Hi Bob. If you think about what it takes to replace existing guys, you will
see why it's easier to go w/o them and put the new guy directly on the tower
rather than where the old one was. I have had a tower here on Cape Cod for
16 yrs or so w/o them. FYI, Tim Duffy says he doesnt feel they do anything
and doesnt use them anymore. 73 JACK
----- Original Message -----
From: <towertalk-request@contesting.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:46 AM
Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
> 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. more ?? on motorizing the tx-472 (Dan Bookwalter)
> 2. RE: Motorizing a TX-472 (Dan Hammill)
> 3. RE: Motorizing a TX-472 (Michael A. Urich)
> 4. RE: spider balls.. they work (GALE STEWARD)
> 5. Rohn Torque Bars (Jack Schuster)
> 6. Re: Rohn Torque Bars (Robert Shohet)
> 7. Re: Motorizing a TX-472 (W1GOR)
> 8. Re: RG-59 (Mark - AA6DX)
> 9. HFTA & Antenna Direction Question (Rita Stockton)
> 10. Re: Rohn Torque Bars (Cqtestk4xs@aol.com)
> 11. Re: RG-59 (Tom Rauch)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 18:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dan Bookwalter <n8dcj@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] more ?? on motorizing the tx-472
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <20040802011937.48075.qmail@web21321.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> sorry all... i forgot to ask what features do i want
> to look for in a winch... i know there are different
> types , but , i am not sure what i want to avoid
> etc... i know that i dont want to use a winch designed
> for the front of a vehicle but what else should i
> avoid or look for ??
>
> thanks
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:01:14 -0700
> From: "Dan Hammill" <kb5my@starband.net>
> Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Motorizing a TX-472
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID:
> <200408020034.i720YS8a006994@cassiopeia.email.starband.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I once used a BIG concrete drill on an HDX-572. Took off the crank
handle,
> chucked it up, and let it spin at slow speed. Worked great.
>
> Dan KB5MY/6
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dan Bookwalter
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 5:02 PM
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Motorizing a TX-472
>
> Ok.... i just hand cranked my TX-472 up, its 80F and 60% humidity and am
now
> soaking wet... i am also a little overweight , lazy and short on cash . so
> whats the most economical way to motorize this thing... i have access to a
> 1HP motor , maybe even one a little bigger.
>
> Any Ideas ??
>
> Dan N8DCJ
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 07:26:38 -0500 (CDT)
> From: "Michael A. Urich" <mike@ka5cvh.com>
> Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Motorizing a TX-472
> To: "Tower Talk" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <52753.66.25.12.130.1091449598.squirrel@66.25.12.130>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> > Ok.... i just hand cranked my TX-472 up, its 80F and 60% humidity and am
> > now soaking wet...
>
> Oh so you're experiencing a cold front are you? What are you going to do
> when it gets hot AND humid?
>
> :-) ... see the smiley ... just pickin' fun OK!
>
> Mike Urich, KA5CVH
> LaPorte TX
> http://ka5cvh.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 05:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
> From: GALE STEWARD <k3nd@yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] spider balls.. they work
> To: towertalk reflector <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <20040802125002.60440.qmail@web50710.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Let's not tempt fate. If we get a copper owl and align
> it to true north, we have covered all bases!
>
> 73, Stew K3ND
>
>
>
> --- Ted Bryant <w4nz@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Well, since we seem to have squeezed out about all
> > the technical
> > aspects of this and transitioned to a lighter vein,
> > let me offer one
> > more consideration why the "spider balls" may be
> > misunderstood.
> >
> > Has anyone in all their research of these devices
> > ever checked to make
> > sure their axis was properly aligned with earth's
> > magnetic field, i.e.
> > "Magnetic North" (NOT..True North)? Bet most were
> > perpendicular.
> > Hmmm...
> >
> > ...-.-
> >
> > w4nz
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 09:21:50 -0400
> From: "Jack Schuster" <w1wef@intergate.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bars
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <002b01c47893$ac7e4ae0$e9890fce@cccw>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I am in the process of replacing guys on my 108 ft Rohn 25 tower, and am
> planning to eliminate the TB25 torque bars. I was told a few years ago
that
> Rohn discontinued them because they decided they were unnecessary.
> Wondering what the consensus is among the Towertalk experts? Tnx JACK
> W1WEF w1wef@arrl.net
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 09:37:30 -0400
> From: "Robert Shohet" <kq2m@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bars
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>, "Jack Schuster" <w1wef@intergate.com>
> Message-ID: <000901c47895$dcdf52e0$7b00a8c0@dchm7>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Bad idea!
>
> Helping to better equalize and spreading out the horizontal and vertical
> forces over a wider area is usually a good idea. I see little meaningful
> UPSIDE
> to be gained from NOT using them. The difference in cost and convenience
> doesn't
> seem to be worth the risk.
>
> I would think about why it would be in Rohn's best interest not to
continue
> making them.
