Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Re\:\s+Guying\s+question\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Re\:\s+Guying\s+question\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Re: Guying question (score: 1): Author: biskit@snip.net (Tom H); Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:57:14 -0400; Fred, I have to disagree with your statement below. Force doesn't change as the guy anchor is moved closer to the tower. The direction of the force changes. At a guy angle of 45 degrees the force is; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-04/msg00664.html (8,884 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Re: Guying question (score: 1): Author: alsopb@gloryroad.net (alsopb); Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 07:47:21 +0000; But, the more horizontal you make the guy, the less the downward force the guys place on the tower. This reduction in compression force is good and could perhaps be traded off for an increase in ante; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-04/msg00672.html (10,297 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] Re: Guying question (score: 1): Author: m9bw990@ix.netcom.com (m9bw990@ix.netcom.com); Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:23:49 -0400; Tom: I think that Fred's original response is indeed be correct, as is yours. You are relating a different aspect of the situation. Fred is not referring to the tension that you may crank up in the g; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-04/msg00674.html (10,635 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] Re: Guying question (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:01:31 -0400; Are you guys sure about this? So from what you fellows have all concluded, I can feel safe installing a two foot base tapered tower 100 feet tall because the only tension will be the same force as th; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-04/msg00680.html (8,732 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] Re: Guying question (score: 1): Author: biskit@snip.net (Tom H); Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 20:42:06 -0400; Hi Mike, I'm not referring to the pretensioning of the guys either, although their tension plus the windload force must be taken into consideration. I know that Rohn specifies, typically, pretension; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-04/msg00683.html (9,289 bytes)
6. [TowerTalk] Re: Guying question (score: 1): Author: bill ralston" <wtr@lgcy.com (bill ralston); Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 22:56:48 -0600; No. You have not balanced the horizontal force, so your system is not equilibrium. Force = mass times acceleration. There will be an acceleration of the tower due to the net 29.3 lb force (your 100 l; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-04/msg00685.html (10,343 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] Re: Guying question (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 23:22:51 -0400; Hi Tom, You have the triangle upside down. No way! If that was true, we'd all be using self-support towers with tiny base piers for TV broadcast towers!! Our uniform cross section towers would stand; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-04/msg00686.html (10,717 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] Re: Guying question (score: 1): Author: biskit@snip.net (Tom H); Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 20:57:04 -0400; To my example: Tom, W8JI elaborated: snip............... Tom et. al., Well....I really hate to say this, but Tom, you're absolutely right. I had the triangle upside down! Your solution and example is; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-04/msg00694.html (9,864 bytes)
9. [TowerTalk] Re: Guying question (score: 1): Author: froberts@pe.net (Fred Roberts); Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:33:32 -0700; Boy, it sure doesn't take much to get a thread going, does it? Brings to mind a "Los Angeles commuting discussion" we had on the local repeater several years ago. Seems I said something like, "I am g; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-04/msg00699.html (11,055 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]