Barry, W2UP wrote:
Ergo, a contest free zone would be a
>bad precedent, which could induce further attempts to squeeze us into
>smaller spaces.
I'm not really sure what else we can do (within reason) to appease
non-contesters. There are already three bands that are void of contest
activity, and the ARRL 10-meter Contest (I think) has already set up a
50-KC wide segment that is contest-free.
I think opening a dialogue is a good idea, but if you consider:
1) How much space there is in the HF spectrum that is already contest-free,
2) Contesters occupy the bands 2/7 of the time on weeks there is an event,
3) The majority of events are published in every major ham magazine,
"warning" non-contesters of our events, and
4) With a couple of exceptions, our events are geared towards one mode of
operation,
I think there is little we can compromise on.
Certainly, this is a bigger issue in the phone portion of the band than
the CW section. I'm not a RTTY operator, so I have no idea what goes on
there.
Sean
--
Sean Kutzko Amateur Radio: KF9PL
Urbana, IL DXCC:304 worked/300 cfmd
"All Good Things In All Good Time."
>From Jan Seay <jans@muskox.alaska.edu> Fri Sep 29 18:28:46 1995
From: Jan Seay <jans@muskox.alaska.edu> (Jan Seay)
Subject: more on guywires and insulators
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.91.950929092422.8277A-100000@muskox.alaska.edu>
There are as many reasons not to break up the guys with
insulators as there are to do it. This is a discussion that
is older than I am. But, the guy who suggested ferrite at
strategic points has his act together. In 40 years of putting up
commercial towers for various services, I've tried about everything
I could think of, but this is neat. In broadcast, we have even used
resonant breakers. The only thing I can say is Duh, why didn't I
think of it. No weakening of the system, no diode action joints,
and the cost is certainly nominal compared to the alternatives.
KL7HF
On Fri, 29 Sep 1995 K8DO@aol.com wrote:
> By the time you add up the cost of insulators and clamps, and if your time
> is worth _anything_ , and if you consider the odds of a component failing
> increases by the multiple of every part you add to the guy system, then
> Phillystran is the only game in town....
>
> Denny
>
>From Big Don <bigdon@eskimo.com> Fri Sep 29 18:47:06 1995
From: Big Don <bigdon@eskimo.com> (Big Don)
Subject: more on guywires and insulators
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950929102518.28727B-100000@eskimo.com>
On Fri, 29 Sep 1995 K8DO@aol.com wrote:
> By the time you add up the cost of insulators and clamps, and if your time
> is worth _anything_ , and if you consider the odds of a component failing
> increases by the multiple of every part you add to the guy system, then
> Phillystran is the only game in town....
Philly sounds good ... on paper. Does anyone (besides the company) have
any long term real world experience with it they can share?
Particularly, how does it survive say 15 years of solar UV radiation,
birds and squirrels digging their claws into it, windborne debris
abrasion, friction with vegetation you didn't get around to trimming back
right away, etc.
I've frequently heard of anchors pulling out and mis-installed clamps
failing, but rarely of a steel guy cable simply failing. Any incidents
known with Philly?
And then there is the really scary hair-raising situation, where you are
at the top of your Philly-guyed tower, and drop a big steel bracket that
strikes one of your guys on the way down....
Big Don
>From Will Sill <will@epix.net> Fri Sep 29 20:03:26 1995
From: Will Sill <will@epix.net> (Will Sill)
Subject: Shooting Tower Guy Points
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950929145939.22015D-100000@peach.epix.net>
On Thu, 28 Sep 1995, Matthew S. Trott wrote:
> . . The Rohn book shows a tolerance of plus/minus 0.1 degree in this
> matter. That's not a lot of room for error.
As an engineer I am confident that this tolerance is both unnecessary and
impractical. I am personally not a fan of guyed towers at all, but one
should remember that the function of guys is to keep the tower from
tipping over, and apply that uncommon commodity, common sense!
will@epix.net - KD3XR - W F Sill, Tunkhannock, PA
>From Warren Rothberg <wrothberg@mv.MV.COM> Fri Sep 29 21:26:35 1995
From: Warren Rothberg <wrothberg@mv.MV.COM> (Warren Rothberg)
Subject: CFZ
Message-ID: <199509292026.QAA01170@mv.mv.com>
The weekend after Hurricane Luis hit the northern Leeward Islands, there
was a EU contest (WAE maybe?). I had been spending >12 hours/day handling
emergency and priority traffic between the US and those islands.
