Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Guy alignment - friendly wager

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Guy alignment - friendly wager
From: af006@lafn.org (Harv Shore)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:35:17 -0700
"807"  that dates ya.

 Ham 2 wins my vote for simplicity
The error in doing is probably less than the error in making the holes and
planting the guy wire terminations in EXACTLY the correct spot.

K6EXO


----- Original Message -----
From: <GIG38@aol.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 1999 6:25 PM
Subject: [TowerTalk] Guy alignment - friendly wager


>
> Anyone care to help settle a friendly argumentative discussion and wager
on
> aligning guy points?
>
> A discussion on aligning guy points led to a wager between a couple local
> tower planners.
>
> Ham (1) Says:  The only satisfactory means to position guy points is to
use a
> transit at the point where the tower will be placed and accurately
position
> the center of each anchor point hole exactly 120 degrees apart.
>
> Ham (2) Says:  While using a transit is the ultimate method. Using string
> tied to each leg stretching them to the desired guy hole distance, then
> carefully measure and move each string until all three are the same
distance
> apart  (measurement taken 25 feet from the tower on all three strings) is
> "close enough" so long as "String number 1 is carefully "eyeballed to be
> straight with the leg it is tied to.
>
> Ham (1) Replied:  Close enough only counts in hand grenades and horse
shoes
> and after considerable discussion both agreed to wager a cold six pack of
> cold 807's on Tower Talk responses.  The method receiving the most votes
wins.
>
> I raised a third consideration which is: Let's see what the Tower Talk
gang
> come back with in the way of votes but also consider recommended
alternatives.
>
> Now this is a serious situation cause a cold 6 pack of 807' s is on the
line.
>  So... anyone care to vote, comment or make  alternate recommendations?
>
> I will tally and post the votes along with other appropriate
recommendations.
>  It will be interesting to see what comes up, who knows, we may all learn
> something new.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jack W0UCE
>
> --
> 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
>
>


--
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>