On 9/14/06, Jim Lux <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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