I have forwarded it to several of the local ham clubs in/around the Franklin
County Area....
They were unaware of it....
Thank you
Scott, aka KB0FHP
Luckily I live in a ham friendly area, and they allow me to go to 90 feet
without a permit.
-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Lou Laderman
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 5:11 PM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Franklin County tower ordinance
The proposed ordinance may be found here:
http://www.franklinmo.org/Planning%20&%20Zoning/Telecommunications%20Towers.
pdf
It is as bad an ordinance as I have ever seen.
Lou, W0FK
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Lou Laderman <lladerman@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 76, Issue 78
>To: towertalk@contesting.com, bbowers@mozarks.c
>Message-ID:
>
><13624281.1240423770892.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.ne
>t>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>Blake, I emailed you privately to give me a call.
>
>I don't know if you have organized area hams yet, but that should be done
to meet with and influence the zoning ordinance. A height limit of 35'
absent a very costly conditional use process doesn't appear in keeping with
the follwing MO law, which is the adopted incorporation of PRB-1:
>
>Local ordinances regulating amateur radio antennas authorized, limitations,
requirements--historic preservation considerations allowed.
>
>67.329. 1. No political subdivision shall enact or enforce any order or
ordinance that does not comply with the limited preemption of the Federal
Communications Commission Amateur Radio Preemption order, published at 101
F.C.C. 2d 952 (1985), or any regulation related to amateur radio service
adopted under 47 CFR Part 97. Any order or ordinance relating to the
placement, screening, or height of an amateur radio antenna based on health,
safety, or aesthetic considerations shall reasonably accommodate amateur
communications and represent the minimal practicable regulation to
accomplish the political subdivision's legitimate purpose. To the extent not
preempted by federal law, nothing in this section shall prohibit a political
subdivision from adopting an order or ordinance prohibiting amateur radio
communications equipment from interfering with the reception of broadcast
radio or television signals.
>
>2. The provisions of this section do not prohibit a political subdivision
from taking action to protect or preserve a historic, a historical, or an
architectural district that is established by the political subdivision or
pursuant to state or federal law.
>
>Lou, W0FK
>
>>Message: 8
>>Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:01:53 -0500
>>From: "Blake Bowers" <bbowers@mozarks.com>
>>Subject: [TowerTalk] Franklin County tower ordinance
>>To: <StLASE@yahoogroups.com>
>>Cc: TOWERTALK@contesting.com
>>Message-ID: <49CFC3B8188846E4A8B3A93BD365EA0E@toshibauser>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>>Franklin County MO has a zoning ordinance on the table right now.
>>
>>For HAM towers, it permits up to 35 feet - with Conditional Use
>>Permits required in residental zoned areas.
>>
>>For OVER 35 feet, in RD and RD-2 areas, it simply does not allow the
>>tower, in other areas it requires a CUP or admin permit.
>>
>>PRB-1 says the county has to make reasonable accomodations, is 35 feet
>>reasonable? Most areas have 70 feet or so.
>>
>>The proposed ordinance also has lots of set back requirements, fall
>>zone requirements, and landscaping requirements. I don't at first
>>blush see any exemptions for HAMS on these requirements.
>>
>>In fact, I don't see any exemption from the loading requirements for
>>HAMS.
>>
>>CUP is 500 bucks, admin permit 200.
>>
>>100.00 fee every two years for renewal.
>>
>>This is a bad ordinance.
>>
>>Add to the burden for commercial towers, they want to require us to
>>provide free space for any public service group or agency.
>>
>>I suppose the gas stations in town are providing free gas for the
>>patrol cars....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Don't take your organs to heaven,
>>heaven knows we need them down here!
>>Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today.
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:34:26 -0400
>From: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] plastic owl
>To: ad6aa@sbcglobal.net, towertalk@contesting.com
>Message-ID: <3B122A76-E2C3-4484-8D5D-4D452BD92075@optonline.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>Mike, AD6AA pointed out the use of CD's as deterents to bird
>populations camping on
>antennas. CD's hung from light line have been used successfully on
>the foredeck of
>sailboats, to scare off gulls and other marine birds. We used to
>use 'em liberally,
>down in MD.
>
>On the other hand, they didn't work when it came to a blue heron.
>The big bird
>just sat on the foredeck, and tapped the CD's, looking at itself in the
>reflection.
>Fortunately, the heron was more discrete about where it crapped than
>were the seagulls.
>
>N2EA
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:49:20 -0000
>From: "Jim Hargrave" <w5ifp@gvtc.com>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Sloper or Inverted V
>To: "Towertalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>
>Message-ID: <DCECKDJAOBPBLOFNKPLFIEOGCEAA.w5ifp@gvtc.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Comments embedded..
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> >[mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of David Gilbert
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 01:41
> >To: TowerTalk
> >Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Sloper or Inverted V
> >
> >
> >
> >That statement hasn't been accurate for about three decades.
