--------------3F8200CA4A1C67F3BA6D02AC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mike,
1. Don't know why you say "two" 5x5x10 foot holes. Why two? A guyed tower
would require four holes (3 guys and the tower). Assuming concrete in all
three. There are alternatives to concrete guy anchor bases.
2. I have a 55 ft crankup and never lower it. (Except to replace the steel
cables every 12 years, as I did last year and to chang-out/repair antennas).
3. Why side-mount antennas?? That's a mechanical monster. Try Ringrotors!!
4. ROHN 55 is a very strong tower. Would give you plenty of flexibility.
Visit my website:
http://www.erols.com/n3rr
There's lots to learn there.
BTW, My company represents TIC Ringrotors
73,
Bill, N3RR
N3 Ring Rotor
Representing TIC Ringrotors
Mike Meehan wrote:
> Dear Fred and others,
>
> First I want to thank all those responding. Someday I hope to be able to
> discuss aspects of installation. I have been at this since end of '95...
>
> I see the error of my ways :-D Yes, crank-up towers are great for certain
> applications, and to bad mouth them would be incorrect.
>
> I would like to *change* my horror story question to one regarding use
> model. For those of you that own (have owned) crank up towers: (I want to
> avoid the debate between crankups and fixed structures. For my situation,
> the fixed-guyed structure is superior - see below.)
>
> My new question is:
> --------------------
> How often do you RETRACT the crank up, and for what reason(s). (My permit
> conditions indicate that they should be cranked down "when not in use". Do
> others have this condition?)
> --------------------
>
> In my present application, (aside from already owning tower sections for 27
> years),
> I would like to be able to:
>
> 1. have a tower which will feasibly handle the loading my design calls
> for.
> 2. side mount antennas.
> 3. not worry about being around to crank down the tower every time it's
> windy.
> 4. Not have to fill two 5X5X10 foot holes with cement.
> 5. Not have to call the crane (sign) company when I move (and flatbed
> truck).
>
> My numbers look like this for HDX689 vs. Rohn 55:
> 1/2 the visual cross section of crankup
> 1.5x the horizontal wind loading (more on vert) capacity of crankup
> 1/4 the concrete
> 1/4 the weight
> 1/10 the cost
> no hoist system required (including electrical drops)
> no hoist system to fail (as a practicing engineer, less to go wrong is
> always nice)
>
> Fred, while I have not been able to get a straight answer from the city as
> to why
> they object to fixed structures, my guess is that they feel they mitigate
> visual
> impacts if I crank them down each morning before I leave for work... There
> have
> been other fixed-guyed and crankup-guyed towers permitted in the city, so
> there is
> precedence. (I know most towertalkers may not be interested in this part of
> the
> story, so I'll defer it to the ham law reflector. But I would like to see
> the response
> to my question about crankup tower use model.)
>
> If you want to see the city code: http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/thoaks.htm
> and search for "roof attachments"
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> -Mike Meehan
> www.hp.com/go/hpeesof
>
> Fred Hopengarten wrote:
>
> > From:
> > Fred Hopengarten K1VR 781/259-0088
> > Six Willarch Road
> > Lincoln, MA 01773-5105
> > permanent e-mail address: fhopengarten@mba1972.hbs.edu
> >
> > On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:34:15 -0700 Mike Meehan <mmeehan@wlv.hp.com>
> > writes:
> > >
> > >My little town let me submit plans and computations for two guyed rohn
> > >towers. On the day of the first administrative hearing, they imposed a
> > >condition on my permit where only crank-up towers could be used.
> > >
> > >So now I am trying to build a stronger case for the use of fixed guyed
> > >towers. They do not seem to understand the concept of leverage, so
> > >maybe some horror stories could sway them.
> >
> > Mike:
> >
> > It would be helpful if you could tell us WHY they denied a fixed
> > structure. Sometimes these things are the product of confusion. They
> > may think that crank-up permits towers to be brought down during the
> > daytime. They may not understand that you may wind up with a
> > crank-up/tilt-over with the EXACT same physical appearance as a fixed
> > tower. Could you try to ask the building inspector some more questions?
> >
> > Are they after safety or aesthetics? If it is safety, mere
> > catalog pages showing higher windloads at the same height as fixed
> > structures should be the convincer. I'd hate to see you produce horror
> > stories.
> >
> > Fred K1VR
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> > Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
--------------3F8200CA4A1C67F3BA6D02AC
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
Mike,
<P>1. Don't know why you say "two" 5x5x10 foot holes. Why two?
A guyed tower would require four holes (3 guys and the tower). Assuming
concrete in all three. There are alternatives to concrete guy anchor
bases.
<BR>2. I have a 55 ft crankup and never lower it. (Except to replace
the steel cables every 12 years, as I did last year and to chang-out/repair
antennas).
<BR>3. Why side-mount antennas?? That's a mechanical monster.
Try Ringrotors!!
<BR>4. ROHN 55 is a very strong tower. Would give you plenty
of flexibility.
<P>Visit my website:
<BR><A HREF="http://www.erols.com/n3rr";>http://www.erols.com/n3rr</A>
<P>There's lots to learn there.
