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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+wind\s+load\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Wind load (score: 1): Author: ihabash@palnet.com (Ibrahim Habash); Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 22:12:31 +0200; I am designing a 30 meters hight self supported tower, How should I calculate the wind and earthquake horizontal load magnitude ?? thanks for replying Ibrahim -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com; /archives//html/Towertalk/1999-08/msg00389.html (6,611 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: brunet@us.ibm.com (Pete Brunet); Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:55:23 -0500; I got a chance to look at a Rohn catalog. In the 45G section there is one windload chart that shows max wind loads of 32, 23.8, and 17 sq. ft. for 70, 80, and 90 mph. Then later on separate charts fo; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-03/msg00340.html (8,129 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: brunet@us.ibm.com (Pete Brunet); Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:50:27 -0500; Chad, Thanks for all the info. Based on what you said my '81 Rohn book shows that a 70' Rohn 45 guyed at two spots can handle 9.5 sq. feet of wind load at 70 mph. On the chart just before that one it; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-03/msg00346.html (7,709 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC); Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:48:45 EST; shows Pete - you need a current Rohn catalog. There have been 2 or 3 revisions to the EIA/TIA-222 since then. They're five bucks from TOWER TECH. Please cite which drawing you are looking at so that; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-03/msg00356.html (8,463 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: brunet@us.ibm.com (Pete Brunet); Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:30:41 -0500; My problem was not realizing that the first chart was for building bracketed towers. Since that results in a much higher wind load rating it would be interesting to know how much wind load figures im; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-03/msg00367.html (8,474 bytes)
6. [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: Charles Coldwell <coldwell@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:16:12 -0500; I've been looking at various tower specifications, and often see something like this Maximum Wind Load 70 MPH 15 sq. ft. I don't really understand how to interpret this. I think a wind load is a (sta; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00461.html (7,997 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: "Rex Lint" <rex@lint.mv.com>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:37:15 -0500; I believe it's saying that at 70MPH, the tower will support 15 sqft of antenna/mast/whatever is put on it. Most antennas will specify effective "wind load" in square feet of "projected area." -Rex K; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00462.html (9,131 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: "Ken Kinyon" <w7ts@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:40:47 -0700; Hi Charles, I think they state it that way because the average guy wouldn't understand what you just said. ;<) It is my understanding that the max force would be the force generated by a 70 mph wind; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00463.html (9,280 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: "Gene Smar" <ersmar@verizon.net>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:02:15 -0500; Charles: The numbers are used by tower manufacturers to tell us Hams how much antenna area a particular tower model can support at a given wind speed without failing. In the example you cited, that v; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00464.html (12,848 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: Charles Coldwell <coldwell@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:37:25 -0500; OK, so in my example if the maximum wind load at 70 MPH is 15 sq ft, and we have 30 pounds per square foot, that works out to 450 pounds of force. That sounds reasonable. If we believe the force grow; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00465.html (8,586 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: Charles Coldwell <coldwell@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:55:44 -0500; Well, that is substantially less than the 450 pounds I came up with from the "30 pounds per square foot in a 70 MPH wind" rule mentioned upthread. I suppose this is due to uncertainty in the drag coe; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00466.html (9,577 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: "Dan Schaaf" <dan-schaaf@att.net>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:02:03 -0500; How does this wind loading information apply to a bertical antenna which is rigidly mounted at the base and flexes in the wind? In addition, if the vertical antenna is mounted on top of a 22 ft tower; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00467.html (11,154 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: hanslg@aol.com; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:31:19 -0500; Just to remind you that when you start to calculate how the tower behave at various wind speeds you have to consider the surface of the rest of the tower. Yes, the force from the antenna is varying p; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00468.html (10,027 bytes)
14. [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: "Stan Stockton" <k5go@cox.net>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:36:43 -0600; I am curious how many guys have first hand knowledge of an amateur radio tower (properly guyed) coming down as a result of overloading and how many instances there really might be as compared to the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00469.html (9,806 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: "Gene Smar" <ersmar@verizon.net>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:47:12 -0500; Dan: For a RIGID vertical element (such as an antenna mast or a heavy vertical made of thick-walled or solid tube), the force (say, 12.54 psf) would be applied midway up the element, or at 11 feet ab; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00470.html (10,071 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: "Dan Schaaf" <dan-schaaf@att.net>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:07:50 -0500; Thanks. I don't know if I understand all of that But I will think about it. My plan is to use a tiltover 22 ft tower to support a 25.7 ft tall vertical. The tower is actually part of the entire verti; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00471.html (12,333 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: "Gary E. Jones" <garyejones@cmaaccess.com>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:15:24 -0600; My worst overload was 120' of Rohn 45 with a two element 40 10' above the top of the tower, and 5 element Hygain Long John 20 meter on top of the tower, then a A3S at 85' and then a side swing arm mo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00475.html (12,267 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:42:41 -0800; Hi Rex et al Yeah, but for how long? I've always wondered if that is a sustained 70 mph wind for 5 hours or a gust or 2 at that speed. 73 Tom W7WHY I believe it's saying that at 70MPH, the tower will; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00476.html (9,286 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: "Mike" <noddy1211@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:29:25 -0800; WIND LOADING: Engineering analysis indicates the tower will support 23 square feet of projected area at 85 MPH 3 second gust wind speed per ANSI/TIA EIA RS 222 Rev. G. Does not matter what you think; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00480.html (10,006 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] wind load (score: 1): Author: "Stan Stockton" <stan@aqity.com>; Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:20:59 -0600; I am curious how many guys have first hand knowledge of an amateur radio tower (properly guyed) coming down as a result of overloading and how many instances there really are as compared to the numbe; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-02/msg00485.html (11,315 bytes)

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