> >Mechanical
> >engineers now understand and can model exactly how bumblebees and
> >hummingbirds fly. The only reason the myth lives on is because people
> >are so fond of quoting it as a rationalization for believing as
> >they want.
> >
>
>Dave,
>
>I apologize if I stepped on your engineering toes. That was not my
>intent with my candid remarks. As usual, conjecture can bring out the
>best or worse of us.
>
> >Within known limitations (close-spaced wires, wires near ground, etc),
> >computer programs do a pretty good job of modeling antennas as well.
>
>Agreed.
>
> >9 times out of 10, those antennas that are claimed
> >to defy the modeling programs don't.
>
>I don't have any "evidence" to counter support for that one. Besides I
>did not knock Modeling in my posts. I merely stated that I had not
>modeled any of my antennas.
>
> >They might defy the careless modeler, but I
> >don't think
> >ham radio is advanced at all by non-quantifiable endorsements and
> >anecdotal experience, at least not when objective inspection and theory
> >would indicate otherwise.
>
>He was not asking for "quantifiable endorsements". As far as your
>"anecdotal experience" I have the logbook to prove the antennas in question
work.
>However this is not a brag forum. I saw no benefit to Cal to brag about
>my accomplishments.
>
>But for your criticism, I offer that In recent years I have worked
>Asia, Europe, Russia and South America on 40M RTTY with 50 watts. I
>accomplished this with a 1/4 wave Sloper off the West side of my tower.
>I also have worked 38 states on 40M since moving to this QTH all with
>the same 40M sloper.
>
>I will not argue with your Modeling and the results it shows. However,
>please consider that Theory has its place and so does operational reality.
>
>I stand by my remarks about the sloper/inverted V antennas. Please
>re-read the post which Cal placed and I answered. Here is a reminder:
>---------------
>> I'm working on plans for a 90' tower.
>> Has anyone used the top set of guy wires, with johnnyball insulators
>> at
>the correct places of course to make an inverted V, or Sloper?
>>
>> OR..maybe using the guy wires connected at 60' for another sloper or
>Inverted V?
>---------------
>I simply answered his question. I have seen responses to this kind of
>question advocating both sides of the house. Hence my reasoning for
>answering Cal's query with my own experience.
>
>Is the sloper/inverted V a good antenna? Compared to What?
>
>Simply stated "Inverted V & Slopers DO work". How well, depends on your
>perspective. If you compare it to a dipole in free space, they are
>probably not as good. However, they work extremely well compared to
>using Bed springs for an antenna.
>
>Please don't laugh at that comment.
>I have personally loaded a double bed spring with an old ART-13 and
>made many contacts on 40 & 80 meters.
>
>When I first became a ham I was living in a very small house with no
>real estate for antennas. So in these conditions you improvise. I had
>heard that the ART-13 (my first transmitter) would load anything that
>had metal in it, so I set out to prove it. It worked.
>
>Perhaps you could practice modeling that one. I used a double bed open
>spring installed in a wooden bed frame. Counting the house foundation,
>the spring was perhaps 4 ft off the ground.
>
>By the way that was when you were 6 years old. I'll let you model the math.
>
> >....was correct when he said that a
> >half-sloper (quarter wavelength of wire fed at the tower) is basically
> >an Inverted-V with a very sharp angle (lots of field cancellation) and
> >one leg grounded.
>
>An accurate description. Does that make it good or bad? Again,
>conjecture fits.
>
> >It doesn't sound very attractive in that
> >light, which
> >is probably why historically few hams with something to
> >directly compare
> >it against have ever been very impressed with it.
>
>There has been some form of Sloper/Inverted V in the Antenna/ARRL
>handbooks since I can remember. That should tell you something about its
acceptance.
>
>Based on your personal lack of acceptance, maybe you could convince all
>the authors to quit including it in their antenna books. Perhaps you
>need to take another approach toward convincing those of us that have
>successfully used that type antenna for the past 55 years.
>
>Dave, Amateur radio was built on experimentation along with trial and
error.
>Please provide a space in your mind for the practical side of the house
>and enjoy this great hobby for what it was founded on. There is no
>argument, theory has its place, but the bottom line is the satisfaction
>of making a contact using something you built, regardless of how you got
there.
>
>Again, I apologize if I hit a nerve. I wish you the best of DX. in the
>mean time, I will continue to use my slopers, "It works for me".
>
> * 73's Jim W5IFP *
>
>
>
> >
> >73,
> >Dave AB7E
> >
> >
> >
> >Jim Hargrave wrote:
> >> Antennas are kind of like the Bumble bee. Aeronautical
> >engineers tell you it
> >> can't fly, but they failed to tell the Bumble Bee.
> >>
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >TowerTalk mailing list
> >TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 76, Issue 79
>*****************************************
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|