There were many US stations participating in this contest and I must admit,
there were five or more frequencies on 20m in use throughout the first week
of the aftermath.
Now I had been following the CFZ thread for some time and was quite
convinced that the gentlemen on this side of the pond would make every
attempt not to cause interference to the many nets in progress.
However, that did not happen. Of the dozens of requests that I made
for contesting stations to move up/down a little due to the nature of
the nets, only a handful responded as I would have hoped. The majority
either ignored the request or told me what I could do with the net.
(I only kept a list of the "1" calls that responded in such a manner.
Rest assured I will never again give them a point in ANY contest.)
Although most of us are gentlemen (and ladies) and recognize the
extreme nature of a disaster where poeple's lives and property are
in danger, there remains a signficant portion of those who just
don't seem to care.
Now I don't particularly see a solution in saying that ARRL contests
would have a CFZ (at pick one: 1) 14.275 and up, 2) 14.286 and up,
3) 14.300 and up, or 4) other) I am convinced that the utter lack of
disregard for life and property because there is a contest in progress
is, in fact, a reality. Even if there were no CFZ, those who would
not move for a disaster net don't belong in contesting (or maybe in
ham radio).
As for the WARC argument, one must consider what the current infra-
stucture of hamradio in other countries/islands is. Most operate with
tribanders. Even those who had 17m antennas had them blown down, were
forced to operate with wires, and as you know, cyclical conditions
made effective emergency communications on those bands almost impossible.
Nor can many of the folks on Barbuda, St. Kitts, Antiqua, St. Maarten/
Ste. Martin, Anguilla, etc. afford to buy WARC antennas. We are dealing
with a different economy here.
Before Luis, I was as convinced as the rest of you that a CFZ was not
needed (and maybe a bad thing). Today I'm not as convinced.
Warren, WB1HBB
wrothberg@mv.mv.com
>From Bill Turner <wrt@eskimo.com> Fri Sep 29 15:19:57 1995
From: Bill Turner <wrt@eskimo.com> (Bill Turner)
Subject: more on guywires and insulators
Message-ID: <199509292120.OAA07027@mail.eskimo.com>
At 09:57 AM 9/28/95 -0600, Audio/Visual Helper wrote:
> The only sure way to prevent guy wire interaction is this: Make
>your sections less than 1/4 wave of the highest frequency you will be using
>on that tower. Yes, that's a lot of insulators , but my tests show no
>interaction when using this method. I still had interaction when using
>supposedly non-resonant lengths that were beyond 1/4 wave.
> Of course phillystran is the alternative and probably cheaper when
>compared to breaking the guys at less than 1/4 wave for say 10 meters. I
>have had no experience with the bead method but it should work also.
>
>Bill Thomas - KC9AL
--------------------------------------------------------
Does it have to be 1/4 wave? I would think slightly shorter than 1/2 wave
would do.
73, Bill W7LZP
wrt@eskimo.com
>From C Sim James, KK5EA" <jamescs@mail.auburn.edu Fri Sep 29 23:19:39 1995
From: C Sim James, KK5EA" <jamescs@mail.auburn.edu (C Sim James, KK5EA)
Subject: MultimodeTNC Question
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950929170701.20329E-100000@mallard>
Ye olde contest folk,
The recent coming and going of the RTTY 'test has got me and my
club thinking about buying a multi-mode TNC for the pupose of getting
into the RTTY side of the game. So I wish to ask the group if they have
any suggestions of witch TNC would be best to get for contesting. We got
a from the university at the end of last year so we do have some money in
the kitty to do this. Please mail me and I will post a summary if I get
enough info.
tnx es 73,
Sim, KK5EA/4
"War is politics by other means" - Clausewitz
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|C. Sim James, KK5EA 03PO | Email: jamescs@mail.auburn.edu |
|MIDN 2/C USNR | Packet: kk5ea@k4ry.#cenal.al.usa.na |
|U.S. Naval Supply Corps Gonna-be | WWW: http://www.auburn.edu/~jamescs |
| "Steel doesn't fly without supply." | Vanity: Someday my Call will come! |
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
"Eat Moose Meat... 10,000 Wolves can't be wrong" - Matt B.
