|To:||W0UN -- John Brosnahan <email@example.com>,TowerTalk <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Tod - MN <email@example.com>|
|Subject:||[TowerTalk] Torque balancing|
|Date:||Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:22:51 -0600|
Hello to John, Tod, and all TTs:|
I am very interested in obtaining copies of the articles mentioned by John and Tod. I hope I am not too old to learn from them and thus correct the errors of my thinking.
Do you agree with the following simple experiment to demonstrate the correctness of your ad absurdum example? If so, let us see if the combination of peer review and multiple independent confirmations by the testing will support or reject the theory.
Build a model of a boom, simply a tube of handily available material and dimensions, pivoted at its geometric center. I don't believe it is necessary to achieve a 40 ft by 3 inch diameter simulation; use what you have handy. Mount it where it is exposed to wind and observe that it has little or no tendency to weather vane.
Add a simulated antenna element to one end of the simulated boom. Mount it, pivoted at the center of the boom as before, and observe its behavior in wind.
If the results are unclear, continue by putting two experiments in the wind at the same time: one simulating a balanced boom with no element and one simulating the same boom but with a simulated element at one end.
If the result remains ambiguous, add a weather vane or wind sock in the same wind to clearly indicate the wind direction and a subjective measure of gustiness. Add a torque measuring element to the simulated booms for a quantitative assessment, with due regard for the inaccuracies, of the torques. That might be base on weights, springs, or other principles that you may prefer and find convenient to assemble.
I welcome the improvement of this proposal by others and I particularly welcome seeing reports of those who complete an experiment.
As a picture is to deductive discourse, so are experimental results proportional to analyses.
I look forward to seeing the referenced documents by Mr. Weber as well as the results of measurements by all who attempt them.
73 de WOØW
W0UN -- John Brosnahan wrote:
My apologies to anyone who is getting bored with all of this. But it IS an important topic since the analysis has been done incorrectly by the ham antenna manufacturers for so many years. I hope my word picture-- without any mathematics (or drawings!)--makes it all a bit easier to follow.
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] kt34xa torque balancing, Michael Harris|
|Next by Date:||RE: [TowerTalk] kt34xa torque balancing, Tod - Minnesota|
|Previous by Thread:||RE: [TowerTalk] kt34xa torque balancing, W0UN -- John Brosnahan|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [TowerTalk] Torque balancing, Gene Smar|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|