > > > he said. He talked to a few individuals, including Disbennet, who
said
> > he
> > > > was a CB radio operator but did not possess an amplifier to exceed
the
> > > > lawful power output.
> > > >
> > > > "It's a hobby," Trimmer said. "Sometimes these hobbies get in the
way
> of
> > > > the
> > > > rights of the neighbors."
> > > >
> > > > On April 10, Tim Deitz, assistant superintendent of the city's
> > Electrical,
> > > > Communications and Signals Department, used a relative signal
strength
> > > > meter
> > > > in the 400 block of Harrison Avenue to determine where interference
> was
> > > > coming from. The signals he received came from Disbennet's home,
which
> > had
> > > > a
> > > > 40- to 50-foot antenna attached to it.
> > > >
> > > > A search warrant was performed the next day by Lancaster police, who
> > > > seized
> > > > four pieces of CB radio equipment worth more than $1,000 from
> > Disbennet's
> > > > home.
> > > >
> > > > "We're obviously treading on new ground," said Scott Wood,
Disbennet's
> > > > attorney. "He's not been given any type of option to defend himself.
> > This
> > > > is
> > > > a big hobby for him, something he enjoys doing.
> > > >
> > > > "It has him concerned, of course -- he could be facing jail time."
> > > >
> > > > The maximum penalty for a first-degree misdemeanor is a $1,000 fine
> and
> > > > 180
> > > > days in jail.
> > > >
> > > > Wood also is concerned about the case, which he's just begun
> > > > investigating.
> > > >
> > > > "It's obviously a very interesting case -- this is the first
ordinance
> > of
> > > > its kind in the country," he said. "But apparently, this ordinance
was
> > > > passed in August 2002 but was never published."
> > > >
> > > > According to the ordinance, No. 30-02, it was passed by council Aug.
> 26
> > > > and
> > > > approved Aug. 28.
> > > >
> > > > The city started looking into the problem nearly two years earlier
> after
> > > > neighbors on Talmadge Avenue started having problems, Trimmer said.
> The
> > > > city
> > > > received a petition with 28 signatures and contacted the FCC
> repeatedly
> > > > about the problem of enforcement.
> > > >
> > > > Originally published Wednesday, May 21, 2003
> > > >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 00:54:05 -0700
> From: Jim Smith <jimsmith@shaw.ca>
> To: "towertalk@contesting.com" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Combining ant elevation pattern data with
> propagation
> predictionsto produce a contest bandplan
> Message-ID: <3ECC821D.9090000@shaw.ca>
> References: <3ECB3811.6010807@shaw.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> Precedence: list
> Message: 5
>
> Wow, thanks for all the responses.
>
> Don't be too hard on me for things like saying SFI instead of SSN and
> suchlike. I know virtually nothing about propagation and the terms
> associated with it.
>
> A number of issues were raised
>
> 1. The models used for predictions contain statistical data, thus there
> is no possibility of guaranteeing that a particular path's predicted
> characteristics will be accurate or even that the path will exist at all.
>
> I understand and accept this. However, it's kind of like reading
> semaphore signals in the fog. If the fog is too thick, you won't see
> the signaller. If it's somewhat thick you may be able to see him but
> not make out 100% of what he is sending. No fog, no problem. BUT if
> you're facing the wrong way you will never see the signaller, fog or no
> fog. I'm looking to the predictions to tell me which way to face.
>
> 2. The models are based on smoothed numbers. The daily SFI/sunspot
> numbers you get are not smoothed so aren't the right values to use.
>
> On a 6 hourly basis you can get Effective SSN based on real time FoF2
> observations from
> http://www.nwra-az.com/spawx/ssne24.html
>
> The USAF provides forecasts about a month ahead of K and SFI values.
> Presumably these forecasts improve on the model, else why would they
> bother. I think the forecast is for a longer period than the 27 day
> rotation period of the sun.
>
> IPS in Australia provides Hourly Area Prediction charts centred on any
> location you choose. It shows what I presume to be Optimum Working
> Frequency (it tells you on their website) to any point on the chart.
> Why are they doing this if it doesn't mean anything on a particular day?
>
> What I'm trying to say here is that it looks to me as if people are
> doing meaningful path predictions (and others are buying them).
>
> 3. What's the point? No matter how good the prediction, a CME can blow
> it all away.
> See fog above
>
> 4. The models are guides only, openings may begin or end earlier or
later.
> I understand this. Just means I have to keep an eye on things. At
> least I'll know where to look and what to look for.
>
> 5. Just because a path is open doesn't mean that there are Qs to be
> made because a) there's no one there b) they all have their beams
> pointing sideways to you working a different opening
> a) I didn't mention it because I was trying to keep things simple. The
> FOM includes the number of stations reachable via that path who entered
> the contest last year.
> b) Sad but true. I guess experience is the only teacher here. Say, I
> could also plot paths for each location I'm trying to reach to see what
> they're likely to be working.... oops, sorry, got carried away there.
>
> 6. What style of contesting do you engage in? It makes a difference in
> how you approach this stuff.
> At home I'm typically SOAB LP with very limited antennas. However, I
> also want to use this for Field Day to help select antennas to use and
> also generate band plans for each op position. A lot of our ops' only
> exposure to HF is on FD so have no clue what band they should be on, let
> alone what bands exist. I'm hoping this will give us info based on more
> than hunches. Obviously, we have to be prepared to modify the plans
> based on what is actually happening.
>
> 7. Forget the database stuff, put the work into antennas and have fun.
