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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Tower\s+Concerns\s*$/: 43 ]

Total 43 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: ae4mr@arrl.org (Dave Armbrust); Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:20:26 -0500; I am in the process of putting up a tower and I have some concerns that I hope the group can help me with. The tower is currently 55' of Rohn 45. 5 straight sections and 1 top section. The bottom sec; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00306.html (10,730 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: Hank.Lonberg@Harrisgrp.com (Lonberg, Hank); Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:41:41 -0800; Dave: Doing some quick calculations based on 9.7 sf of antenna lumped at 60 feet and 45g tower section with 55-15=40 foot of cantilever and 110mph design wind. This generates over 50,000 lb-ft of mom; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00307.html (12,172 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: ae4mr@arrl.org (Dave Armbrust); Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:13:42 -0500; Hank, I am not quite following your calculation of 50,000 lb-ft of moment. Perhaps you can explain. What I come up with is .00256 x 110 MPH squared x 1.2 (round members) x 9.7 SF x (60'-15') (above b; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00308.html (14,452 bytes)
4. Re[2]: [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: Bob Otto <N8NGA@one.net> (Bob Otto); Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:27:11 -0500; Hello Dave, I've been watching this thread from a distance. I am not a PE, and do not have the formulas that you guys are using. I do have some reasonable real world experience based on several frees; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00309.html (19,831 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: ae4mr@arrl.org (Dave Armbrust); Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:32:20 -0500; The bracket is over designed as much as I could. Where it attaches to the house it is 5' long and it has three bolts that go through vertical 2x4. I have this backed up with a horizontal 2x4. All of; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00311.html (24,724 bytes)
6. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: Hank.Lonberg@Harrisgrp.com (Lonberg, Hank); Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:34:51 -0800; Dave: My anaylsis basis comes from the 1997 UBC Building Code Wind Design criteria. For a design wind of 110mph 9.7 sf of antenna at 60 feet has a wind load of 408 pounds. The cantilever moment due t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00314.html (17,499 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: AD7L@aol.com (AD7L@aol.com); Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:16:50 EST; If the tower is only going to be 10' from the property line, then the turning radius of the HF yagi will produce an "aerial trespass." I would make sure that the affected neighbor is OK with this. I; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00317.html (10,669 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: ae4mr@arrl.org (Dave Armbrust); Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:44:03 -0500; Hank, Thanks for all your help on my tower. I really appreciate it as I am trying to do this right. In my area amateurs are exempt from the tower ordinance thanks to the efforts of the local hams and; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00319.html (24,019 bytes)
9. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:44:21 EST; Okay, there you go. I don't see why you have ANY questions because what you're proposing is off the chart and not viable. Violation of the LXC Prime Directive (DO what the manufacturer says) will hav; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00326.html (8,877 bytes)
10. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: ae4mr@arrl.org (Dave Armbrust); Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:46:44 -0500; I have had several E-Mail from many individuals most of them private. One item that I did mention is that I was using a formula from chapter 22 of the ARRL antenna book for antenna masts. Since this; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00333.html (12,380 bytes)
11. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:11:18 EST; I've been following the thread and I'm not confused. Everyone has stated their opinions and readers can interpret them. I don't know why someone would say that it should cease ASAP. Most threads die; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00342.html (10,108 bytes)
12. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: aa4lr@arrl.net (Bill Coleman); Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:52:24 -0500; The important question is -- what sort of forces will be present at the bracket? Is your bracket mounting (or for that matter, your structure) strong enough to hold at the predicted forces? It could; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00365.html (14,447 bytes)
13. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:31:14 EST; I don't think that's right. The figures I've seen are 30-50%. The problem is that wind pressures do not go up linearly - the pressures go up geometrically. You run out of engineering overhead real qu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00366.html (9,550 bytes)
14. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:38:09 EST; Actually the tower has already been designed. What the Professional Engineer does is to design the base, rebar cage and guy anchors for local conditions. He runs calcs on the tower structure to see w; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00367.html (9,775 bytes)
15. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: rmoodyg@juno.com (rmoodyg@juno.com); Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:43:24 -0500; Seems to me that the gist of all this is that those of us who live in Florida or on the Gulf coast can't have an antenna larger than a rubber duckie on top of any reasonably tall tower. I see all the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00374.html (11,467 bytes)
16. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: w8ik@subich.com (Joe Subich, K4IK); Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:47:13 -0500; How true ... I vividly remember a phone conversation with a tower vendor (and regular advertiser on TowerTalk) in which I asked for 100 MPH specs on his towers (both extended and retracted). He comp; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00384.html (9,535 bytes)
17. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:00:08 EST; Actually we don't have any advertisers, regular or otherwise. Business owners who are TowerTalk subscribers are encouraged to post product and service related info of interest to the rest of us. DUH!; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00390.html (9,979 bytes)
18. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: w8ik@subich.com (Joe Subich, K4IK); Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:38:32 -0500; When major portions of the country is in other than 70 MPH wind zones, it would make sense to do at least sample calculations for 80 and 100 MPH (or 110 MPH) wind zones. Manufacturers of guyed and f; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00392.html (10,505 bytes)
19. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:54:00 EST; Some manufacturers have more information available than others. Someone has to pay for those calcs to be done - in the instances you cited the factory paid for them. I guess the tower manufacturer yo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00393.html (11,583 bytes)
20. [TowerTalk] Tower concerns (score: 1): Author: kb0pyo@rconnect.com (Mark Brown); Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:18:24 -0600; Hi I somewhat agree but why don't they publish the specs for those of us who live in 90mph wind zones? Mark -- en24gp 6m through 1296, BBQ rules, icq 41823284 -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com; /archives//html/Towertalk/2001-01/msg00395.html (10,848 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]