>From w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Sat Sep 30 02:17:36 1995
From: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Subject: Shooting Tower Guy Points
Message-ID: <199509300117.SAA29887@desiree.teleport.com>
>
>On Thu, 28 Sep 1995, Matthew S. Trott wrote:
>
>> . . The Rohn book shows a tolerance of plus/minus 0.1 degree in this
>> matter. That's not a lot of room for error.
I have read a lot of Rohn's fine print but I certainly missed this one. Can
anyone tell me where this is in print in "Rohn's book"? BTW Rohn has a lot
of books, old and new, and they say different stuff at different times . . .
so you will have to guide me to the right book, the right page, and maybe a
document number. Is this another one of Rohn's ways of making it impossible
for you and I to comply with their instructions, therefore absolving them of
all responsibility in case of a tower crash?
Stan W7NI@teleport.com
>From w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Sat Sep 30 02:25:26 1995
From: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Subject: Handicap
Message-ID: <199509300125.SAA01616@desiree.teleport.com>
>Hiya, Derick.
>
>> . . . people that make the top ten should be forced to use an exchange
>> that makes it harder for them . . . next time.
>
>How about requiring them to use all-band verticals?
>
>Zap KE6YNN
Let's see. Four phased large tribanders, vertically polarized. Yes, that
complies to the letter.
(BTW I don't see any clause here preventing me from using other antennas in
addition to an all-band vertical, like say stacked, phased monoband yagis.)
Stan W7NI@teleport.com
>From floydjr@nr.infi.net (jim floyd) Sat Sep 30 02:28:41 1995
From: floydjr@nr.infi.net (jim floyd) (jim floyd)
Subject: UPDATE V
Message-ID: <199509300128.VAA17773@larry.infi.net>
CQWW RTTY CLAIMED SCORES 1995
Compiled by
WA4ZXA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATOR CLASS SCORE QSO's PTS QTH DX ZONES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE OP/HP ALL BAND
K1NG 1,347,367 1381 2711 181 224 92
S56A 1,254,800 1228 3137 322 78
VY2SS 1,047,510 1257 ? 123 159 57
N4CC 710,940 957 1734 169 157 84
WE9V 703,131 1066 1937 159 139 65
K2PS 621,750 805 1658 142 164 69
NA4M 430,810 757 1286 147 122 66
WA3WJD 314,534 541 986 133 125 61
W3GG 302,872 472 1048 94 133 62
W7LZP 256,563 682 983 147 67 47
JA5EXW 255,910 565 763 145 54 46
VS6BG 217,536 434 1133 38 57 97
NA2M (HP or LP) 148,560 376 619 106 86 48
JH7QXJ 143,500 313 875 37 81 46
WA6SDM 140,499 426 603 124 61 48
SINGLE OP/LP ALL BAND
4X6ZK 804,528 938 2718 41 194 61
AK5KD 639,846 1112 1734 180 122 67
4X0A 487,012 758 2234 40 131 47
KA4RRU 437,987 754 1373 125 134 60
KA1SIE 399,434 754 1442 119 112 46
WA4ZXA 285,948 512 1014 110 115 57
WB2HMF 127,160 313 578 96 80 44
KF2OG 95,634 317 506 92 61 36
N7UJJ 93,696 370 488 110 42 40
WA5JWU 45,474 167 286 73 50 36
N2VYU 1,548 30 43 18 9 9
SINGLE OP/ASSISTED
NO2T 498,624 729 1484 121 149 66
V31JU (UN or ASST) 421,852 734 1604 133 86 44
JR5JAQ 355,266 517 1462 46 132 65
N2OL 307,840 634 ? 296
N2FF 293,601 525 1023 114 114 59
KE7GH 186,935 587 763 145 54 46
OH2LU 158,388 338 788 29 125 47
SINGLE OP/SINGLE BAND
10 Meters
15 Meters
N4SR 21,084 117 251 21 41 22
20 Meters
N1OAZ 114,600 426 955 41 63 16
VE7OR 92,575 349 805 45 45 25
VE6WQ 83,625 299 669 44 55 26
JR2BNF/1 31,920 121 336 21 48 26
K3EST ? 113 ? 21 39 14
40 Meters
K1IU 185,277 674 1227 54 71 26
ZS6EZ 87,000 275 ? 39 50 20
W2UP 83,760 380 698 49 50 21
WF5E 53,954 352 509 50 35 21
KN6DV 46,552 363 506 51 22 19
80 Meters
MULTI SINGLE/HP
OT5T 1,983,016 1551 4166 248 142 86
VP5C 1,845,152 1767 4232 185 182 69
WU3V 1,388,862 1337 ? ? ? ?