> This may well be the best advice of the lot. However, I'm a stubborn
> old fool and have trouble letting go of things. Besides, I'm horrified
> to see how badly atrophied my Access skills are so this is a good
> exercise for me.
>
> 8. Do a little work to get that feminine side happening better.
> Don't know what to say to this. ROFLMAO?
>
> 9. A number of programs were suggested which may either do what I want
> or help me get there. Also, several referred to N6BV's work on arrival
> angles. Thanks for the great suggestions. It will take me a while to
> try them all out.
>
> Thank you all very, very much for taking the time and trouble to help me
> out. I know very little about any of this stuff but this project is, if
> nothing else, a great learning experience.
>
> 73 de Jim Smith VE7FO
>
> PS Look for my trainee calling CQ at 10 wpm in WPX, Sat, between about
> 1900-2300Z.
>
>
>
> Jim Smith wrote:
>
> > I've been having a lot of fun trying to come up with a way of deciding
> > what band I should be on at what time in a contest. I'm sure many far
> > more successful contesters than I do it from experience and intuition.
> > Not having a strong feminine side (anal, she called me) I try to use
> > logic and science as much as I can.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:34:09 -0000
> From: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
> To: "reflector -tower" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] CB operator charged under new city law
> Message-ID: <002201c3204d$ae050100$0800a8c0@k1ttt1>
> In-Reply-To: <DC6063575EF1D4118C300050040D2E93B8DF43@mail.jmr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="us-ascii"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 6
>
> I also think its great and hope it stands up to a court test. If only
> more areas had laws like this.... unfortunately we probably won't see
> much local action on this front as it most areas it is a relatively
> minor threat to the public and the towns are just going to push it back
> on the fcc. It could also become a headache for hams when the local
> cops who don't know about ham radio try to enforce it... I would think
> it would be very important for hams in an area that adopts a law like
> this to help instruct the local police on the difference between legal
> cb, legal ham activity, and illegal activity.
>
> > Thanks for passing this on...I think it's absolutely GREAT!
> >
> > Note that actions were taken against this guy because he was operating
> > outside the law, and thus had no foot to stand on. Similar complaints
> > against licensed amateurs operating within Part 97 requirements are
> > routinely dismissed, and hundreds of such cases have been dismissed
> over
> > the
> > years. I was involved in one such case.
> >
> > >
> > > This may not have much to do with antennas, but it could be a
> concern
> > for
> > > all hams in the future.
> > >
> > >
> > > CB operator charged under new city law
>
>
> David Robbins K1TTT
> e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
> web: http://www.k1ttt.net
> AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 07:14:28 -0400
> From: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
> To: K7LXC@aol.com, kb9mci@qsl.net, towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] EHS Guy wire (3/16)
> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030522071252.01b96ca0@mail.adelphia.net>
> In-Reply-To: <115.23b2fc6f.2bfd6af9@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Precedence: list
> Message: 7
>
> At 07:51 PM 5/21/03 -0400, K7LXC@aol.com wrote:
> > Yep. The breaking strength of EHS (extra high strength) is 3900
> pounds.
> >Some galvanized and SS wire rope cable are in the same range so they'd be
> >just fine as long as they meet the strength spec. OTOH a lot of cables
> don't
> >so just make sure you know what you've got.
>
> Shouldn't he also make sure that the guy grips he's using match the lay-up
> of this cable, whatever it is? Or is EHS by definition 1X7 right (or
left,
> I don't know) twist?
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> The World HF Contest Station Database was updated 9 May 03.
> Are you current? www.pvrc.org/wcsd/wcsdsearch.htm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 07:41:02 -0400
> From: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
> To: "Billy Cox" <aa4nu@ix.netcom.com>, towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] grounding
> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030522073918.01b86990@mail.adelphia.net>
> In-Reply-To: <021501c32014$4b7ca300$6501a8c0@rthfrd01.tn.comcast.net>
> References: <Law14-F103n9JntYnHC000075e4@hotmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Precedence: list
> Message: 8
>
> At 10:43 PM 5/21/03 -0500, you wrote:
> >There's another side of this ... try living in a nice wide open area, one
> >where your towers are the highest points ... and being hit several times
> >with varying amount of damage ... and filing such with your insurance
> >company. Been there, done that, and was canceled after many years
> >with the same firm. THEN try to get 'reasonable' insurance ... <sigh>
>
>
> It would be very interesting to know what measures you had in place when
> you took the hits, and how the damaging voltages got into the shack. Can
> you elaborate a bit, Billy? My problem is that I can't "do it right" (2nd
> floor shack) and need to assess whether I can improve what I AM doing.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> The World HF Contest Station Database was updated 9 May 03.
> Are you current? www.pvrc.org/wcsd/wcsdsearch.htm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 08:50:44 -0400
> From: "Paul Christensen, Esq." <w9ac@arrl.net>
> To: "Tower" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Stacking Distances
> Message-ID: <01b501c32060$c2dcb7e0$7601a8c0@se1.client2.attbi.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="Windows-1252"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 9
>
> What is the most common stacking distance for two Yagi arrays currently in
> use at the premier contest stations? Full-wave spacing would produce the
> most forward gain, but I continue to see references to 5/8-wave spacing.
>
> Question: Is 5/8-wave used as a compromise spread in that the difference
> between 1 w.l. and 5/8 w.l. is relatively small but closer than 5/8 w.l.
> produces quickly diminishing forward gain? Or, is there a benefit of 5/8
> w.l. that minimizes an unwanted lobe?
>
> -Paul, W9AC
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 5, Issue 40
> ****************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|