Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Re: TORQUE ARMS

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: TORQUE ARMS
From: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 12:22:12 EDT
In a message dated 98-08-22 19:44:29 EDT, n4kg@juno.com writes:

> >>Why no torque arms?   
>  >
>  >They don't do any good and are a waste of time and money.
>  >
>  >de n0yvy steve
>  >
>  Steve,  
>  
>  I am confused by this response.  How did you come to this 
>  conclusion?  Kindly provide your  evidence.
>  
>  I invite you  to climb 120 ft of Rohn 25 guyed WITHOUT torque arms
>  and then climb 120 ft of R25  WITH torque arms and tell me there is 
>  NO  DIFFERENCE.   I don't buy it.   Anyone else have an opinion?
>  
      Well, Tom you hit the nail on the head. When Rohn was moving from one
EIA-222 revision to the next one (somewhere around rev. C I think), they re-
calculated the 'torque arms' and found that they really didn't contribute any
torque resistance to the guy/tower system. What they DID do was stabilize the
tower as it was being climbed. That's it. 

     That's when they designed and introduced the current hardware that uses
the oval rings instead of the torque arms. They also discontinued the torque
arms.

     Hams went nuts. "I've been using them for years and they must work" was
the battle cry. Rohn eventually re-introduced the torque arms in spite of
their marginal value and hams have been happy ever since. 

Cheers,  Steve   K7LXC

http://www.championradio.com

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>