X-GM-THRID: 1203537363112811572 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf X-Gmail-Received: 67bb29c4ab419b7e0a765cdb1024d42e4feba85b Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.54.72.5 with SMTP id u5cs32583wra; Tue, 16 May 2006 05:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.49.14 with SMTP id b14mr3281760nfk; Tue, 16 May 2006 05:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id z73si855036nfb.2006.05.16.05.31.11; Tue, 16 May 2006 05:31:11 -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 1Ffyer-0001A2-8M for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 13:28:13 +0100 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Ffyeq-00019t-RI for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 13:28:12 +0100 Received: from mta07-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.47] helo=mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1Fg0BM-0004oK-12 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 15:05:56 +0100 Received: from aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20060516122802.MNWE29343.mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com> for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 13:28:02 +0100 Received: from mikedennison ([82.10.67.170]) by aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20060516122802.MOOU16086.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@mikedennison> for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 13:28:02 +0100 From: "Mike Dennison" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:27:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <4469D35D.2452.2A89E0@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.21c) Content-description: Mail message body X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-0.442,FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05 Subject: LF: Rope answers Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable 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: 5974 Many thanks to all those who replied to my enquiry about rope for hauling up antenna masts. The general view seemed to be that polyester was better than polypropylene or nylon. Whilst at my local DiY store looking for something else, I noticed some polyester rope that was also green and therefore suitable for use in trees. I bought =A340-worth - it wasn't cheap. The first thing I noticed was that it did not tangle as easily as polyprop. Unfortunately, when I put it to use I found it was too springy to do the job - my efforts went to counteracting the spring and not raising the antenna mast. I am back to using my blue polyprop. This seems to have most of the required qualities, except for the colour and the fact that it will have to be renewed every few years. Mike, G3XDV =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D