Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:jvarn359@gmail.com: 58 ]

Total 58 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [TowerTalk] engineering help? Antenna weight for US Tower TX472 (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 22:21:07 -0700
I'm a licensed P.E. (Calif.) and I have helped several local hams with tower designs and permits. I'm very familiar with the current TIA-222-G standard. It is the tower leg in the bottom section. The
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-06/msg00205.html (9,658 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] engineering help? Antenna weight for US Tower TX472 (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 07:40:36 -0700
(Sending again to see if I can get the hang of GMail's formatting. Sorry for the bad line breaks.) I'm a licensed P.E.(Calif.) and I have helped several local hams with tower designs and permits. I'm
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-06/msg00206.html (9,668 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] engineering help? Antenna weight for US Tower TX472 (JVar (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:27:39 -0700
Doug, Without doing a full analysis, I don't know what the dead-weight lifting capacity of a TX-455 is. The answer can't be gleaned from the .pdf file you referenced earlier. While you're not interes
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-06/msg00211.html (8,176 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Tower grounding connections and foundation (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:10:23 -0700
Patrick Greenlee wrote: >>So would circling the Ufers be redundant?<< == I won't give you advice on what to do but I will share with you what the TIA-222-G code says about grounding. Generally TIA-22
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00128.html (8,394 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Tower grounding connections and foundation (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 10:32:12 -0700
Grant Saviers wrote: >>I would like to be enlightened why #00 wire is needed to attach to two ground rods which are likely several ohms resistance to the "remote earth"? Especially when #6 was ok in
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00155.html (10,384 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Tower grounding connections and foundation (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 13:37:05 -0700
Thomas Noel wrote: >>I suspect the important aspect is the surface area interfacing with soil, not the volume of dirt under or surrounding the grounding system.<< The volume of dirt is critical, in t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00161.html (9,299 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Tower grounding connections and foundation (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:40:59 -0700
Jim Lux wrote: >>I'm curious about why "surface area" (in TIA-222 for ground conductors)<< This article from Times Microwave explains it: lightning is a pulse with a very fast rise time and acts like
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00175.html (9,192 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] [Bulk] Re: Mast Material (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:42:41 -0700
I would feel safe with SS40 fence post as a gin pole because it is a structural tube. What defines structural tubing is not the intended purpose, it's the specifications and certifications. SS40 meet
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-03/msg00253.html (7,686 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Need to identify aluminum tower (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 10:24:03 -0700
I'm not familiar with this tower, but at first glance this looks to be an excellent design for aluminum, very intriguing. One, the mechanical collars for the brace joints are so much better than weld
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-07/msg00468.html (7,887 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] Radial field question Single radial wires vs mesh and mo (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:24:34 -0700
Out here in California galvanized steel in the ground can last decades, depending on location. QTHs with low precipitation and soil that is neither too acidic or alkaline are friendly to galvanized s
/archives//html/Towertalk/2016-10/msg00386.html (8,367 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Foundation Pouring (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 12:11:20 -0800
There's an urban myth about "undisturbed soil." Hams believe that pouring concrete against undisturbed vertical dirt walls is the only way to place a footing. It is often the easiest way to do it and
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00047.html (8,352 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Foundation Pouring (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 15:20:19 -0800
That's where the urban myth came from. It's on tower manufacturers plans but it gets misinterpreted as gospel. If we couldn't use forms and compacted backfill, there would be thousands of buildings,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00054.html (8,348 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Foundation Pouring (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 14:58:37 -0800
Steve -- "Urban myth" might not be the best choice of words? The idea I was hoping to convey is that the manufacturer's recommended footing design are sometimes interpreted to mean that it is the one
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00093.html (9,355 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] 10 meter beam. (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 11:08:23 -0800
Arbitrary blanket height limits (50 feet in your case) can be challenged. I have an application pending now in Northern California for an exception to a local 45 foot height limit on any type of stru
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00125.html (8,072 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] Advice on tower restrictions possible new (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:06:41 -0800
Wouldn't you want the opposite? If a county has a blanket height restriction on all types of structures, and that height limit is lower than my planned towers, then I would avoid that county unless i
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00170.html (8,918 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] Advice on tower restrictions possible new install (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:27:50 -0800
Ed, I agree. I wasn't implying that hams should just roll over and accept these local restrictions without asserting our PRB-1 rights, only that these types of restrictions aren't necessarily deal-ki
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-02/msg00189.html (7,798 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] ROHN SSV ERECTION QUESTIONS (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 07:50:29 -0700
Home Depot has "construction grout." Sakrete or Quikrete brand are fine, both are rated at 8000 psi or better, depending on how thick you mix it. 73 Jim K6OK _________________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-05/msg00059.html (7,582 bytes)

18. Re: [TowerTalk] ROHN SSV ERECTION QUESTIONS (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:31:19 -0700
Good point. Look for "ASTM C1107" on the bag to be sure. Turns out the product the box stores carry is non-shrink: Home Depot Sakrete SKU 451137 is non-shrink. Lowe's Quikrete on the shelf is also no
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-05/msg00061.html (7,928 bytes)

19. Re: [TowerTalk] Wind Speed by Location (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 19:43:55 -0700
The windspeeds are only meaningful within the context of the cited ASCE code version and have to be used with the equations and procedures within that code version. TIA-222-G uses ASCE 7-05 windspeed
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-05/msg00139.html (8,919 bytes)

20. Re: [TowerTalk] Wind Speed by Location (score: 1)
Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 08:23:04 -0700
With the TIA-222-G the wind force on a tower increases with height, but it's not as severe as you suggest. The wind pressure on a tower at height z above ground is qz = 0.00256 Kz Kzt Kd (V**2) I lbs
/archives//html/Towertalk/2017-05/msg00141.html (8,503 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu