Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Percent vs. Degree Grade - Not the same !

To: <n2ic@arrl.net>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Percent vs. Degree Grade - Not the same !
From: "Chuck Lewis" <clewis@knology.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:02:29 -0600
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Steve offers:
"It boggles my mind why we risk confusion and even talk about "percent 
grades".
Isn't that why virtually every high-school graduate took geometry so we 
would
have a better way to describe an angle ?"
----------------------------

It might be because a simple rise/run rather than degrees can often be more 
directly usable in the field; for example, carpenters doing framing, who 
have traditionally used a framing square, would probably walk off the 
jobsite if they had to convert an "8 in 12" roof pitch into 33.6 degrees. 
Yeah, I know: there are lots of carpenter's caculators out there, but in a 
race, I'll bet on the experienced framer who really knows how to use all the 
scales on the square.  I wouldn't be surprised if road builders (if not also 
the civil engineers who design them) find height/length to be more directly 
useful in laying out grades in the field using surveyer's levels and rods.

Doesn't Rohn specify anchor placement using heights and lengths rather than 
degrees? Much easier to lay out, I'll bet.

We often find complex impedance notation more useful than polar notation; 
e.g.: Z = 50 +j0 vs. Z = 50 ohms at zero degrees.

Framing squares, by the way, are really clever tools. Here's a link to a 
wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_square


73,
Chuck, N4NM







_______________________________________________



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

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