Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Rohn\s+Torque\s+Bar\s+confusion\s*$/: 25 ]

Total 25 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: "Tower (K8RI)" <tower@rogerhalstead.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:30:21 -0400
I've noted a bit of confustion on the effectiveness of torque bars. First, torque bars do work when rigidly installed. Second they work without resorting to 6 point guys (2 per arm) Third, they are m
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00053.html (9,555 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: kr7x@comcast.net
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:12:51 +0000
Roger etal: You are partially correct and partially incorrect. You can't eliminate basic vector statics from the argument of the usefullness of torque arms. I specifically mean the style used for 55g
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00055.html (11,997 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: "Tower (K8RI)" <tower@rogerhalstead.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 15:30:54 -0400
I thought that was what I said, but in plain language. <:-)) Rephrased, the work far better with two guy lines than they do with one, but even with one there is more resistance to rotation than witho
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00056.html (14,984 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: Chris Pedder <chris@g3vbl.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:39:46 +0000
Hi, To put it another way, guy wires whose line of action passes through the axis of rotation are not a great deal of use in preventing rotation. Chris Newton was an Englishman ______________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00057.html (7,945 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: kr7x@comcast.net
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:44:03 +0000
Chris: Bingo and you are the winner! Regards Lonberg Design Group, Ltd. Hank Lonberg, P.E.,S.E. / KR7X President _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Se
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00058.html (8,453 bytes)

6. RE: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 19:51:28 -0000
plane, then of of degrees scheme tower is guy but the farther away the attachment point is from the center of rotation the bigger the angle on the guy wire so the higher the resistance to the twist.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00059.html (9,469 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 16:42:26 -0400
displacement is resisted by the guys as the vector summation of the forces in the guys. Equal and opposite total reaction. The tower section is in equilibrium and will not translate in its plane. Rem
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00061.html (10,664 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: Don Havlicek <n8de@thepoint.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:47:03 -0500
I may be incorrect, but I am under the impression that, when using 'torque bars', the guy anchors are placed in a position that makes the tower face towards the anchor point. This allows double guys
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00062.html (12,090 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: <kk9a@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 21:52:03 -0000
Thanks Hank I didn't really understand this until I drew a top view of a tower in AutoCAD. It was then easy to see that the torque arm offers little resistance, since it's in line with the guy and th
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00063.html (14,384 bytes)

10. RE: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: "Keith Dutson" <kjdutson@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 16:59:42 -0500
the bigger the angle on the guy wire so the higher the resistance to the twist. Here is some food for thought. Take it to the extreme where the torque arm is lengthened and rigidly attached to both
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00064.html (12,302 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: kr7x@comcast.net
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 22:13:30 +0000
Tom: When I refer to a star or six point guy arrangement I mean 2 guys from each guy point on the tower. With 3 anchor points on the ground you get a 3 pointed star in plan. I am rethinking my earlie
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00065.html (12,939 bytes)

12. RE: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:41:53 -0000
There is no argument that a 6 point guy is far superior to a 3 point with or without torque arms. Just look at the original geometry, the torque arms can obviously not do anything until they are turn
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00066.html (15,371 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 21:09:23 -0400
system, well, there But no one is saying they are equal Keith. I see a serious flaw in the idea a guying system does nothing to reduce twist. That idea only would be true if the guyline attached to
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00069.html (10,929 bytes)

14. RE: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: "Keith Dutson" <kjdutson@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:09:34 -0500
Excellent explanation! There was no intention on my part to refute that normal 3-point guying will not resist twisting. For guyed towers where twist must be reduced to near zero, then one must employ
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00073.html (12,432 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: <kk9a@arrl.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 03:25:02 -0000
I just did some guy wire length calculations. I used a 100' Rohn 55 tower with a 12" torque arm at the top and a 80' guy radius. The guy wire length is 126- 6.28". I then rotated the tower 10 degrees
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00075.html (12,234 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: Dave Hachadorian <k6ll@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 21:03:19 -0700
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 21:09:23 -0400 "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com> writes: It's not the increase in tension that's the dominant factor, it's the fact that once the tower twists, all three guy wires
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00077.html (9,005 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: k1ttt@arrl.net
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 06:38:56 -0400 (EDT)
the increased stretch is just the first step. now figure the change in angle of the deflection of the guy wire and calculate the force vector at the end of that torque arm vs the force it would be on
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00079.html (15,041 bytes)

18. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 06:52:43 -0400
That makes sense. The tower has more than double the resistance to rotation if we only double the effective radius by adding torque bars. 73, Tom W8JI _______________________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00080.html (9,309 bytes)

19. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 00:15:28 -0700
Offhand I don't know the value of the modulus for a typical EHS guy wire, but just imagine for a minute how hard you would have to pull on a guy wire that is already tensioned to 600 lbs in order to
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00081.html (15,288 bytes)

20. Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Torque Bar confusion (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:35:07 -0400
Someone named "Grillo's" must have sent me a huge file on this but my server won't allow large files to be sent as an e-mail attachment so it was deleted. Maybe it was something useful. Like Pete say
/archives//html/Towertalk/2004-08/msg00084.html (18,055 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu