I thought that was what I said, but in plain language. <:-)) Rephrased, the
work far better with two guy lines than they do with one, but even with one
there is more resistance to rotation than without any torque arms. There is
0 resistance to rotational forces at rest, but it takes only a tiny movement
to increase that rapidly. With the two guys you have far greater resistance
say using 90 degrees, then you have a 45 degree angle between each guy and
the end of the arm. Better yet, set them at 120 degrees. Then you only need
three guy anchors. OTOH 90 degrees is a good compromise between resistance
to rotation and side to side movement of the tower..
Hope I got that straight <:-))
Roger Halstead (K8RI, EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
N833R, World's Oldest Debonair (S# CD-2)
> Roger etal:
> You are partially correct and partially incorrect. You can't eliminate
basic vector statics from the argument of the usefullness of torque arms. I
specifically mean the style used for 55g and larger and made of channel.
> If you can imagine the tower in section as a rigid triangle with the guy
attachments at the verticies (points) and the line of the guys extending
outward from the verticies in line with the center of gravity of the
triangle.( the intersection of the perpendicular bisectors of the opposite
sides). When the wind or other forces are a linear vector in the plane of
the triangle and through the center of gravity, the tower section will try
to displace laterally. This lateral displacement is resisted by the guys as
the vector summation of the forces in the guys. Equal and opposite total
reaction. The tower section is in equilibrium and will not translate in its
plane. Remeber guys only resist tension and cannot resist a lateral load to
their line of action.
> When you translate the plane triangle section in rotation in its plane,
twist or torque load, initally the guys cannot resist the lateral
displacement as the guy's line of action is perpendicular to theaction
direction of the load. As the triangular section twists additionally then
there is created an angle between the line of force and the guy line of
action which can develop a vector resistance to the movement of the
triangular section. This value of resistance is a function of the sine of
the angle created. It wil start at 0 degrees at rest, sine of 0 degrees is
> This explains why the torsional resistance of the standard guying scheme
is so low and why if significant torsional forces are present in a tower
> In this case the farther away from the center the guy attachment point is
really doesn't help with the torsional strength the angle between the guy
and the line of force of the torque is what matters.
> When you star guy or 6 point guy a tower with a torque arm mechanism then
you have guys that are better aligned to initally resist the twist from the
onset. Therefore this type of system is better able to resist torsional
> In a normal tower torsion is input into the tower by the antenna and the
rotator mounting plate as the rotator needs something to push against to
work. The top of the tower is one of the best places to put a 6 point guying
system if that is were the rotator is located.
> Newton's laws and vector mechanics will always explain how these things
> Lonberg Design Group, Ltd.
> Hank Lonberg, P.E.,S.E. / KR7X
> > I've noted a bit of confustion on the effectiveness of torque bars.
> > First, torque bars do work when rigidly installed.
> > Second they work without resorting to 6 point guys (2 per arm)
> > Third, they are more effective with the 6 point guy system than a 3
> > For those who say they don't work all you have to do is the math.
> > When the arm moves it translates to linear pull on the guy. An 18 inch
> > is going to pull more on the guy than when the guy is anchored directly
> > the tower leg. With Kevlar guys this is substantial force as there is
> > little catenary and give in the guy line.
> > The big question is; Do you need them?
> > "My own opinion" is , It all depends. If the tower load is some long
> > I'd certainly use torque arms. If the antenna/wind load is minimal I'd
> > bother.
> > On my system which is most likely not typical
> > http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/Tower29.htm and
> > http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/Tower26.htm I do use the torque
> > at the top. I do not use them at the middle and bottom levels.
> > The top guys are tensioned to a bit over 600# while the bottom two tiers
> > about 450#
> > I've been up there in winds near 30 mph and the top of that tower does
> > appear to move.
> > However, looking up through the antennas at the clouds when the wind is
> > blowing like that creates a tendency to leave fingerprints in the tower
> > legs.
> > Roger Halstead (K8RI, EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
> > N833R, World's Oldest Debonair (S# CD-2)
> > www.rogerhalstead.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> > Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
> > and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> TowerTalk mailing list
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
TowerTalk mailing list