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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Concrete\s+anchors\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: "Bryan" <bryanponder@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:03:52 -0500; The drawing I have for the gac305 anchor shows them angled but doesnt give any hints on how to do it. I know I need the hole to be 3x3x4 but from there I'm not sure what I need to do to get the ancho; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00352.html (7,510 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: "Tower (K8RI)" <tower@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:26:58 -0400; The drawing I have for the gac305 anchor shows them angled but doesnt give any hints on >how to do it. I know I need the hole to be 3x3x4 but from there I'm not sure what I need to >do to get the anc; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00353.html (9,396 bytes)
3. RE: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: "Keith Dutson" <kjdutson@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:40:16 -0500; I know of several folks who are using less than the recommended 80 percent of height rule. This puts more load on the guys for a specific wind load at the top of the tower. If you are not worried abo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00354.html (9,002 bytes)
4. Fw: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: "Bryan" <bryanponder@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:03:46 -0500; couple from span, on from book) install than I'd by any _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and l; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00356.html (11,992 bytes)
5. RE: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: "Keith Dutson" <kjdutson@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:15:13 -0500; I think you are making a mistake planning for a 120 foot tower on such a small lot. Just face the music and calculate the maximum safe tower height for your expected wind rating. Or, get a self suppo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00357.html (13,097 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: <kk9a@arrl.net>; Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:10:37 -0000; Do you really need 120' tower? If you use the standard 120 degree anchor spacing you'll have less than a 53' guy radius, assuming that you can place the tower in the ideal location of your lot. You m; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00363.html (9,232 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: "Bryan" <bryanponder@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:19:36 -0500; John Can I get the specs on your I-Beams(length,size, ground depth, hole size, straight or angled). Also happy to hear you made it through the hurricane ok! Bryan ____________________________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00373.html (11,344 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: Jim Darrough <jdarrough@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:27:21 -0700; A friend of mine who does commercial towers told me that guy anchors should be set out 80% of the height of the tower. That means that at 120' tall, you should have your anchor points out 96 feet fro; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00449.html (12,004 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com; Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:13:40 EDT; According to my Rohn book, the angle on the rod coming out of the ground will vary between 36 and 42 degrees, depending on the height of the tower and the amount of guys. Unless you are extremely ana; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00450.html (8,890 bytes)
10. RE: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: "Keith Dutson" <kjdutson@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:41:37 -0500; The 80 percent figure is one component of the wind load rating of the tower and guy system. One could re-calculate the wind load rating resulting from a change in this component. I could do this but; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00463.html (13,519 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:03:59 -0700; tower from Pulling the guys in closer also increases the vertical loading on the tower, which may require increasing the size of the tower foundation, and/or checking to make sure that the tower won'; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00464.html (9,496 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: Bud Rogers <budr@netride.net>; Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:22:28 -0500; I have often wondered if the opposite is true. If space is not a problem, would extending the guy anchors out give a better wind rating? -- Bud Rogers <budr@netride.net> KD5SZ EM05vb ________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00483.html (9,387 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com; Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:55:17 EDT; I have often wondered if the opposite is true. If space is not a problem, would extending the guy anchors out give a better wind rating? Pulling out the guys beyond 80 percent creates another problem; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00486.html (8,294 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: "Mel Martin" <ve2dc@rac.ca>; Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:20:01 -0400; I'm a little bit skeptical of this issue... a typical tower 120' tower using 80% radius for guying at 3 points is going to have a guting radius of 240% for the bottom set of guys... at which point te; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00490.html (9,049 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com; Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:30:49 EDT; I'm a little bit skeptical of this issue... a typical tower 120' tower using 80% radius for guying at 3 points is going to have a guting radius of 240% for the bottom set of guys... at which point te; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00491.html (8,811 bytes)
16. RE: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: "Keith Dutson" <kjdutson@earthlink.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:26:39 -0500; What is guting radius? I agree with Bill. Tension on lower guys is less, as specified in Rohn catalog. Keith NM5G --Original Message-- From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:towertalk-bounces; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00492.html (10,374 bytes)
17. RE: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: Dino Darling <k6rix@earthlink.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:15:50 -0700; Big steel works the same way (at least with the KFI tower in Los Angeles). 1" guys on the bottom (13,000# tension), 1-1/4" guys on the top (20,000# tension). The top guy is 550' up the 750' tower. Th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00500.html (9,161 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: "Bryan" <bryanponder@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:21:06 -0500; The drawing I have for the Rohn 25G shows the same guy wire size and the same amount of tension from 40' up to 190'. You're specs must be for a larger size tower. Weather Stations", and lot's more. C; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00506.html (11,709 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: "Bryan" <bryanponder@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:30:35 -0500; Hey Bill, What size hole are you using to get the 7' rod at this angle? How far is the rod coming out of the hole? Thanks Bryan would usually Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-09/msg00507.html (10,569 bytes)
20. [TowerTalk] Concrete anchors (score: 1): Author: Andre VanWyk via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>; Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:30:25 -0500; I have a concrete base next to my shop that once had 89ft US Crankup Tower on it. The tower is gone, and I acquired a 55ft US Tower that I want to bolt to this base for use in my shop. The bolts that; /archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00279.html (7,459 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]