>
> Not Profitable to make and sell? (Most likely!)
> Problems with fabrication and quality control?
> Liability issue from people buying them?
>
> 73
> Bob KQ2M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Schuster" <w1wef@intergate.com>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 9:21 AM
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bars
>
>
> > I am in the process of replacing guys on my 108 ft Rohn 25 tower, and am
> > planning to eliminate the TB25 torque bars. I was told a few years ago
> that
> > Rohn discontinued them because they decided they were unnecessary.
> > Wondering what the consensus is among the Towertalk experts? Tnx JACK
> > W1WEF w1wef@arrl.net
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 09:37:03 -0400
> From: "W1GOR" <W1GOR@Maine.RR.Com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Motorizing a TX-472
> To: <N8DCJ@yahoo.com>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <001001c47895$ce05e6d0$d7891f18@hal9000>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dan,
>
> A low speed electric drill having a chuck capacity large enough to fit the
> (crank) shaft will allow you to raise and lower the tower. When not
being
> used as the tower motor, it can be kept inside, out of the weather. If
the
> shaft is oversized, a reducing adapter can be machined at low cost.
>
> 73, Larry - W1GOR
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Bookwalter" <n8dcj@yahoo.com>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 8:01 PM
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Motorizing a TX-472
>
>
> > Ok.... i just hand cranked my TX-472 up, its 80F and
> > 60% humidity and am now soaking wet... i am also a
> > little overweight , lazy and short on cash . so whats
> > the most economical way to motorize this thing... i
> > have access to a 1HP motor , maybe even one a little
> > bigger.
> >
> > Any Ideas ??
> >
> > Dan N8DCJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with
any
> questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 10:04:56 -0700
> From: "Mark - AA6DX" <aa6dx@arrl.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] RG-59
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <001101c477e9$da04f5e0$7562ce3f@main>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I think the query referred to using five nine for the aerial itself, which
> in fact does make a difference .. somewhere I have that formula ... shall
> look. However, the debate continues if using coax and all that for the
> dipole has any value whatsoever ... current opinions tend towards it's
just
> a way to make a dipole more difficult, with no rewards at the end of one's
> labors .. 73 Mark AA6DX
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 18:06:01 -0500
> From: "Rita Stockton" <rita_stockton@cox-internet.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] HFTA & Antenna Direction Question
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <000801c4781c$26de8070$6600a8c0@D5X2DM41>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I am getting ready to put up another 5L 20M yagi (not rotational at this
time) for the purpose of improving the situation to Europe. I have a big
drop off that goes from about West to about 20 degrees going clockwise. At
about 45 degrees (toward Europe), I might as well be on flat ground. At
some of the lower angles, according to HFTA, the stack pointed at about 10
or 20 degrees shows as much as 8-10 dB improvement as compared to the same
stack pointed at 45 degrees. The question is this. Would it make sense to
skew the lower antenna about 20-30 degrees North of Europe to best take
advantage of that drop off when these are in phase since according to YO the
free space pattern would indicate a drop of about 4 dB if the antenna were
turned off by 30 degrees?
>
> Stan, K5GO
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 09:55:56 EDT
> From: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bars
> To: w1wef@intergate.com
> Cc: TOWERTALK@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <11.2f9c903b.2e3fa1ec@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Jack
>
> I was told the same thing. They ARE unnecessary on the new style because
the
> new style is beefed up and more stiff...a slightly different style than
the
> old two bolt ones. I would stick with the torque arms on the old style,
since
> you already have them.
>
> The new ones have spacer washers in them to stop any play...the old ones
had
> lots of room if the torque bars were not inserted.
>
> Bill K4XS
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:44:48 -0400
> From: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] RG-59
> To: "Mark - AA6DX" <aa6dx@arrl.net>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <00ca01c4789f$42c42320$6801a8c0@akorn.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> > I think the query referred to using five nine for the
> aerial itself, which
> > in fact does make a difference .. somewhere I have that
> formula ... shall
> > look. However, the debate continues if using coax and
> all that for the
> > dipole has any value whatsoever ... current opinions tend
> towards it's just
> > a way to make a dipole more difficult, with no rewards at
> the end of one's
> > labors .. 73 Mark AA6DX
>
> Shades of Owls and Spider Balls! This isn't a debate or just
> opinions about things that are difficult to quantify.
>
> The ARRL and Walt Maxwell (and several others) did the math,
> and the math shows the coax doesn't do much except add a
> little loss and very little bandwidth change over a regular
> heavy wire dipole. Now I'm sure the Buzzoka would be wider
> than a #20 copper wire, because the coax is much thicker and
> has the same or more loss.
>
> I actually measured two antennas, and the first time I saw
> no difference at all (but I had poor test gear in 1975) and
> the second time I measured within a few percent of what the
> ARRL predicted (on lab grade equipment). If you read the
> Handbook, consider their calculations as almost the same as
> a real world test...because they are.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
> ****************************************
>
_______________________________________________
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
|