|Subject:||Re: [TowerTalk] My Tower cost|
|From:||"Tower (K8RI)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:44:00 -0400|
Not really. OTOH all tower installations depend on luck to some extent no matter how well engineered. For the winds of 70 MPH and only 40 foot towers using 1/8th inch steel guys anchored in clay was sufficient. This was also back when tower installations were seldom engineered.
This doesn't appear to be a well-engineered installation, and sounds far inferior to what the manufacturer recommends.
<:-)) What manufacturer specs? There were none.
You only need to look at my current installation for the answer to that.<:-))
OTOH, given the same set of circumstances I'd have no qualms about doing those same installations again in the same locations. Would I do them here? No as there is no free space for them to fall, IF they fell. Had they fallen I'd have only been out the antenna. The towers were either cheap or free.
What do you see as a safety issue?
The towers were pleny sturdy enough to climb and they wren't going to fall on anything except maybe my wife's garden. The one bracketed to the house only extended about 20 feet above the roof peak and the construction of that house was probably stronger than the tower. Even the eves were 2 X 10s.
Consider how your insurance company would react when they
As I didn't have any thing that would have exceeded the deductable that was not a concern.
The towers and antennas were on a seperate rider, except as here, the one bracketed to the house did not receive extra insurance as it was not considered a seperate structure.
discover an improperly engineered tower installation was the cause of damage.
Back then there was no such thing as properly, or improperly engineered towers way out in the country, at least not little 40 footers.That was also over 35 years ago.
The only antenna I ever lost was a tripod mounted TV antenna in the center of the roof. It pulled the lag bolts right out of the backing plates. The towers with the big KLMs and the Wilson suffered no damage. That was covered. The adjuster took one look at how it had been installed and I got paid.
Some one mentioned towers and the concrete as being structures. Here in Homer Township ham towers 80 feet and under and not considered structures, nor are their bases. They require no building permit and the county doens't even want to bother inspecting them. Mine at 100 feet OTOH required a permit and inspection. The engineering was based on the ROHN catalog. They looked at the holes with the crushed rock in the bottoms, the forms, the tower, the anchors, and said it looks good. After the tower was up the building inspector stopped by one day and said, "impressive".
But if that tower is 80 feet or less, you could put 30 yards of concrete under it and they don't even want to look at it. Actually they won't issue a building permit and will not do an inspection except to make sure the set back rules are met.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: email@example.com Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
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 TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [TowerTalk] tower cost #2...used tower, Cqtestk4xs|
|Next by Date:||[TowerTalk] Re: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 20, Issue 73, Csamiam5|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [TowerTalk] My Tower cost, Bill Coleman|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [TowerTalk] My Tower cost, Bill Coleman|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|