Michael
I am intercoursed! Can you 3 day 6 bottles to me? the menu has gone out and
i just want to go with it.
todd
> From: towertalk-request@contesting.com
> Reply-To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 00:08:28 -0400 (EDT)
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 10, Issue 15
>
> 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. Re: deep base for MA-550 (Mike Warnock)
> 2. Re: Re: what bow to use? (Joe)
> 3. Re: Re: what bow to use? (Floyd Sense)
> 4. Re: The tower base is poured BUT... (Jim White, K4OJ)
> 5. Re: Which Rotator
> 6. bows 'n trees (Jim Jarvis)
> 7. Re: what bow to use? (Tom LeClerc W1TJL)
> 8. Rotators for Sale (Jim W7RY)
> 9. Bows and Arrows (Larry Stowell)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:52:24 -0700
> From: "Mike Warnock" <k7xn@cox.net>
> To: "David Giuliani" <David@Giuliani.org>,
> "Towertalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] deep base for MA-550
> Message-ID: <002701c38b9b$ba12eca0$8a026244@ph.cox.net>
> References: <PNEKJPEHEDCCJMNNPKALOEDKCIAA.David@Giuliani.org>
> Precedence: list
> Message: 1
>
>
> As a commercial construction superintendent with 25+ years in the field I
> seldom have found the civil engineer to override the structural engineer's
> specifications. Civil engineers although very educated in soil conditions
> and bearing requirements do not "normally" factor in wind loads, material
> strength limitations, and a variety of "mechanical" factors having nothing
> to do with soils. If you have a rapport with both engineers I would suggest
> you have them talk to each other and agree on any lessened base
> requirements. All things considered when you factor in the costs of the
> tower, antennas, rotor, feedlines, etc., etc. what is a few more yards of
> concrete.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Giuliani" <David@Giuliani.org>
> To: "Towertalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 11:47 AM
> Subject: [TowerTalk] deep base for MA-550
>
>
>>
>> I'm installing a concrete base for a Universal Towers MA-550. The mfg's
> dwg
>> calls for a base 2.5' x 2.5' x 5' deep in undisturbed soil, using 2.5
> cubic
>> yards. I passed this by my soils engineer, who's recommending a different
>> design -- drill a 2' hole with an augur, 25' deep. Takes similar amount
> of
>> concrete, easier to make hole and not worry about backfilling, compacting,
>> etc., and much more resistance to being pushed over. This would be a
>> deviation from the adage: "do what the mfg recommends", replacing it with
>> "do what the professional soil engineer recommends."
>>
>> Any experience with this form (pun!) of base? Advice?
>>
>> David Giuliani, WA6PXX
>> Mercer Island, WA
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 16:51:57 -0700
> From: Joe <wl7e@arrl.net>
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Re: what bow to use?
> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20031005163016.018be838@mail.charter.net>
> In-Reply-To: <3F80A370.1080404@arrl.net>
> References: <20031005224503.6544B319E0B@dayton.akorn.net>
> <20031005224503.6544B319E0B@dayton.akorn.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Precedence: list
> Message: 2
>
> I use a 60lb and an 80lb compound bow to shoot with 30lb test monofilament
> line on a fishing pole. This does take two people for ease and convenience
> but can be done by an individual. My arrow is an Easton XX75 Camo Hunter
> 2315 Lite target arrow (blunt end) with a 9/16" socket duct taped over the
> end for weight (I got tired of losing arrows not coming down from the
> trees). I consistently shoot over 120' trees with extreme accuracy and have
> never lost an arrow since adding the socket for weight. Also with the extra
> weight I can get the arrow to come down just over the top of the tree on
> the other side of the tree inside the limbs. This is helpful for the
> tie-lines for the antenna to be hidden by the branches. Our local radio
> club does use a Spud gun but it is not as flexible to use (such as shooting
> over a 60' tree and then over a 90' tree) as when it goes boom, it goes
> boom. But when they want accuracy; they call me. We have used this method
> numerous times from Field Days to mini expeditions to individual stations.
> If anyone would like any more information about this method please feel
> free to email me directly.
>
> Joe - WL7E
>
> At 04:04 PM 10/5/2003, Martin Ewing AA6E wrote:
>> Myself, I used a slingshot that cost all of about $15 on the Internet. I
>> had thought about bows & arrows, but this seemed a lot simpler, at least
>> to get you up to 40 ft or so. I guess you need more horsepower if you're
>> trying to shoot over the top of a 90 ft tree.
