I'm building a tower as we speak. (Well... K7PN and his great crew are for me).
After some research I realized that if I would ignore the local rules and
regulations, a lot more, and cheaper, options could be considered. If I wanted
all the work be done correctly and to code, then AN Wireless was only
reasonable priced option available for a ridge top location that can meet the
seismic ratings, wind rating (130mph) for an OB12-6 at 60 feet. (With the
11x11x6 base and a PE stamp on the paperwork)
Will the maximum strength ever be needed? Hopefully not. Probably not. But it
certainly makes me sleep well knowing that the hard earned money isn't going to
be lost the next time a storm comes by.
AN Wireless has every right to be proud of his product. In my opinion they
should let the results speak for itself and not be distracted by those that beg
to differ.
73!
N1KEZ de Rob
Sent from my mobile device.
Pse excuse brevity and any errorz.
> On May 9, 2016, at 7:39 AM, Jim Thomson <jim.thom@telus.net> wrote:
>
> Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 19:47:29 -0500
> From: "ve4xt@mymts.net" <ve4xt@mymts.net>
> To: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
> Cc: "towertalk@contesting.com" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AN Wireless
>
> Hi all,
>
> It seems to me the question isn't if AN makes good towers or whether they
> spec bulletproof bases. Clearly, they do. Dave is certainly to be
> congratulated for a first-rate installation.
>
> The question is whether an experienced, respected tower professional opining
> the base may be overkill, or whether Trylon is good enough for the average
> ham, rises to the level of defamation.
>
> Does anyone think it does?
>
> Difference of opinion does not equal defamation.
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
> ### LXC sez to follow the prime directive, do what the manufacturer sez to
> do, including the base..and dont 2nd guess, and play...junior engineer, and
> dont get involved with....
> hip pocket engineering. AN uses a big base, why, cuz it’s a BIG, HEAVY
> tower, that designed for a BIG windload. Those angle frame towers are not
> streamlined, and the tower
> itself presents a big windload, never mind the ants on top. Put 14 foot of
> mast above the top of the tower, and you have almost effectively added
> another section of tower to the mess.
> Worse case is if the tower is loaded to its max windload rating, and you
> experience extreme high winds some day. Do the maths, and the overturning
> moment at the base of the
> tower is extremely high. Think of a free standing tower as a giant torque
> wrench, but with a big windload on the tower iteself, then add the load of
> the ants on top. This is before you
> add any ice to the mix. And some of the ants are not at the top of the
> tower, they are as much as 14 ft above the top of the tower. Ever gone
> through a 75++ mph windstorm, and you will
> wish you had twice as much concrete.
>
> ## I view it as a one shot deal, just use the prescribed amount of concrete,
> and then some, to begin with...and use 4000-5000 psi strength, and lotsa
> rebar. Pay once, cry once. You cant
> add more concrete...after the fact, too late.
> Sure, the trylon is good enough for the average ham..... but not when it cost
> more than the AN, is far weaker, and NO pe stamp available. The light duty
> trylon titan series windload ratings
> drop like a rock, as the wind speed exceeds 70 mph. They are not ice rated,
> nor earth quake rated. They were originally designed as a cheap, generic
> tower, for the masses, for non critical
> application use. They are not cheap anymore. They are not the big bang for
> the buck they once were.
>
> ## Ok , if you want an angle framed tower, designed to handle winds up to
> 120 mph, huge windloads, and 1 inch of ice, seismic rated, and can have a PE
> stamp, then trylon offers the real deal, in several
> different formats, like their super titan series, ( which use just as much
> concrete as the AN does, virtually identical concrete specs for a similar
> width /height tower). The super titan uses 90 deg angle steel, that has
> been
> bent in 15 degs on each side, part way out from the 90 deg corner...to
> achieve the 60 deg angle. Rohn uses the same process on its 60 deg angled
> legs. Available knocked down, or pre-assembled. Available up to 190 ft.
> Trylon also now makes welded free standing towers, that use tubular legs and
> solid round bracing. They come in 10 ft sections, and each section is heavy
> as hell, check it out. Bottom section weighs > 1000 lbs alone,
> decreasing as you move up to the smaller sections. Huge flange
> plates..similar to rohn 65G, but bigger..and thicker. Now these welded
> freestanding towers are also unique, they are streamlined, which increases
> ant windload even more, since the windload on the tower itself is vastly
> reduced vs the angle frame towers. They also come with several horizontal
> 7/8 inch solid rod climbing steps..on one face only. They look
> like Z bracing on one face..and W bracing on the other two faces. The
> climbing, horz 7/8 inch bars are welded between the tower legs.each one also
> comes with a steel plate welded below each climbing rung,
> to attach several heliax feedlines.....all the way up one face. They are
> priced similar to the super titan towers, and will also handle 1 inch of ice
> and 120 mph winds. Available up to 150 ft.
>
> ## The legs on both the AN + the light duty Trylon both consist of bent
> plate..formed into a U shape, with a 60 deg angle. The AN uses stronger
> steel, 50 ksi vs 32 ksi, and a lot thicker legs.
> Both use bent plate to make the braces, same deal again, the AN uses
> thicker steel, and a lot stronger 50 ksi vs 30 ksi. AN forms the legs,
> punch the holes, THEN hot dip galvanizes the
> legs...ditto with the braces. Trylon shears the leg lengths from existing
> galvanized steel sheets, then punchs the holes. End result on the trylon is
> the edges of the legs have no zinc on em..and will rust, and
> ditto with the punched leg and brace holes.
>
> ## So steve is wrong on both counts. I would not call it defamation by any
> stretch. AN shouldnt be worried at all, they sell a superior product...for
> less $$. Their independent Peng analysis of AN vs
> Trylon tower sections proves that.
>
> Jim VE7RF
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|