DF7RX 1,325,280 1164 3012 232 122 86
PI4COM 1,108,357 1046 2687 120 214 77
K2TW 868,436 1089 136 188 74
WA4QVD 738,045 1153 ? ? ? ?
N9ITX/7 545,490 1066 1653 158 109 63
VK9LZ 517,000 784 2219 79 91 63
N9ENA 199,045 ? ? ? ? ?
MULTI SINGLE/LP
AA5AU 630,400 929 1600 166 151 77
K8UNP 562,872 803 1497 147 158 71
KF4KL 432,928 665 1304 132 138 62
T99MT 287,523 553 1389 65 107 35
MULTI OP/MULTI
W3LPL 2,154,387 2045 3953 214 237 94
The scores have slowed down quite a bit. In an effort to save band-
width I will not post an update again until there are enough scores
to warrent it. So if you send me your score now and there is no
update right away you will know why. Keep the scores coming no matter
how small or how big they are.
Maybe if I do a good enough job on this one I can do the one for CQWW
SSB next month.
When you see a number between the QTH and the DX column it means that
the station added those two together and sent it to me. If they send
me a split of them I will update it.
Don't forget that info beside your call like this (UN or ASST) means
that you never sent which you were. If I do not know then I put you
in the higher one. Let me know if I have anyone in the wrong class.
73's Jim // WA4ZXA @N4ZC <> floydjr@nr.infi.net
ps: Remember if you send me your breakdown I cannot repost them on
the reflector. If you wish for everyone to see the breakdown you will
need to send them to the reflector yourself.
>From Dave Hawes" <n3rd@ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 30 07:04:15 1995
From: Dave Hawes" <n3rd@ix.netcom.com (Dave Hawes)
Subject: 10 min M/S rule
Message-ID: <199509300205.TAA07693@ix3.ix.netcom.com>
> On Sep 26, 12:18pm, LondonSM wrote:
> > Subject: Re: CT M/S QSY
>
> What about that 5 minutes (or more) that it takes a Midwest or West
Coast
> station to break through the pile-up to a 160M EU mult? That no
longer is
> considered "being on the band"?? Is that within the spirit of the
rules?
> Meanwhile your third radio is on 80 working other mults....is that
the
> spirit of the rules? Now, it's _perfectly_ acceptable, by present
rules,
> to have three transmitters on silmultaneously. Hmmmm...
>
Apparently, "calling time" does not count as being on the band. You
you are right. The multiplier station's transistion from one band to
the next now is "fuzzy," in that you can be calling multipliers on
two bands at once (the current multiplier station band, and the new
multiplier station band), waiting for the first contact to be made on
the
new band. I really dislike this new rule in that it forces M/S
stations to have three active stations available, if they want to
push it to the limit.
What was wrong with the old interpretation, anyway?
73 - Dave N3RD
n3rd@ix.netcom.com
>From w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Sat Sep 30 03:36:07 1995
From: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Subject: Plumbing a Tower
Message-ID: <199509300236.TAA15073@desiree.teleport.com>
>"How do you center the plumb bob"?
>
>The answer is:
>There is no need to center it.
>The disire is to just have a vertical sight line for the legs.
>The plumb bob may be hung from any of the tower struts with no concern for
it's being centered.
>
>N5RP, Bob
>Houston, Texas
>Email: perring@icsi.net
>
Here is another trick I picked up from a power company worker who sets tall
poles in the ground.
The problem: You can't actually climb the pole to attach a plumb bob to it
until you are through installing it and then it's too late to fix it if it
isn't vertical. If you could climb it and attach the plumb bob, you
couldn't run it down the center because it is a pole and has a solid center.
Attaching it to the side of the pole is not real good either since the pole
tapers and you would expect the plumb bob to be closer to the outside of the
pole at the bottom than it is at the top. (If you have any wind at all, 70
or 80 feet of string blows around a lot anyway so you have more of a
pendulum than a plumb bob.)