>>
>> 73, Martin AA6E/1
>> --------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 20:15:27 -0400
> From: "Floyd Sense" <sentek@sprintmail.com>
> To: "Martin Ewing AA6E" <aa6e@arrl.net>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Cc: paule@sfu.ca
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Re: what bow to use?
> Message-ID: <001801c38b9e$f2ab1da0$bd0445cf@sense2>
> References: <20031005224503.6544B319E0B@dayton.akorn.net>
> <3F80A370.1080404@arrl.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Reply-To: Floyd Sense <sentek@sprintmail.com>
> Message: 3
>
> I use a Marksman slingshot from Walmart, at a cost of $4.99. Just this past
> weekend, I easily shot a line over two 80 foot trees. I suppose if the
> trees had been 100 feet, I'd have been thinking about a bow.
>
> K8AC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Ewing AA6E" <aa6e@arrl.net>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Cc: <paule@sfu.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 7:04 PM
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: what bow to use?
>
>
>> Myself, I used a slingshot that cost all of about $15 on the Internet. I
> had
>> thought about bows & arrows, but this seemed a lot simpler, at least to
> get you
>> up to 40 ft or so. I guess you need more horsepower if you're trying to
> shoot
>> over the top of a 90 ft tree.
>>
>> 73, Martin AA6E/1
>> --------------
>> From: paule@sfu.ca
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] wires in trees - what bow to use?
>> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 14:57:56 -0700
>>
>> I read somewhere, where a fellow recommended against a compound
>> bow because the quick speedup could cause lines to break.
>>
>> Any other comments on compound vs recurve and or poundage?
>>
>> cheers, Paul - VA7NT ex VE7CQK - email: paule@sfu.ca
>> "Those who hear not the music. . . think the dancers mad."
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:22:29 -0400
> From: "Jim White, K4OJ" <k4oj@tampabay.rr.com>
> Cc: Towertalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] The tower base is poured BUT...
> Message-ID: <3F80B5C5.3060800@tampabay.rr.com>
> In-Reply-To: <3F807E84.3050302@centurytel.net>
> References: <003e01c38b67$0517bd00$0b00a8c0@k1tttibm>
> <3F807E84.3050302@centurytel.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Precedence: list
> Reply-To: k4oj@tampabay.rr.com
> Message: 4
>
> Very true, a uniform mix of the aggregate within the pout is the ideal,
> a long drop will result in the bigger chunks traveling deeper than the
> rest of the concrete mixture - and as an aside to those of you who
> finish the top of your pour so it is pretty and XYL approved....
>
> If you watch a mason trowel a surface after the concrete is poured you
> see him going back and forth over an area repeatedly. Each time a pass
> is made the larger aggregate (rocks) go down a little lower into the
> pour and the remainder of the mixture (essentially the cement and sand)
> end up being on the top...
>
> This creates an opportunity to "work" this top layer of the pour until
> it is smooth "as a baby's behind" since there are no "big chunks" to
> contend with...
>
> Just an aside...
>
> K4OJ
>
>
>
> Red wrote:
>
>> Hi, all;
>>
>> David Robbins mentioned free-fall. To add detail, free-fall and
>> excessive vibrating or stirring causes the aggregate to separate. The
>> large pieces go to the bottom, the fines, including the cement, separate
>> and rise to the top. The result is not a homogeneous mixture of
>> aggregate and cement and its strength is not uniform.
>>
>> Confer with a knowledgeable professional regarding the limits.
>>
>> 73 de WOØW
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 20:42:47 EDT
> From: EL34GUY@aol.com
> To: w7ry@centurytel.net, TowerTalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Which Rotator
> Message-ID: <34.3ffb6bd3.2cb21487@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 5
>
> Im going to to try the alphaspid from Canada. It looks like a great rotor and
> has fared pretty well in the reviews. Im going to put mine up in about a
> month on a LM470D with a 205CA. Time will tell!
>
> Mark
> W0NCL
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 00:45:35 -0000
> From: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@comcast.net>
> To: "Towertalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] bows 'n trees
> Message-ID: <ONEDKADMCJKDDPMLJEMJIENKCEAA.jimjarvis@comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 6
>
>
> I am the culprit who suggested that simple recurve bows
> were appropriate, and that compound bows tended to be
> more power than necessary, and tended to break line.
>
> That said, I now use a 'gametracker' string on my arrows,
> as the first pull. this will work fine with a compound
> hunting bow, since it's designed to do so. However...
> AA6dx observed that one should simply go to Toys r US, or
> WalMart, and buy a toy bow. The fiberglass recurve toys give
> you 25-35 lbs, and are just fine for lofting arrows over trees,
> up to 150' or so.
