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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+An\s+Engineering\s+Question\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths); Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 01:14:02 -0700 (PDT); I hate to disagree with you Rick, but as your diagram (pretty good, actually) clearly shows, the power company does NOT use elevated guy posts. The mechanics of what the power company does are quite; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-06/msg00141.html (8,494 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: kb3aug@juno.com (Bill Hinkle); Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 22:42:00 PST; I take the 2 vertical broken lines to be the guy anchor. The lines on a 45 degree angle to be the back stay. The single vertical lines go to the ground and are anchored into concrete. It will help th; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-06/msg00186.html (9,892 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: dave@egh.com (David Clemons); Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 16:42:43 -0400 (EDT); Hi, I have a question concerning guy wire anchor placement. I have two towers (one is 83 feet of Rohn 25 with a Hygain 155BA and 105BA, the other is 99 feet of Rohn 45 with Cushcraft 204-CD and 402-C; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00624.html (9,861 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: robrk@fyi.net (R. Morris); Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 17:48:55 -0400; Check the Rohn book on the fold-over pages. Can't get to them right now, but they use four anchor points at 50% or less... -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html Submissions: towe; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00626.html (11,310 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: n7mb@primenet.com (Michael Bill); Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 16:31:00 -0700 (MST); Dave: Actual experience in short guy wire distances... from my old QTH in Central Illinois... I had 100' of Rohn 25G with a 5 el 20m beam (40')boom and a 6 el 15m above that. the two guy wire were ou; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00633.html (11,992 bytes)
6. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: sawyers@inav.net (Steve Sawyers n0yvy); Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 20:56:50 -0500; With some decent calculations, I could see going to 65%. For 40 and 50 percent you have to get creative. The thing that might be worth looking at would be to go to 6 (yes six) guy anchors for the top; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00640.html (12,612 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: rcook@hiwaay.net (Roger); Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 03:02:03 -0700; Hello David, Just for the sake of discussion, what if you took a 12 foot piece of 4" pipe, buried it 4 foot in Cement and then guyed to the top of the pipe, you would still have basically the same an; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00644.html (11,212 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: jleikhim@nettally.com (Leikhim, Joe); Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 23:34:02 -0400; Any chance your new neighbor will give you a long term lease on the section of property that you have encroached upon? By the way you may have a legal claim on that piece of property in some states d; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00648.html (11,472 bytes)
9. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 00:13:01 -0400 (EDT); Yes, the angle is about the same so you do reduce the length of the guy. Big cautions: 1) the 4 inch pipe isn't big enough for your hypothetical elevated guy and 2) it should probably be back-guyed f; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00652.html (9,248 bytes)
10. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: donovanf@sgate.com (Frank Donovan); Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 06:51:32 -0400 (EDT); This is an excellent approach, except that pipe in not a sensible shape for an elevated guy support. A much better choice is an I-beam, and they are also relatively cheap and readily available at jun; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00662.html (9,063 bytes)
11. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: EEDWARDS@oppd.com (eedwards@oppd.com); Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 12:52:35 -0500; Joe Leikhim wrote: -- Any chance your new neighbor will give you a long term lease on the section of property that you have encroached upon? By the way you may have a legal claim on that piece of pro; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00681.html (9,800 bytes)
12. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: mainhart@juno.com (Rick Mainhart); Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 13:37:02 EDT; I maintained an 80' guyed tower used for an MF radio beacon in Rochester NY, and it had a similar problem ... the third set of guys wanted to be in the middle of the parking lot! The solution was an; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00713.html (11,607 bytes)
13. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: n4xm@iglou.com (Paul D. Schrader); Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 18:02:12 -0400; Dave, I once had a Rohn 45 at 115 ft with large beams at 116 and 125 ft. It had guy anchors at 25, 30, and 35 ft from the tower; the top guys tied to the 35 ft out anchors. The key is to have enough; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00721.html (12,756 bytes)
14. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: gene@bellhow.com (Gene Smith); Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 10:58:19 -0400; Dave: If someone already presented this information I'm sorry for repeating it, I just got in on the thread. Paul Schrader was correct in saying "There is nothing magic about how far out the guy anch; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00740.html (11,320 bytes)
15. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: k6ll@juno.com (David O Hachadorian); Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 13:25:24 EDT; It's not just the guy wire and anchors you need to worry about. You are also limited by the compression strength spec of the tower legs when the wind blows in the worst-case direction. As the anchors; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00741.html (9,059 bytes)
16. [TowerTalk] An Engineering Question (score: 1): Author: gene@bellhow.com (Gene Smith); Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 15:57:40 -0400; Dave: Please ignore my earlier email. I thought you were talking about something else. You are correct! The vertical load will increase as a factor of the cosine of the angle as well. I did not take; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-05/msg00745.html (9,879 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 16
Page: [1]