The solution: Take 6 feet of string and tie a weight on one end of it. An
8 inch crescent wrench works great as a weight. Step back from your pole or
tower far enough so that when you look up at the top of it, you are looking
up at about a 45 degree angle. Hold the string out in front of you with
your arm extended up and out. Wait for the string to stop swaying and sight
the pole/tower along the length of the string. You will see it if it is off
more than an inch or so. This is generally accurate enough and the wind
does not blow 6 feet of string weighted by an 8 inch crescent wrench very
much. Walk around the tower and sight it from each guy point. Works on
poles or towers.
Stan W7NI@teleport.com
>From patd@eskimo.com (Patrick Dayshaw) Sat Sep 30 12:46:58 1995
From: patd@eskimo.com (Patrick Dayshaw) (Patrick Dayshaw)
Subject: Shooting Tower Guy Points
Message-ID: <199509300447.VAA11335@mail.eskimo.com>
On Fri, 29 Sep 1995 15:03:26 will@epix.net - KD3XR - W F Sill, wrote:
>>
>>On Thu, 28 Sep 1995, Matthew S. Trott wrote:
>>
>> . . The Rohn book shows a tolerance of plus/minus 0.1 degree in this
>> matter. That's not a lot of room for error.
>
>As an engineer I am confident that this tolerance is both unnecessary and
>impractical. I am personally not a fan of guyed towers at all, but one
>should remember that the function of guys is to keep the tower from
>tipping over, and apply that uncommon commodity, common sense!
>
>will@epix.net - KD3XR - W F Sill, Tunkhannock, PA
>
OK Will, if this tolerance is as you say *both unnecessary and
impractical* then what tolerance is acceptable? What, applying the uncommon
commodity AND an engineer's point of view, is a reasonable tolerance to
shoot for?.
I'm getting ready to raise my currently unguyed Rohn 25 a couple of notches
to where it will need guys and am trying to work around trees etc., so this
is more than a theoretical question.
Thanks from us all..........
73
Patrick, WA7VNI........ patd@eskimo.com
>From Jim Hollenback" <jholly@hposl62.cup.hp.com Sat Sep 30 06:46:15 1995
From: Jim Hollenback" <jholly@hposl62.cup.hp.com (Jim Hollenback)
Subject: Contest Free Zones
References: <199509291718.MAA28612@firefly.prairienet.org>
Message-ID: <9509292246.ZM13590@hpwsmjh1.cup.hp.com>
On Sep 29, 12:18pm, Sean E. Kutzko wrote:
> Subject: Re: Contest Free Zones
>
> Certainly, this is a bigger issue in the phone portion of the band than
> the CW section. I'm not a RTTY operator, so I have no idea what goes on
> there.
>
We do a pretty good job of blowing the gaskets on the 'TOR crowd and the
CW crowd. RTTY, in some peoples minds, can only go .08 to .1. Well, on the
40 and 80M bands DX is more around 0.25 to 0.40. On 20M I've seen and
worked RTTY as low as .050. The 'TOR crowd gets upset with the obsolete
RTTY contesters clogging up "their" bands with their contest stuff. I have
been deliberatly QRM'ed many times by the 'TOR crowd. Such is life.
73, Jim, WA6SDM
jholly@cup.hp.com
>From Matthew S. Trott" <0007288678@mcimail.com Sat Sep 30 07:23:00 1995
From: Matthew S. Trott" <0007288678@mcimail.com (Matthew S. Trott)
Subject: Ray: Contest Free Zones
Message-ID: <92950930062329/0007288678PJ4EM@MCIMAIL.COM>
Didn't operate much in CQWW last year but form the write-up I believe zone 23
was pretty much contest free.
>From w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Sat Sep 30 11:36:59 1995
From: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Subject: more on guywires and insulators
Message-ID: <199509301036.DAA24722@desiree.teleport.com>
>By the time you add up the cost of insulators and clamps, and if your time
>is worth _anything_ , and if you consider the odds of a component failing
>increases by the multiple of every part you add to the guy system, then
>Phillystran is the only game in town....
>
>Denny
I certainly hope they have changed the composition of Phillystan since the
last time I played with a piece of it. As an experiment, I strung it up in
my garage at a 45 degree angle from the floor to the ceiling. Then I took
an ordinary book match and proceded to light it on fire at the floor. It
burned with a lot of black smoke and dripping flaming black goo, still
burning as it hit the floor. The flames crept right up the Phillystan and I
finally put it out. I am sure it would have burned to the top and set my
garage on fire!
