At 04:33 PM 9/14/2006, Kelly Johnson wrote:
>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
>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 :-)
That would be Howard White, KY6LA, I assume. As the website says:
"Howard went through a year of regulatory and engineering work with
the City of San Diego ". It also helps that Howard is a Professional
Engineer. Although not licensed in California, he could probably put
together a credible package with all the backup analysis, on his own
nickle, as opposed to having to pay someone for it.
I would be interested to read the actual conditions and know some
more details about the automatic lowering system.
>I go with K7LXC on this one. Go with a stronger tower.
TowerTalk mailing list