X-GM-THRID: 1203191022351354151 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf X-Gmail-Received: 59cb5a22a7abaf44f4ccfcb6316dace3f61c8148 Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.54.72.15 with SMTP id u15cs42220wra; Fri, 12 May 2006 09:46:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.21.7 with SMTP id 7mr556060huu; Fri, 12 May 2006 09:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 37si1971247hub.2006.05.12.09.46.14; Fri, 12 May 2006 09:46:15 -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 1Feaea-0001uf-GV for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:38:12 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Feaea-0001uW-5o for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:38:12 +0100 Received: from mta08-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.48] helo=mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1FecZc-0005jB-68 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 19:41:32 +0100 Received: from aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20060512163401.SCKZ29040.mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com> for ; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:34:01 +0100 Received: from mikedennison ([82.10.67.170]) by aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20060512163401.HIDM16086.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@mikedennison> for ; Fri, 12 May 2006 17:34:01 +0100 From: "Mike Dennison" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 17:33:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <4464C6E3.23575.95B164@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.21c) Content-description: Mail message body X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.621,FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05 Subject: LF: Rope? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT 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: 5622 I am refurbishing one of my antenna supports. It is supported by a large tree and is raised and lowered using blue polypropylene rope (from B&Q). The rope shows signs of deterioration - presumably from UV - and I wonder whether I would be better using white polyprop, or nylon, rather than blue polyprop. Nylon is a lot more expensive - is it worthwhile? I understand than nylon is stretchy - is this a problem? Does nylon have a similar breaking strength - the antenna is lightweight but takes some wind- load and in any case I don't want any accidents, so over-engineering is the order of the day. Any advice from those more knowledgable / experienced than me? Mike, G3XDV =========== http://lf.apersonalguide.co.uk