“A hard-fought county variance was required for this antenna. Multiple towers
would have been right-out.”
It’s so nice to live in a free country…
Ken K6MR
________________________________
From: TowerTalk <towertalk-bounces@contesting.com> on behalf of Doug Ronald
<doug@dougronald.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2019 11:18:09 AM
To: 'Kelly Taylor' <ve4xt@mymts.net>; TowerTalk@contesting.com
<TowerTalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] High VSWR
SO2R is still feasible with the proper diplexer as long as the two operators
can work stations in the same direction. This antenna's beamwidth is 70
degrees, so there is plenty of leeway geographically.
A hard-fought county variance was required for this antenna. Multiple towers
would have been right-out.
-W6DSR
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
Taylor
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2019 06:28
To: Glenn Pritchard
Cc: Jim Thomson; dj7ww@t-online.de; towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] High VSWR
I can see the attraction of a system such as this to government, where a single
antenna to cover all of HF might be needed, but in an amateur station, it seems
like a ton of money putting all eggs into one basket. One clamp failure and
your entire antenna system is a crumpled heap of aluminum.
Perhaps one tower is all he had space to raise, but it also seems like a huge
sum of money to not even get SO2R capability.
Cool project to follow in the photo essay, and condolences on the final result,
sincerely.
73, kelly, ve4xt
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 1, 2019, at 08:04, Glenn Pritchard <gpritchard7000@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The antenna and tower design was fine, we had over the years installed quite
> a few of these systems from Sabre, Hy-Gain, Rockwell to US Antenna and never
> had a failure.
> It was unfortunate that the clamps were not torqued to spec.
> Reading from the projects start there were issues with the pressurized line
> etc.
> These tilt over LP’s are made to do this along with that tilt boom bracket.
> Cable crimp’s were never used on these turnkey LP antennas that we had
> installed and the rotation system has been pretty much standard.
>
> Glenn, VA7UO
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 1, 2019, at 5:13 AM, "dj7ww@t-online.de" <dj7ww@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That is a bad idea, the torque force on the rotor under high winds will
>> become much larger.
>>
>> 73
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>> Betreff: [TowerTalk] High VSWR
>>
>> ## with more boom on the shorter ele side.....vs the longer ele
>> side, the required rotor
>> torque will be sky high. They have mounted the boom at its CG.
>> They should have
>> mounted at center of boom, and added a counterweight at light end
>> of boom.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|