> You're referring to the often cited Gunnar Olsen study. I have a copy
>and can send it to you.
> The 30% or so radius is correct but only for guyed towers. Self-
>supporting towers will fall their full length.
>Cheers, Steve K7LXC
Wasn't that study done only on really tall towers like 500 or 600 feet or
even taller? (Big commercial broadcast towers.) I think W7AGQ got a copy
of that study (or a similar one) and there were no 100 or 200 footers in it.
I remember Rush Drake's massive tower failure. All guyed. One had an
anchor failure and fell full length until it wrapped over the cliff. The
rest came down because of trees on the guys and it seems like they went out
quite a lot farther than 30% of their height.
But really the guy's neighbor has almost no credibility to his complaint.
Properly installed towers RARELY fall down. Trees, on the other hand, are a
REAL hazard but no one seems to bitch about them . . .
Hey, your HOUSE could fall down and hit mine if both of them are only 5 feet
from the property line. Houses DO fall down in earthquakes and they are
more likely to fall than towers.
One very important point to consider is whether this tower installation
meets the building code for the area. If it does, than it is safe to assume
it is a safe structure. At least that would seem to be the opinion of the
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com