[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Guy alignment - friendly wager

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Guy alignment - friendly wager
From: (Phil Clements)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:14:41 -0500
If you check the Rohn specs on tower/guy alignment, the tolerance falls 
between transit and hand grenade. The purests will vote transit in your poll, 
is a bit more liberal for the "string men" out there.

One of my ground instructors at Braniff always told us to "measure it with a
mark it with chalk, and cut it with an axe!"

Phil, K5PC

>Anyone care to help settle a friendly argumentative discussion and wager on
>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 position
>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 distance
>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 shoes
>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 wins.
>I raised a third consideration which is: Let's see what the Tower Talk gang
>come back with in the way of votes but also consider recommended alternatives.
>Now this is a serious situation cause a cold 6 pack of 807' s is on the line.
> So... anyone care to vote, comment or make  alternate recommendations?
>I will tally and post the votes along with other appropriate recommendations.
> It will be interesting to see what comes up, who knows, we may all learn
>something new.
>Jack W0UCE
>FAQ on WWW:     
>Administrative requests:

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

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