I had visions of the neighborhood kids lighting my guy system on fire and
the black flaming goo landing on my roof and burning my house down. If they
didn't think of that, they might be able to bring my tower down with a
pocket knife and a little patience. How do you Phillystran users protect
against this kind of vandalism?
Stan W7NI@teleport.com
>From w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) Sat Sep 30 11:37:01 1995
From: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Subject: more on guywires and insulators
Message-ID: <199509301037.DAA24732@desiree.teleport.com>
>And then there is the really scary hair-raising situation, where you are
>at the top of your Philly-guyed tower, and drop a big steel bracket that
>strikes one of your guys on the way down....
>
>Big Don
>
There was an actual experience here in the Northwest sort of like that. A
BIG tower (180 feet of Rohn 55 or something like that) was being put up and
guyed with Phillystran. On the way up with a section of tower, the gin pole
failed and the section came crashing down and clipped off two guys at two
levels as it came speeding to the ground. What was left were three guys at
the top of the tower and tight guys on two sides of the tower at two lower
levels. The tower actually stood there with a big bow in it but did not
fall. What was left of the lower two sets of guys were quickly loosened to
relieve the big bow. A brave soul climbed to the first set and installed a
new guy wire. Once the lower level was secure again and tight, it was not
too bad a job to do the same job on the second set. A disaster was avoided.
What if the guys had been steel instead of Phillystan? Who can say? they
probably would not have been clipped off by the falling tower section, but
would the falling section have brought down the tower? We have run the
first part of this experiment here in the Northwest. Will someone volunteer
to run the second part and tell us how it comes out . . . ??
Stan W7NI@teleport.com
>From Pete Smith <n4zr@ix.netcom.com> Sat Sep 30 13:00:12 1995
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@ix.netcom.com> (Pete Smith)
Subject: Shooting Tower Guy Points
Message-ID: <199509301200.FAA08048@ix.ix.netcom.com>
At 04:46 AM 9/30/95 -0700, Pat wrote:
>
>OK Will, if this tolerance is as you say *both unnecessary and
>impractical* then what tolerance is acceptable? What, applying the uncommon
>commodity AND an engineer's point of view, is a reasonable tolerance to
>shoot for?.
>
>I'm getting ready to raise my currently unguyed Rohn 25 a couple of notches
>to where it will need guys and am trying to work around trees etc., so this
>is more than a theoretical question.
>
My Rohn catalogue (drawing AB10214R5, 2/12/88, titled foundation and anchor
tolerances, says that the guy radius must be +/- 5 percent of the amount
specified, the guy anchor elevation ditto, and the "anchor alignment
(perpendicular to the guy radius)" 0.1 degrees (whatever that means). It
also says "tolerances for guy radius and snchor elevation can not occur
simultaneously." Clearly that's not exactly what they mean, since if both
tolerances occurred in a favorable direction (i.e. elevated and moved
further out) that should increase the design margin for the guy, shouldn't it?
In my case (100 ft of Rohn 25), I discovered that the spec location for one
guy anchor involved digging a hole in the middle of a previously-unlocated
septic tank drain field! With the backhoe and its driver idling softly in
the background, I had to make a quick decision. As a result, one guy anchor
(with 3 guys attached) is roughly 2 degrees off the 120 degree line, about
10 feet further out, and about 2 feet higher than it should be. My
reasoning is that placing the anchor further out improves the margin of
safety for the guy by making its pull more horizontal, and that this
counters the misalignment and the slight elevation of the final guy point.
I guess we'll know after this winter, but my suspicion is it'll work just
fine. 2/120 is about 1.6 percent, after all.
I don't know if this helps, but there are doubtless many people out there
with engineering degrees who can comment.
73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@ix.netcom.com *** please note new address ***
>From km9p@is.net (Bill Fisher) Sat Sep 30 13:19:50 1995
From: km9p@is.net (Bill Fisher) (Bill Fisher)
Subject: more on guywires and insulators
Message-ID: <199509301219.IAA11258@mail1.is.net>
>I had visions of the neighborhood kids lighting my guy system on fire and
>the black flaming goo landing on my roof and burning my house down. If they
>didn't think of that, they might be able to bring my tower down with a
>pocket knife and a little patience. How do you Phillystran users protect
>against this kind of vandalism?
You use steel at the ground up to about 30' above the ground. Of course
this doesn't stop the acid on the base section of the tower trick does it KR0Y?
73
Bill
|