OK, let's discuss dipoles vs length
 

I did see a video about a couple of guys free climbing an television
antenna about 2K feet in the air. I lost count how many safety
practices they violated. If OSHA had seen them doing that, they would
have been grounded big time. The fines would have probably put the
company out of business.

I can't find it to check, but I do remember it being very up-front about who
and where they were, and it was connected to soem company. The one I had was
probably kosher enough, if was effectively a promotional video, because
other, as you say, the effect would have been dramatically unwanted for them.
I could be wrong, but I won't know till I find it, and I have no idea where I
stowed it yet..

If it's the one I'm thinking of (the so-called "Stairway To Heaven"
video), it's all over YouTube:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlVxRdTnNqI is one version

Another tower-climbing company made the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b9LahaBJIk

which they call "Stairway To Safety", and shows a similar climb with
the climbers using proper climbing-safety protocols (attached to the
tower at all times).

I can't find the cite at the moment, but my recollection is that both
of those free-climbers lost their jobs after they posted their
helmet-cam video... their employer stated that they had ignored the
safety procedures required by the company.

OK, let's discuss dipoles vs length
 

On 10/13/2014 6:05 PM, David Platt wrote:
I did see a video about a couple of guys free climbing an television
antenna about 2K feet in the air. I lost count how many safety
practices they violated. If OSHA had seen them doing that, they would
have been grounded big time. The fines would have probably put the
company out of business.

I can't find it to check, but I do remember it being very up-front about who
and where they were, and it was connected to soem company. The one I had was
probably kosher enough, if was effectively a promotional video, because
other, as you say, the effect would have been dramatically unwanted for them.
I could be wrong, but I won't know till I find it, and I have no idea where I
stowed it yet..

If it's the one I'm thinking of (the so-called "Stairway To Heaven"
video), it's all over YouTube:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlVxRdTnNqI is one version

Another tower-climbing company made the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b9LahaBJIk

which they call "Stairway To Safety", and shows a similar climb with
the climbers using proper climbing-safety protocols (attached to the
tower at all times).

I can't find the cite at the moment, but my recollection is that both
of those free-climbers lost their jobs after they posted their
helmet-cam video... their employer stated that they had ignored the
safety procedures required by the company.



Yes, that looks familiar. But notice the face of the second climber is
fuzzed out so you can't identify him.

I didn't listen to the audio (in bed watching TV with the XYL and she
wouldn't like it :) ) so I don't know if they named the company or not.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

OK, let's discuss dipoles vs length
 

On 10/13/2014 6:05 PM, David Platt wrote:
I did see a video about a couple of guys free climbing an television
antenna about 2K feet in the air. I lost count how many safety
practices they violated. If OSHA had seen them doing that, they would
have been grounded big time. The fines would have probably put the
company out of business.

I can't find it to check, but I do remember it being very up-front about who
and where they were, and it was connected to soem company. The one I had was
probably kosher enough, if was effectively a promotional video, because
other, as you say, the effect would have been dramatically unwanted for them.
I could be wrong, but I won't know till I find it, and I have no idea where I
stowed it yet..

If it's the one I'm thinking of (the so-called "Stairway To Heaven"
video), it's all over YouTube:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlVxRdTnNqI is one version


Yup, that looks like another copy of the one Radiohead posted.

Another tower-climbing company made the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b9LahaBJIk

which they call "Stairway To Safety", and shows a similar climb with
the climbers using proper climbing-safety protocols (attached to the
tower at all times).


Yes, safety takes a bit longer, but is not an option when you're more
than about six feet above the ground.

I can't find the cite at the moment, but my recollection is that both
of those free-climbers lost their jobs after they posted their
helmet-cam video... their employer stated that they had ignored the
safety procedures required by the company.



I'm glad to hear that. Safety procedures are there for a reason - and
it's not just to prevent an OSHA fine!

BTW - it is NOT required that a climber be tied off 100% of the time.
It is permissible to be unattached for short periods (i.e. when climbing
past guy wires). But the guys in the first video went way past what was
consider a short period!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

OK, let's discuss dipoles vs length
 

On 10/13/2014 5:46 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/13/2014 4:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You didn't say "optimum". You said it was "crap". What part of "crap"
don't you understand?

