X-GM-THRID: 1203191022351354151 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf X-Gmail-Received: 6ca12c6b9614097b154b1772f82a73d5f9312c3e Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.54.72.15 with SMTP id u15cs44559wra; Fri, 12 May 2006 11:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.236.15 with SMTP id j15mr1889359ugh; Fri, 12 May 2006 11:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id e1si1103892ugf.2006.05.12.11.02.56; Fri, 12 May 2006 11:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1FebuO-0002nC-6K for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 18:58:36 +0100 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1FebuN-0002n2-Oq for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 18:58:35 +0100 Received: from dx.ru ([80.68.4.13] helo=relay.dx.ru) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1FedP1-0007FF-NS for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 20:34:25 +0100 Received: from ed.dx ([10.0.1.11]) by relay.dx.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Febu9-0002al-Cs for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 21:58:21 +0400 Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 21:58:23 +0400 From: Ed Lesnichy X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.0) Professional Organization: Ed Lesnichy X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1779031882.20060512215823@dx.ru> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: <4464C6E3.23575.95B164@localhost> References: <4464C6E3.23575.95B164@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.584,FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05 Subject: Re: LF: Rope? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5621 Mike and LF enthusiasts, 12-05-2006, 20:33 MSK(+3 GMT), G3XDV wrote: MD> I am refurbishing one of my antenna supports. It is supported by a MD> large tree and is raised and lowered using blue polypropylene rope MD> (from B&Q). I use polypropylene rope for all Big TX Verticals since spring of 2002 (on LF DXexpeditions to UA9-UA0 also) - rope diameter from 3 up to 5mm with a copper wire from 0.5 up to 2mm on rope Length of a rope of the aerial sometimes achieved 400 meters MD> The rope shows signs of deterioration - presumably from UV - and I MD> wonder whether I would be better using white polyprop, or nylon, MD> rather than blue polyprop. My first aerial with 5�� (abt 400m long from 135m tower to 8m down) of a orange polypropylene rope has sustained 3 years (3 winters). I believe that the main enemy for polypropylene rope is UV and the durability of a wire is not influenced by his colour (I used also blue and white ropes also made in Turkey or China) Though in R6L there is one more enemy - look last photo of my 5mm rope on http://136.73.ru/news/2005/jan/black.htm MD> Nylon is a lot more expensive - is it worthwhile? I understand than MD> nylon is stretchy - is this a problem? Does nylon have a similar MD> breaking strength - the antenna is lightweight but takes some wind- MD> load and in any case I don't want any accidents, so over-engineering MD> is the order of the day. Nylon or kapron(I do not know as is precisely written on english) resist to UV better, but have the greater lengthening at loading at an identical diameters I believe best to apply an aramid rope (2..3mm - identical KEVLAR Du-Pont), but it very expensive 2mm aramid rope - 290kg break - 4% - abt 0.5USD/meter in RU 73! Ed RU6LA http://136.73.ru