>
> 40 lb + hunting bows are way more power than necessary for this job.
> Depowering or controlling them is a challenge.
>
> As for the slingshot crowd....it is my opinion that you continue
> to estimate 70' trees as 150' high, and therefore have no idea
> what you cannot do with a slingshot.
>
> Tried a slingshot w/ monofilament in VT, on my 140' trees. It
> topped out around 70. Maybe 80 with a tailwind. The bow would
> allow me to easily loft one or more trees at max altitude.
>
> On the other hand....it may well be that a slingshot equipped with
> a 'gametracker' instead of a spinning reel would get the job done.
> Much less friction. This is an empirical activity, and I've not
> tried the slingshot since discovering Gametracker.
>
> On the other, other hand....shooting arrows in a suburban neighborhood is
> a bad idea, period. Slingshot has a lower risk profile, if you can
> control it. Pick your weapon; pick your poison.
>
> N2EA
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 17:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Tom LeClerc W1TJL <w1tjl@yahoo.com>
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: what bow to use?
> Message-ID: <20031006005530.39733.qmail@web40204.mail.yahoo.com>
> In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20031005163016.018be838@mail.charter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Precedence: list
> Reply-To: w1tjl@arrl.net
> Message: 7
>
> I've been reading this thread with interest. I teach archery and have used a
> compound bow MANY times to put lines over the trees... Accurate and easy if
> you do it right but honestly a pain if you don't...
>
> In addition to all the safey issues here are a few things I found that are
> helpful. Spend a few dollors (under $20) and buy a bow mounted fishing rod
> (all the sports stores carry them for bowfishing for carp and the like). This
> allows one person to do it and everything stays safely out of the way of the
> string when shooting. Second, buy a large closed face spin cast reel.
> Spinning reels just don't work because the line wants to jump off of them too
> easily. I have a larger Johnson type spooled with about 200 yds of 20 lb
> testt
> - enough to drap parachute cord or something like it over the tree. Finally
> for about $5.oo you can get a fiberglass fishing arrow that has a hole in the
> base just forward of the nock for tying the fishing line.
>
> With the reel mounted on the bow mounted fishing rod and the fishing line tied
> to the BACK (near the nock and fletching) of the arrow you get excellent
> accuracy and can even thread the line through small openings between branches,
> etc.
>
> Safety note - be sure that where the arrow lands (or where the arrow could
> land
> if the string breaks) is clear of people or things that you want to avoid
> spearing. Second, keep fingers, other body parts out of the way of the
> fishing
> line - it can amputate things unwittingly tangled in the line.
>
> I have been able to put line over 90 ft trees with consistency and accuracy.
> I
> use my normal 60 lb hunting bow and not much else special except what's noted
> above. It works!
>
> 73, Tom W1TJL
>
>
> =====
> Tom LeClerc, Amateur Radio Station W1TJL
> (past calls WB1CBY, /VE8, /VE1, /VO8)
>
> LeClerc Consulting
> email: w1tjl@arrl.net
> PC/Network Consulting
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:39:30 -0700
> From: "Jim W7RY" <w7ry@centurytel.net>
> To: <TowerTalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Rotators for Sale
> Message-ID: <005a01c38baa$b01c6d20$ac00a8c0@JimsLaptop>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Precedence: list
> Message: 8
>
> 2 ea Hy-Gain Tail Twister rotors. 1 has a Tail Twister control box (Leds =
> on the front) $275.00 plus shipping,
>
> =20
>
> And 1 is just the standard CDE control box. $250.00 plus shipping.
>
> =20
>
> Both have been re-built with new non-jamming brake wedges and =
> pigtail/connector modifications for the wire connections. No more rusted =
> terminals. Completely checked out and ready for mounting!
>
> =20
>
> They were both completely gone through by Bob Abernathy, W7BA. Bob is =
> the recognized expert when it comes to Hy-Gain rotors here in the =
> Pacific Northwest.
>
> =20
>
> Hy-Gain Ham IV rotor. This is just the motor only. Sorry, I do not have =
> a control box.
>
> This unit was removed from a KT-34A (16 boom) on a 50 Rohn 25 tower. =
> Working fine. No rust or corrosion on the screw terminals.
> $100.00 plus shipping. I do take PayPal
>
>
> Thanks and 73!
> Jim W7RY
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 21:56:04 -0400
> From: "Larry Stowell" <lclarks@nc.rr.com>
> To: "Towertalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Bows and Arrows
> Message-ID: <003a01c38bad$017cb920$6401a8c0@Larry>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Precedence: list
> Message: 9
>
> Game Tracker is the only way to go with a compound bow. Bass Pro Shop =
> has them cheap.
