I've learned the hard way that people will always suspect information given
by someone with a parochial interest, even with the best of intentions. But
let's not let our suspicious natures blind us to truth that might get us a
better tower value. Anyone reading here now knows... as does Jim... to
obtain and compare ALL the specs before deciding. All that info is available
on the Trylon and ANS websites, if we look.
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean somebody isn't out to get
me"...likewise, Dan might possibly have a bias, but that doesn't mean he's
wrong. Or right, either. We have to look at the data ourselves.
There's lots of sides to the issue for me: one thing that bothers me is the
huge weight of steel towers, making it impossible for me to affordably
handle a tower section alone. Makes aluminum sound good to me. Trylon weighs
half as much as ANS, and I still can't move it around! I get to wondering if
tower professionals might disparage aluminum (even for amateur use) because
they fear it for engineering reasons, rather than actual experience.
Questions I'd like to ask of those in the business: how many tower failures
have you personally seen? How many of those were aluminum? Were the failures
due to overloading or other mistakes? Are the engineering specs for aluminum
less reliable than the engineering specs for steel? If one puts up aluminum
and respects the load limits, etc, is there a greater chance of failure than
I'm not an engineer and I don't even play one on TV.
[mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Jim Smith
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Towertalk] Universal aluminum
Truly, we all want to know the truth (or at least as much of it as we
can stand). Unfortunately, in American and Canadian commerce, truth is
in short supply. Anyone with a pension fund with equity investment has
probably got this figured out. Consequently, it is useful to know the
commercial affiliation of those who make statements about the products
we are interested in. i.e. it's not so much what a person says that is
interesting, it's trying to figure out why he says it.
So, Pete, thanks for pointing out Dan's possible commercial interest in
alleging a Trylon deficiency.
Dan, I have been asked by the emergency communications group of Canada's
3rd largest city to spec a tower for the city E-Comm centre. Trylon is
on my short list. You have given me something to check out that would
not otherwise have occurred to me.
So, everyone, is Dan right in what I take to be his assertion that the
edges of all Trylon tower elements are not adequately protected from
corrosion? "Sleepless specifiers want to know", or, "I don't want to be
known as the guy that recommended something that rusted out before he
I'm going to bed now, mindful of what Neill Young taught me in his song,
"Rust Never Sleeps".
73 de Jim Smith VE7FO
Dan Simmonds wrote:
>That's correct. The facts need to be presented in this case about Trylon
Towers - regardless of who does the "presenting".
>73, Dan KK3AN
>For those who aren't aware of it, Dan is the proprietor of AN Wireless,
>which makes a line of towers that is directly competitive with Trylon.
>73, Pete N4ZR
Self Supporting Towers, Wireless Weather Stations, see web site:
Call 888-333-9041 to place your order, mention you saw this ad and take an
additional 5 percent off
any weather station price.
Towertalk mailing list