Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+LM\-470\s+at\s+100\s+MPH\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Selbrede, K6ZZ" <k6zz@ccis.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:32:55 -0800
Hello, Has anyone had the Triex LM-470 professionally evaluated for antenna load capacity in a 100 MPH Basic Wind Speed zone? Turns out our local building code will be changing on 1 Jan 09 to require
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00786.html (6,973 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Maser" <bmaser@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:50:06 -0800
Anybody that leaves a crankup tower up in 100mph wind potential deserves to lose it. I guarantee you that a LM470 cranked all the way down will not be blown down in any wind. Of course, the elements
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00789.html (8,141 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Selbrede, K6ZZ" <k6zz@ccis.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:40:22 -0800
Obviously true, however the building department won't look at it that way. They'll want to see an analysis/certification showing the conditions under which the structure will meet the wind loading re
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00791.html (10,550 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:46:19 -0500
I agree. Most city inspectors will want it built to rated specs as stated in the local code - when it is up. Even if you actually lower it during storm conditions, it will have to be built to code sp
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00792.html (8,524 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: RICHARD SOLOMON <w1ksz@q.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 03:46:52 +0000
100 MPH winds ??? In California ?? They expecting Global Warming to cause Typhoons to hit ?? 73, Dick, W1KSZ> From: k6zz@ccis.com> To: bmaser@tampabay.rr.com; towertalk@contesting.com> Date: Sat, 29
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00793.html (11,118 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: EL34GUY@aol.com
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:52:26 EST
I usually have mine lowered unless Im going to do some talking. It takes about 15 mins to drag out a cord run it out to the tower and drop it down. I always try to hit a different height each time so
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00794.html (7,985 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Selbrede, K6ZZ" <k6zz@ccis.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:56:21 -0800
You bet. There are plenty of VERY windy areas in California. This area is just east of the Sierra Nevada mountains and is typically windy. We frequently have 30-50 MPH winds but rarely anything over
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00795.html (12,360 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: <kb5my@starband.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 00:07:56 -0500 (EST)
Yes - there are 100 MPH winds in southern California. I've experienced them twice since 2001 at my QTH about 40 miles NE of San Diego. They lasted for several hours. Multiple instances yearly of sust
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00796.html (12,600 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:11:54 -0800
Bear in mind, also, that there's a big difference between "permanent deformation of structure" and "catastrophic failure".. the engineering analysis might show that you exceed the yield of the metal,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00797.html (9,257 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:14:12 -0800
100 mi/hr winds (as a design requirement) aren't totally unreasonable, if you're in a windy area below a canyon, for instance. 70-80 mi/hr gusts happen every year during Santa Ana season. Yes, whethe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00798.html (8,508 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:17:05 -0800
And that bump corresponds to roughly a doubling of forces, so essentially, what they're asking for is a 100% margin over expected loads. I can easily believe 70-80 mi/hr winds After all, some decades
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-11/msg00799.html (8,453 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:24:45 EST
antenna load capacity in a 100 MPH Basic Wind Speed zone? Turns out our local building code will be changing on 1 Jan 09 to require new structures to meet the 100 MPH requirement. I suspect most free
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00004.html (7,719 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Maser" <bmaser@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:32:14 -0800
The tower drawing I have for the LM470 says it's rated at 70MPH Basic wind speed @EXP"B"(no ice loading).The drawing is dated 4-4-77 Building Code 1991 UBC. __________________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00009.html (8,900 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Selbrede, K6ZZ" <k6zz@ccis.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:39:28 -0800
A few weeks back I posed the question outlined below. I decided to pay Tashjian Towers to do an 80 MPH analysis based on the EIA-222 Rev F standard, which uses the "fastest mile" wind load definition
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00579.html (9,913 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] LM-470 at 100 MPH (score: 1)
Author: Joe Giacobello <k2xx@swva.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:23:48 -0500
That scenario is consistent with the failure that I experienced several years ago. We were visited by a sudden mini-tornado, and I'd guesstimate that the wind peaked at around 100 mph. Tower was supp
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-12/msg00584.html (11,472 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu