Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] AN tower

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AN tower
From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 12:08:15 -0400
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
We have a lot of wind generators in the area (County) where my farm is located. Of course those are the monster, commercial generators with the entire farm generating many megawatts. (Look up Gratiot county wind farm) It covers a large area and another two wind farms to the S and SW have been added. Studies have shown the wind speed is ideal most of the time with power that is price competitive with conventionally generated power.
Those are mounted on a single pole that is massive.

A windmill tower on steroids, which this appears to have been, does not scale well from the 8 to 10 or 12' windmills of old to the large 3 blade props large enough to generate useful power in average winds. Most are variable pitch so they keep the RPM to a level limiting that gyroscopic action, or even shut them down in high winds. A "windmilling" prop has far more wind resistance than one that has stopped. An airplane will glide much farther with a stopped prop than one that is windmilling. I wonder what the wind resistance, or equivalent area of one of those big props would be.
I've seen quite a few home systems that appeared to be on 45G or even 
25G, guyed towers.   It "appeared" to take quite a breeze to get the 
smaller blades turning. They "appeared" to be turning the equivalent of 
2 or 3 car alternators.  What they were really turning?  I don't know.
They told over at the farm that some of the prop tips can reach as high 
as 400 feet
I wonder if this generator had a variable speed prop with speed control.
A prop large enough to give useful power in average winds must be quite massive with the associated gyroscopic action.
73

Roger (K8RI)


On 6/21/2015 9:43 AM, Patrick Greenlee wrote:
A caveat regarding wind generators on towers. A good friend had a 100 ft tower with wind generator on top. Unfortunately it was not properly engineered for a wind generator although it was sold expressly for that purpose as a package deal. In just a few years the tower failed and crashed to the ground destroying the generator and mangling the tower components.
The tower was constructed of seamless steel tubing with 1/4 walls and 
4 inch ID in 20 ft lengths with welded on flanges for bolting 
together. The three legs are on 14 ft centers at the ground, a fairly 
substantial tower.  Each leg sat on an 18 inch diameter 7 ft deep 
concrete pier. So why did it fail?
When spun up by the wind the generator makes a considerable 
gyroscope.  When the wind changes direction without slowing 
considerably first the gyroscope translates a change in azimuth to a 
force trying to tilt the generator up or down (aim the generator's 
axis of rotation out of the horizontal.)  This gyroscopic action was 
not properly allowed for and eventually led to the towers dramatic 
catastrophic failure.
Towers well designed for supporting antennas may not be built such 
that they will survive the gyroscopic force translations. Sufficient 
materials were salvaged from this collapsed tower to reconstitute the 
bottom 40 feet.  I tilted that 40 ft recreation over (two hinged legs) 
and dismantled it for transit to my QTH and have refurbed it.  It may 
be seen on my QRZ page along with the three foundations for its legs.  
The guy on the ladder is my good friend John who is mech eng with 35 
years hands on experience.  He sanity checks my wild ideas as well as 
visiting me for 10 days each year to help with projects.
Executive summary:  Be careful just sticking a wind generator on a 
tower designed for antennas.  You might be in for an exciting surprise.
Patrick   NJ5G



On 6/19/2015 7:30 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
Well, in my case, I had to allow for some ridiculous wind issues here 
at my QTH and I wanted to make sure that whatever tower I put up 
would handle any large antenna (or wind generator) I might one day 
decide to install on it, since I certainly was only going to have one 
tower ... ever.  I live on an easterly hillside near the south end of 
a mountain range where the dominant wind direction is from the 
southwest.  The winds that get blocked by the south end of the 
mountain range recover in the form of swirlers that roar down the 
hillside and across my lot like a freight train.  Spring thermals 
bring wind gusts every three to five minutes that often reach 70 to 
80 mph, and I've seen days where 90 mph is not uncommon.  The 
strongest I've recorded was greater than 100 mph, and that on a clear 
day.
So I bought the strongest tower I could reasonably afford, although 
the Trylon might be the better value in terms of cost versus 
utility.  To each his own.
I do agree that the foundation seems to be overkill, though, and mine 
took 20 cubic yards of concrete.  That's roughly 40 tons worth 
planted six feet in the ground, and if the tower was five times 
stronger than it is now I bet it would still fail before the 
foundation budged.
The rebar cage design looked odd to me as well, but I didn't have any 
problem at all building it --- as the pictures on my web site show.
Shipping (from Pennsylvania at the time) was also expensive.  I 
bought mine in 2008 and the freight cost to southern Arizona was 
almost $1200, and it would probably be even more now.
No doubt about it ... my tower and antennas have far and away been 
the most expensive aspects of my ham radio addiction.
73,
Dave   AB7E




On 6/19/2015 10:29 AM, K7LXC--- via TowerTalk wrote:
Howdy, TowerTalkians --
I've installed dozens of towers at amateur and commercial sites over the years and I have found the AN towers to be battleship stout (which in many cases is not necessary for a ham installation) but expensive to buy and
install.
One of my major complaints is that the base design is WAY overbuilt
compared to all the other towers I've installed. The last one specified
approximately 3 times the amount of concrete than for similar towers from other manufacturers. To me it's a pure waste of time and money for the unneeded
additional concrete.
Also the rebar cage is overly complicated in its design. I've built many rebar cages but I had to hire a concrete contractor to be able to build
it per their spec. Even the concrete contractor was scratching his head
over the design.
To me, this is another instance of an engineer working in an air conditioned office who designs it but never has to be out in the field to
install one. (They're not the only manufacturer to do this.)
For a similar tower height and capacity, anyone installing a Trylon Titan tower would save up to $3000+ by buying it rather than the AN. Just
offering a money saving option.
Yes, I sell Trylon towers but that's because I've found them to be the
best value in a self-supporting tower around and lots of people are
interested in that.
  Cheers,
Steve     K7LXC
TOWER TECH -
Professional tower services for amateurs
Cell: 206-890-4188
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

--

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

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