I am repeatedly intrigued how many hams will disregard the
manufacturer's design and specifications, in favor or some
some well-intentioned, and often commonsensical, alternative
solution. Or how they might ask their well intentioned buddies,
before they inquire of the manufacturer, what is the correct part or
method to employ. In this way, they often re-engineer the product
and substitute different components and methods.
An example is where the operator wants to add guy wires to his
self-supporting tower. At first blush, it would seem sensible enough,
like wearing a belt with your suspenders... but on further analysis,
it is dangerous because it adds unwanted, and apparently unexpected,
downward forces that can overs-stress the support cable and cause it
or other components to fail.
In the instant case, the operator plans to grease a grease-free
component. While it seems a commons sense plan to grease
the gnashing metal gears, it proves counterproductive and
possibly harmful to do so.
But my instant curiosity is why the operator did not ask the
manufacturer about the plan, first. After all, the manufacturer
is, presumably, the best informed party concerning its product.
And, if not, then maybe you want to get goods made by some other
Just MY take, anyway.... of course your mileage may vary.
================== K8JHR ==================
> In all things, follow the LXC Prime Directive to "DO what the
> manufacturer says" and you'll typically have better and safer results.
TowerTalk mailing list