I will not engage in a ****ing contest with you.


You're the one who said it, not me.

I will not engage in a ****ing contest with you.


Because you know you're full of crap.

You think an NEC analysis is the slickest thing since snot on a
doorknob. But what about HAAT or ground conductivity, for instance?

What about it?


Both have effects on the radiation pattern of an antenna.

Yes, they do, so feel free to include all the above in your analysis.


You made the statement - not me.

Feel free to include all the above in your analysis.

You have considered neither when telling me my antenna was "crap" -
which it provably was not.

Where is the data that proves that?



Easy. The QSL card from Alaska and Hawaii on 75 meters.

ROFL.



So now you're calling me a liar? You, who don't even have a license and
won't use your real name?

You probably think 75 meters is the depth of your city swimming pool.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

OK, let's discuss dipoles vs length
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/13/2014 5:46 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/13/2014 4:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

You didn't say "optimum". You said it was "crap". What part of "crap"
don't you understand?

I will not engage in a ****ing contest with you.


You're the one who said it, not me.

I will not engage in a ****ing contest with you.


Because you know you're full of crap.

I will not engage in a ****ing contest with you.

You think an NEC analysis is the slickest thing since snot on a
doorknob. But what about HAAT or ground conductivity, for instance?

What about it?


Both have effects on the radiation pattern of an antenna.

Yes, they do, so feel free to include all the above in your analysis.


You made the statement - not me.

I will not engage in a ****ing contest with you.

Feel free to include all the above in your analysis.

You have considered neither when telling me my antenna was "crap" -
which it provably was not.

Where is the data that proves that?



Easy. The QSL card from Alaska and Hawaii on 75 meters.

ROFL.



So now you're calling me a liar? You, who don't even have a license and
won't use your real name?

I will not engage in a ****ing contest with you.

You probably think 75 meters is the depth of your city swimming pool.

I will not engage in a ****ing contest with you.


--
Jim Pennino

OK, let's discuss dipoles vs length
 

(David Platt) wrote in news:tuutgb-
:

If it's the one I'm thinking of (the so-called "Stairway To Heaven"
video), it's all over YouTube:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlVxRdTnNqI is one version

Another tower-climbing company made the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b9LahaBJIk


Having looked at them, it was probably the first one. The second one didn't
exist at the time (Youtube tends to link things like this very easily when
they do). I don't remember anything about a toolbag hanging from an ankle
though, that sounds like a very bad idea to me. However it is managed, I'd
have thought it should be attached to the strongeest, most central part of
the climber, at the waist, leaving all limbs eady to move.

OK, let's discuss dipoles vs length
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m1hr93$93d$1@dont-
email.me:

It is permissible to be unattached for short periods (i.e. when climbing
past guy wires).

I wondered about that. Similar cases exist on a tall ship, there are moments
where a permanent attachment would not let you pass upwards at all, but these
moments are usually in structures joining sections of mast, or yards to a
mast, and actually support a climber very well.

OK, let's discuss dipoles vs length
 

At Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:41:29 -0400, Jerry Stuckle rearranged some
electrons to write:



You, who don't even have a license


Actually he does, and I have him in my log.

OK, let's discuss dipoles vs length
 

On 10/15/2014 6:12 AM, David wrote:
At Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:41:29 -0400, Jerry Stuckle rearranged some
electrons to write:



You, who don't even have a license


Actually he does, and I have him in my log.


And of course, such a claim by an anonymous poster with an invalid email
address is worth something?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

OK, let's discuss dipoles vs length
 

David wrote:
At Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:41:29 -0400, Jerry Stuckle rearranged some
electrons to write:



You, who don't even have a license


Actually he does, and I have him in my log.

It is irrelevant.

I could post copies of my amateur license, old First Class license,
FAA avioncs repairmans's certificate, BSEE, resume, and professional
references and it would make no difference to Jerry Stuckle's attitude.

While he seems to think such things are important, I am only impressed
with data.


--
Jim Pennino