Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Guying\s+a\s+self\-supporting\s+tower\s+\-\s+NO\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Guying a self-supporting tower - NO (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:29:07 EDT
In a message dated 4/7/2005 11:44:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, K8fu writes: As you may remember from earlier conversations I'm erecting a 100' self supporting tower but am going to guy in two places
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-04/msg00238.html (7,520 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Guying a self-supporting tower - NO (score: 1)
Author: Steve Maki <steve@oakcom.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 01:22:07 -0400
Since this has been discussed extensively before, I hesitate to ask this.... But I would really like to see an example (with a little analysis) of a self support structure of ANY kind that is comprom
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-04/msg00245.html (8,484 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Guying a self-supporting tower - NO (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 06:23:14 -0700
I think there has been some examples posted in the last couple years.. Off hand, here's the problem I would contemplate: Increased down force from the guy tension will increase the compressive load
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-04/msg00251.html (10,340 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Guying a self-supporting tower - NO (score: 1)
Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:33:37 -0000
I would just bypass the whole guy wire question. Get some high strength copperweld and some strong insulators and put a couple of slopers down away from the power line. gets you more antennas and som
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-04/msg00253.html (12,164 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Guying a self-supporting tower - NO (score: 1)
Author: Steve Maki <steve@oakcom.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:54:14 -0400
I sure haven't seen them. Yes - with guys you convert almost ALL of the bending moment into guy tension and straight downward force. The numbers (on a simplified model) don't give any support to the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-04/msg00257.html (10,099 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Guying a self-supporting tower - NO (score: 1)
Author: Steve Maki <steve@oakcom.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:32:10 -0400
Hey, smashing idea. Just don't make the antenna TOO strong, or it might appear to the tower to be a "guy" wire ;) Steve K8LX _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-04/msg00261.html (8,209 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Guying a self-supporting tower - NO (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:31:21 -0700
from Whether generally support I think that the problems, if any, would come from changing the distribution of stresses, not from the increased stress at the base, for instance. There's a classic exe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-04/msg00276.html (11,532 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Guying a self-supporting tower - NO (score: 1)
Author: Steve Maki <steve@oakcom.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:05:54 -0400
OK. In the case of the thread subject, I still don't see the worry. The change in stress distribution is mainly one of relief. What component of the tower can see an increase in stress? The very top
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-04/msg00285.html (10,210 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Guying a self-supporting tower - NO (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 16:44:26 -0700
analysis, if business) I think the issue is buckling failure vs bending failure. _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-04/msg00288.html (9,757 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu