Hmmm .. I remember these tests, in the 50s, to see what kind of jobs for
which us Seniors in HS were qualified .. round peg, square hole, and..
heaven forbid ... square hole, round peg! Tom's got it right .. or ??/
was it round VS square .. or .. E=MC2?
Seriously, the mass of the concrete seems to be the major issue .. Cheers,
es 73 .. Mark, AA6DX
 Original Message 
From: "EUGENE SMAR" <spelunk.sueno@prodigy.net>
To: "Tom Branch" <tom@k4nr.org>; "EUGENE SMAR" <ersmar@ieee.org>;
<towertalk@contesting.com>; "Dino Darling" <k6rix@arrl.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Round Hole vs Square Hole...
> Tom:
>
> Specific design info from the manufacturer, in my mind, would trump
> anything from a general code manual like the UBC that I referred to. My
> point in my email, though, was that a circular hole that's the same
> diameter as the square's side (the circle fits inside the square) is NOT
an
> equivalent design, all other things (depth, reinforcing, etc.) being
equal.
> The drilled hole must be the dimension of the square's DIAGONAL. (The
> square fits inside the circle.)
>
> For your design, the manufacturer recommends a depth of five feet for
> the square hole and six feet for the round hole. Not apples to apples.
The
> equivalent diameter for a round hole and SAME depth would be 5 feet X
> SQRT(2) = 7 feet diameter. That's if you wanted to keep the SAME five
foot
> depth of the square hole.
>
> You're able to use the smaller diameter hole (4 feet vs 7 feet)
because
> you dug down deeper (6 feet), per the manufacturer.
>
> 73 de
> Gene Smar AD3F
> P.S. There I go again  numbercrunching.
