One of the things that detracts from towertalk somewhat is
what I guess is best described as a tendency for presumption.
When it comes to crank-ups, that means not guying them.
Yet there are crank-ups that are _meant_ to be guyed.
Probably not a good idea to guy a crank-up that was not
meant to be guyed, but that doesn't mean that a blanket
"don't guy crank-ups" is valid.
Or not climbing crank-ups when nested.
There are crank-ups that are _meant_ to be climbed
this way. A blanket presumption that climbing a nested
crank-up requires putting bits of one's body in harm's
way is invalid.
Or that things NEC or OSHA applies where they don't.
They do have applicability as good common sense, though
again a blanket application of them to all situations is
invalid (must follow NEC in other countries or OSHA applying
to non-occupational situations [that is what the O stands for]).
Or guying towers to other towers. I would think a bit more
needs to be known before it can be condemned. The guy
point looks to be quite a bit higher up than others like this
that I've worked on in the past. There are obvious concerns
but that is about as far as one can go without being able to
see the big picture - otherwise W7RM doing the same was
a bad idea & that's very hard to swallow (as extended, that
would call into question Rush's engineering).
No, it isn't AB105 but then again do we know what all is
tugging on N5OT's short tower? No. Is it a bad design? Not
necessarily.
Just like aluminum masts - they have their use - as well as
there being situations where there might be a reason to use
two thrust bearings between the rotator & top of the tower.
Something to reflect upon (sorry for the pun).
73 & HNY/HLNY, VR2BrettGraham
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|