[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Guy alignment - friendly wager

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Guy alignment - friendly wager
From: (Harv Shore)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:35:17 -0700
"807"  that dates ya.

 Ham 2 wins my vote for simplicity
The error in doing is probably less than the error in making the holes and
planting the guy wire terminations in EXACTLY the correct spot.


----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 1999 6:25 PM
Subject: [TowerTalk] Guy alignment - friendly wager

> Anyone care to help settle a friendly argumentative discussion and wager
> aligning guy points?
> A discussion on aligning guy points led to a wager between a couple local
> tower planners.
> Ham (1) Says:  The only satisfactory means to position guy points is to
use a
> transit at the point where the tower will be placed and accurately
> the center of each anchor point hole exactly 120 degrees apart.
> Ham (2) Says:  While using a transit is the ultimate method. Using string
> tied to each leg stretching them to the desired guy hole distance, then
> carefully measure and move each string until all three are the same
> apart  (measurement taken 25 feet from the tower on all three strings) is
> "close enough" so long as "String number 1 is carefully "eyeballed to be
> straight with the leg it is tied to.
> Ham (1) Replied:  Close enough only counts in hand grenades and horse
> and after considerable discussion both agreed to wager a cold six pack of
> cold 807's on Tower Talk responses.  The method receiving the most votes
> I raised a third consideration which is: Let's see what the Tower Talk
> come back with in the way of votes but also consider recommended
> Now this is a serious situation cause a cold 6 pack of 807' s is on the
>  So... anyone care to vote, comment or make  alternate recommendations?
> I will tally and post the votes along with other appropriate
>  It will be interesting to see what comes up, who knows, we may all learn
> something new.
> Thanks,
> Jack W0UCE
> --
> FAQ on WWW:     
> Submissions:    
> Administrative requests:
> Problems:       
> Search:         

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>