If at all possible maintain the proper angle between the tower and the guys
in accordance with the design stress parameters.
If you do not know what these should be, or you do not know how to do the
calculations --- ask!
----- Original Message -----
From: Pat Barthelow <email@example.com>
To: <GIG38@aol.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 1999 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Guy alignment - friendly wager
> I vote for #2, and ask an additional question which may pertain to your
> installation, and does to mine.
> We have a sloping ground, so that if the guys kept the same
> angle wrt the tower, (which I think is the desired objective) they would
> intersect the ground closer to the tower
> on the up-hill side, and farther away on the down-hill side. Do we pour
> the anchor pads at the intersection points, and therefore at different
> radial distances (and elevations) from the base, or do we maintain radial
> distances and accept different angles of the guys wrt the tower?
> 73, DX, de
> Pat, AA6EG/N6IJ;
> 599 DX Drive, Marina CA 93933
> See us on the web: www.polkinghorn.org/n6ij
> "The Contest Station from the Government"
> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 GIG38@aol.com wrote:
> > 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
> > tower planners.
> > Ham (1) Says: The only satisfactory means to position guy points is to
> > 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
> > 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)
> > "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
> > 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
> > something new.
> > Thanks,
> > Jack W0UCE
> > --
> > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
> > Submissions: email@example.com
> > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
> Submissions: email@example.com
> Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com