In a message dated 99-02-28 19:05:07 EST, alsopb@gloryroad.net writes:
> I'm trying to figure out how this K factor relates to anything physical.
> Obviously it is a starting torque limit. However, it is a torque that
> appears to be computed based upon an "arm" of the turning radius and the
> entire antenna weight (boom and all!) being at that point. Actual
> antennas have their elements weights at the end of 1/2 the boom lenght
> and the middle elements of 3,5, odd element arrays contribute
> significantly less to the required torque. There doesn't seem to be any
> overt inclusion of the wind resistance one needs to overcome to start
> the thing turning (except that the K factor seems really non-physical
> and probably severly limits the size of the antenna you can turn). This
> wind resistance would be proportional to the antenna surface area.
>
> Can anybody out there explain the derivation of the K factor?
Brian, I think you're putting too much thought into this. The Effective
Moment/K Factor is an ESTIMATE by the manufacturer of what size of antenna
system can be turned reliably by a particular rotator. There is no test or
scientific formula that will give you the information. And it doesn't have
anything to do with wind resistance or number of elements - it's turning
radius times weight.
It's pretty well accepted that a simple reference to square footage can
be pretty skewed. Are the rotator/torque requirements for a 4L 20M beam with a
20 foot boom the same as for a long boom 10M antenna with a 40 foot boom even
though they might have the same square footage? They are not.
>
> IMHO, what we really need is a rotor foot-pound limit and a quickie
> little program to calculate the starting torque of our antenna
> (accounting for wind in some way) given the element lengths, weight
> distribution, boom locations etc.
>
Sounds reasonable. And valuable. Feel free to come up with something.
> I think the starting (or stalling?) torques of many popular rotors were
> published in the last couple years in CQ or QST. It would be
> interesting to compare these numbers to starting torques needed for
> popular antennas.
Of course you're ignoring any ambient windspeed.
A list of rotating torque and brake torque has appeared in my CQ Contest
"Up The Tower" column (reprint's a buck) and also Dave Leeson, W6NL's book
"Physical Design Of Yagi Antennas". These are places to start but I think that
the topic is still somewhat subjective. You'll never go wrong by using a
rotator that is a little larger than what you think you need.
A rotator is the weakest link in the whole tower/antenna system and they
DO fail regularly.
Cheers, Steve K7LXC
--
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
|