[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] 90 ft erection

To: "TOWERTALK Reflector" <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] 90 ft erection
From: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-OnLine.Net>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:35:52 -0500
List-post: <>
Wait a second.  I'm trying to understand exactly what it is that is so bad.

I see the bending of the erection fixture, not good at all; is that it?  I
see that 90 ft is waaayy toooo much for this erection at least with this
fixture.  A heavier version of the same thing would have been much safer.

However, whoever said there weren't any guys I believe made a mistake.  This
looks to me like a variation of the standard "falling derrick" method I
think it is called and yes, there are guys, 4 sets of them.  One directly
off of each side, perpendicular to the lifting direction, tight the entire
time from the horizontal position to the vertical orientation.  One in the
direction being pulled, slack during this operation, and one directly away
from the lifting mechanism, also slack until the tower is very nearly erect.
If the cable(s) break and it falls, it can only fall exactly where it laid
before it was lifted.  With one excepting and that is hard to discern, I do
not see anyone "under" the tower after they get it walked up to the point of
release (probably not good because of the weight of the tower, although they
DID lift it to get it started so if the cable would have broken while they
were under it, they were lifting the "entire" weight of it anyway and could
have just laid it back on the ground).

Lots of name calling and etc.  WHAT is it EXACTLY that is the complaint or
is this just everyone jumping on the pile of the person who said there
weren't any guys?

Continue to FLAME away,
73, Jim


TowerTalk mailing list

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