[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question

Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] ma550 question
From: "Kelly Johnson" <>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:33:06 -0700
List-post: <>
On 9/14/06, Jim Lux <> wrote:
> At 11:22 AM 9/14/2006, Jim Jarvis wrote:
> >The argument for the MA550 is completely aesthetic, in my mind.
> >The real question is whether, if motorized, one could convince
> >zoning to rate safety based on a retracted tower.  It would be
> >easy to have windspeed monitored, and store the antenna nested,
> >when not in use.
> This would be fine for safety, if safety is defined as "minimizing
> probability of expensive damage to the equipment being protected",
> where the maximum downside exposure is the cost of the equipment.
> It probably wouldn't be appropriate for life safety, or the property
> of others, unless the windspeed threshold were set ridicuously low
> and the "automatic lowering" system were suitably redundant and safeguarded.

I wouldn't want to depend on the "automatic lowering" system to
protect me and/or my neighbors either, but ... it HAS been done...with
a building permit.  I know a ham that has an MA850 with a MonstIR on
top.  His neighbor's property is probably < 50 feet from his tower
base.  He was required to install an "automatic lowering" system that
would guarantee that it was nested any time the windspeed was > (I
think) 25mph.  I was shocked when I heard that the city ok'd this, but
it has been done :-)

I go with K7LXC on this one.  Go with a stronger tower.

TowerTalk mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>