Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Guyed + self supporting /2 ??

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Guyed + self supporting /2 ??
From: "Patrick Greenlee" <patrick_g@windstream.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:36:38 -0500
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Right, John, so out of consideration for the wisdom of your comments and oodles of folks saying NEVER guy a free standing tower, I only guyed the bottom section.

Somehow I'm reminded of Woody Allen's comment, "How about if I quit when I get near sighted?"

Anyway guying the bottom section doesn't add tension to the cables and pulleys, just some compression to the legs of the bottom section. I put only a little tension on the guys.

Patrick NJ5G

-----Original Message----- From: Richard (Rick) Karlquist
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:12 AM
To: john@kk9a.com ; towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Guyed + self supporting /2 ??



On 10/16/2014 5:30 AM, john@kk9a.com wrote:
I think that the concern (on towertalk) is that guying adds compression to
the tower legs.  All of the self supporting towers that I have seen have
stronger legs than equivalent guyed towers, at least towards the bottom.
While I would also recommend following the manufacture's design and I am
not an engineer, I do not see how adding guys especially toward the bottom
of a tower can make it weaker.

John KK9A



It is the weaker legs near the top that are the problem,
the severity of which depends on how much the tower tapers.

Rick N6RK
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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

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