>
> $13 for the complete package(holder for the line, 2500ft 17# test line, =
> and clips that go between the arrow tip and shaft)=20
>
> $7 for replacement line(don't reuse the line toss it.
>
>
>
> Larry WA2SRY
> Durham, NCFrom dick.green@valley.net Mon Oct 6 00:08:01 2003
> Return-Path: <dick.green@valley.net>
> X-Original-To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Delivered-To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Received: from westleb.valley.net (westleb.valley.net [198.115.160.96])
> by dayton.akorn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60B2319834
> for <towertalk@contesting.com>; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 00:08:00 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from enfield.VALLEY.NET (enfield.valley.net [198.115.160.7])
> by westleb.valley.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h960MOAp013013;
> Mon, 6 Oct 2003 00:12:25 -0400
> Received: by enfield.VALLEY.NET (blitz.valley.net) via SMTP from
> hh1120001.direcpc.com [206.71.120.1] id <32070158> 06 Oct 2003 00:03:49 EDT
> From: "Dick Green" <dick.green@valley.net>
> To: "Tower (Tower)" <towertalk@contesting.com>,
> "YCCC (YCCC)" <yccc@yccc.org>
> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 00:07:46 -0400
> Message-ID: <01d601c38bbf$6996a2c0$d00a460a@Desktop>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
> Importance: Normal
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1
> Subject: [TowerTalk] follow-up on 4-square conversion
> X-BeenThere: towertalk@contesting.com
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
> Precedence: list
> Reply-To: dick.green@valley.net
> 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>
>
> Thanks to all who responded to my request for info about converting my =
> 40m
> 4-square to an 80m 4-square.
> =20
> I got lots of interesting ideas on extending the elements, from =
> ultra-simple
> (add a loading coil at the bottom) to fairly complex (anything to do =
> with
> irrigation tubing.) I've settled on simply extending the existing =
> elements
> with six 6-foot sections of T-6063 drawn aluminum tubing, ranging in =
> size
> from 1.125" to .375". I'll use 4-way guying in two places (say, 35' and =
> 60')
> with black Dacron rope. It will take nine guy anchors, five of them =
> shared.
> Any suggestions on the height of the guys, minimum diameter of the rope =
> (can
> I use 3/32"?), and how to attach the guys to the tubing would be =
> welcome.=20
> =20
> I'm considering using rivets instead of the old cross-cut and hose clamp
> method to build the extensions. Of course, this means I'm not going to =
> use
> the old telescoping trick I used to erect the 40m elements. Since two of =
> the
> existing elements have been bent from flying tree branches, and all four =
> of
> them have been whipping around in the wind unguyed for six years and may =
> be
> loaded with dirt, leaves and other debris, telescoping is either =
> impossible
> or inadvisable. So, my plan is to build hinges onto the mounting posts =
> and
> raise the fully-extended elements. Some believe I can just walk them up =
> by
> myself. The elements weigh only 20 lbs, but I'll probably ask at least =
> one
> friend to help. W1KM had a novel method: place a 30' extension ladder
> vertically against the post, run a rope from the top of the ladder to =
> the
> middle of the element, and tilt the ladder away from the element to the
> ground!
> =20
> As for the matching network, that is a more complicated question. =
> Quadrature
> feed is not optimal for an 1/8-wave spaced array, and it will take a
> modified Lewallan network, or something similar, to obtain a pattern =
> with
> about 5 dB forward gain and 20+ dB F/B. There's an example of just the
> network I need in the ON4UN book. The inductors look easy to build, but =
> I'm
> puzzling over where I would get the caps and how much power they have to
> handle. Any help in that regard would be most appreciated.
> =20
> It is also possible to use a standard quadrature feed, such as the =
> Comtek
> box. However, the pattern is not as good -- only about 4dB gain and =
> 9-10dB
> F/B. I would imagine the bandwidth would be fairly narrow as well, but I
> only care about CW anyway. As winter is fast approaching, one option =
> would
> be to install a Comtek box now and work on building an optimal phasing
> network over the winter. I would guess I could sell the Comtek box later =
> for
> a good percentage of what I pay for it. The good news is that both =
> matching
> methods use 1/4-wave feed lines, so I could just swap in the new network
> when it's ready.
> =20
> Can anyone see flaws in this plan or suggest a better one?
> =20
> 73, Dick WC1M
> =20
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 10, Issue 15
> *****************************************
_______________________________________________
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
|