<P><B>BTW, My company represents TIC Ringrotors</B><B></B>
<P>73,
<P>Bill, N3RR
<BR><B>N3 Ring Rotor</B>
<BR><B>Representing TIC Ringrotors</B>
<BR><B></B>
<BR><B></B>
<BR><B></B>
<BR><B></B>
<P>Mike Meehan wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Dear Fred and others,
<P>First I want to thank all those responding. Someday I hope to be able
to
<BR>discuss aspects of installation. I have been at this since end of '95...
<P>I see the error of my ways :-D Yes, crank-up towers are great
for certain
<BR>applications, and to bad mouth them would be incorrect.
<P>I would like to *change* my horror story question to one regarding use
<BR>model. For those of you that own (have owned) crank up towers: (I want
to
<BR>avoid the debate between crankups and fixed structures. For my situation,
<BR>the fixed-guyed structure is superior - see below.)
<P>My new question is:
<BR>--------------------
<BR>How often do you RETRACT the crank up, and for what reason(s). (My
permit
<BR>conditions indicate that they should be cranked down "when not in use".
Do
<BR>others have this condition?)
<BR>--------------------
<P>In my present application, (aside from already owning tower sections
for 27
<BR>years),
<BR>I would like to be able to:
<P> 1. have a tower which will feasibly handle the loading
my design calls
<BR>for.
<BR> 2. side mount antennas.
<BR> 3. not worry about being around to crank down the
tower every time it's
<BR>windy.
<BR> 4. Not have to fill two 5X5X10 foot holes with cement.
<BR> 5. Not have to call the crane (sign) company when
I move (and flatbed
<BR>truck).
<P>My numbers look like this for HDX689 vs. Rohn 55:
<BR> 1/2 the visual cross section of crankup
<BR> 1.5x the horizontal wind loading (more on vert)
capacity of crankup
<BR> 1/4 the concrete
<BR> 1/4 the weight
<BR> 1/10 the cost
<BR> no hoist system required (including electrical drops)
<BR> no hoist system to fail (as a practicing engineer,
less to go wrong is
<BR>always nice)
<P>Fred, while I have not been able to get a straight answer from the city
as
<BR>to why
<BR>they object to fixed structures, my guess is that they feel they mitigate
<BR>visual
<BR>impacts if I crank them down each morning before I leave for work...
There
<BR>have
<BR>been other fixed-guyed and crankup-guyed towers permitted in the city,
so
<BR>there is
<BR>precedence. (I know most towertalkers may not be interested in this
part of
<BR>the
<BR>story, so I'll defer it to the ham law reflector. But I would like
to see
<BR>the response
<BR>to my question about crankup tower use model.)
<P>If you want to see the city code: <A
HREF="http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/thoaks.htm";>http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/thoaks.htm</A>
<BR>and search for "roof attachments"
<P>Kindest Regards,
<P>-Mike Meehan
<BR>www.hp.com/go/hpeesof
<P>Fred Hopengarten wrote:
<P>> From:
<BR>> Fred Hopengarten
K1VR
781/259-0088
<BR>> Six Willarch Road
<BR>> Lincoln, MA 01773-5105
<BR>> permanent e-mail address: fhopengarten@mba1972.hbs.edu
<BR>>
<BR>> On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:34:15 -0700 Mike Meehan <mmeehan@wlv.hp.com>
<BR>> writes:
<BR>> >
<BR>> >My little town let me submit plans and computations for two guyed
rohn
<BR>> >towers. On the day of the first administrative hearing, they imposed
a
<BR>> >condition on my permit where only crank-up towers could be used.
<BR>> >
<BR>> >So now I am trying to build a stronger case for the use of fixed
guyed
<BR>> >towers. They do not seem to understand the concept of leverage,
so
<BR>> >maybe some horror stories could sway them.
<BR>>
<BR>> Mike:
<BR>>
<BR>> It would be helpful
if you could tell us WHY they denied a fixed
<BR>> structure. Sometimes these things are the product of
confusion.
They
<BR>> may think that crank-up permits towers to be brought down during
the
<BR>> daytime. They may not understand that you may wind up with
a
<BR>> crank-up/tilt-over with the EXACT same physical appearance as a fixed
<BR>> tower. Could you try to ask the building inspector some more
questions?
<BR>>
<BR>> Are they after safety
or aesthetics? If it is safety, mere
<BR>> catalog pages showing higher windloads at the same height as fixed
<BR>> structures should be the convincer. I'd hate to see you produce
horror
<BR>> stories.
<BR>>
<BR>>
Fred K1VR
<BR>>
<BR>> _____________________________________________________________________
<BR>> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
<BR>> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at <A
HREF="http://www.juno.com";>http://www.juno.com</A>
<BR>> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
<P>--
<BR>FAQ on
WWW:
<A
HREF="http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html";>http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html</A>
<BR>Submissions:
towertalk@contesting.com
<BR>Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
<BR>Problems:
owner-towertalk@contesting.com
<BR>Search:
<A
HREF="http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm";>http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm</A></BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>
--------------3F8200CA4A1C67F3BA6D02AC--
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|