Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+new\s+tower\s*$/: 51 ]

Total 51 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] new tower (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:34:28 EDT
It equalizes the compressive forces coming down the tower legs. Drive down the road and you'll see big commercial microwave towers with pier pin bases. They also have 6-way guying. For big loads like
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00601.html (8,570 bytes)

22. Re: [TowerTalk] new tower (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:22:33 -0700
Wouldn't this violate the LXC Prime Directive for Rohn 25G through 65G towers? As far as I can tell, the latest Rohn catalog specifies pier pin bases only for guyed towers. I suppose you might find
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00603.html (8,188 bytes)

23. Re: [TowerTalk] New tower (score: 1)
Author: <jacobsen_5@msn.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:17:01 -0500
<snip> " For construction purposes, burying the base in concrete is much easier Wouldn't this violate the LXC Prime Directive for Rohn 25G through 65G towers? As far as I can tell, the latest Rohn ca
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00607.html (8,715 bytes)

24. Re: [TowerTalk] new tower (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:25:52 EDT
point of possible fracture. The commercial site over on the next hill had 140' of 45G with the base buried in concrete and a bunch of sticks on it. After about 15 years the bottom section fractured.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00608.html (8,995 bytes)

25. Re: [TowerTalk] New tower (score: 1)
Author: "W7CE" <w7ce@curtiss.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:52:37 -0700
As far as I can tell, all of the bases that show the legs placed on gravel are for free-standing and bracketed towers. The guyed towers all specify bases CB1 to CB3 which are all pier-pin bases. Ove
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00611.html (9,219 bytes)

26. Re: [TowerTalk] New tower (score: 1)
Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:58:38 -0400
They accepted my 100 foot 45G with uses the concrete base. (no pier pin) The bottom of the base sets in pea gravel 5' down and has good drainage. If legs broke off I'd suspect poor drainage. I would
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00612.html (9,803 bytes)

27. Re: [TowerTalk] new tower (score: 1)
Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:02:56 -0400
I disagree that its faster. It all depends upon the competence and experience of the crew. I was part of a small group who installed 100' of 25G plus a 4el 20M yagi with rotator in one day. Most of u
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00613.html (9,663 bytes)

28. Re: [TowerTalk] new tower (score: 1)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:39:22 -0400
I guess you are saying that the base will rotate before the tower breaks. I don't think that much torque makes it to the base on a tall tower. Certainly the pier pin base will not prevent your tower
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00625.html (11,302 bytes)

29. Re: [TowerTalk] new tower (score: 1)
Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:58:54 -0000
Personally I would want to see the video of the steel base on the concrete with the thousands of pounds of pressure from the tower and guys on it grating past each other before I would believe that i
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00633.html (13,157 bytes)

30. Re: [TowerTalk] new tower (score: 1)
Author: Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:01:02 -0400
K7NV's finite element study <http://k7nv.com/notebook/towerstudy/towerstudy1.html> showed that the bending stresses at the base can be the limiting factor for a tower with the base section buried in
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00634.html (15,630 bytes)

31. Re: [TowerTalk] new tower (score: 1)
Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:34:41 -0400
Tell that to a glacier. Carl KM1H _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesti
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00635.html (14,198 bytes)

32. Re: [TowerTalk] new tower (score: 1)
Author: Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:47:13 -0400
Glaciers rotate? In any case, glaciers move by deforming plastically (not elastically), not something I'd really want my tower base to do. 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK k1mk@alum.mit.edu _________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00636.html (8,780 bytes)

33. Re: [TowerTalk] new tower (score: 1)
Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:49:54 -0400
Close enough for government work as they used to say. They both move and grind what is beneath them. Given enough weight from the tower the surface concrete will turn into a fine powder by the motion
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00638.html (10,044 bytes)

34. Re: [TowerTalk] new tower (score: 1)
Author: "Hank Lonberg" <kr7x@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:53:20 -0700
Whoa! This is getting a bit thick now. I can assure you that this is not the cause of any power under a base plate. Not to keep this thread going but it is getting into the realm of extremely bad sci
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00641.html (11,117 bytes)

35. [TowerTalk] New Tower (score: 1)
Author: "Jeff Carter" <towertalk@hidden-valley.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:37:37 -0500
Hello again all: I'd like to thank everybody for their earlier help in the preliminaries of my tower project. Here's where I currently am: I just received approval from the county to continue, which
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-02/msg00220.html (7,896 bytes)

36. Re: [TowerTalk] New Tower (score: 1)
Author: "Jeff Carter" <towertalk@hidden-valley.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:21:52 -0500
Well, I hadn't intended to guy it, since it's a crankup I thought I could just crank it up and down pretty much at will. It seems to me that guy wires would get in the way of that. ground shear. If t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-02/msg00222.html (7,502 bytes)

37. Re: [TowerTalk] New Tower (score: 1)
Author: Eugene Jensen <eugenejensen@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:11:40 -0500
Are you ready for this Tri-Ex Catalog dated 5-69 Self Supporting Tower HZN available models 4 Max Dead Load Capacity 275 LB. Maximum Antenna wind Load 12 sq ft 2 feet above top of tower at 60 mph and
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-02/msg00224.html (10,087 bytes)

38. Re: [TowerTalk] New Tower (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Hearn" <dhearn@air-pipe.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:30:24 -0800
Jeff, I saw an tower like yours at K6UA(recently SK) As I recall it did have rods guying the bottom section and the rest was self supporting. Only tower I have ever seen like that. 73, Dan, N5AR Well
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-02/msg00225.html (9,099 bytes)

39. Re: [TowerTalk] New Tower (score: 1)
Author: "Norm Duxbury" <duxburyn@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:18:34 -0500
Oops! After seeing the photograph, it's obviously not the F-12 tower I was thinking of. 73, Norm - W1MO 3:20 PM _______________________________________________ _______________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-02/msg00241.html (9,734 bytes)

40. Re: [TowerTalk] New Tower (score: 1)
Author: "Norm Duxbury" <duxburyn@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:08:29 -0500
telescoping tower made from 6061 square tubing. It must either be (1) guyed - 4 guy terminals are provided at the top of the bottom section only, (2) supported at the top of the bottom section by an
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-02/msg00243.html (10,006 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3]
This search system is powered by Namazu