Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] High VSWR

To: "'Kelly Taylor'" <ve4xt@mymts.net>, <TowerTalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] High VSWR
From: "Doug Ronald" <doug@dougronald.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 11:18:09 -0700
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
SO2R is still feasible with the proper diplexer as long as the two operators 
can work stations in the same direction. This antenna's beamwidth is 70 
degrees, so there is plenty of leeway geographically.
A hard-fought county variance was required for this antenna. Multiple towers 
would have been right-out.
-W6DSR

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kelly 
Taylor
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2019 06:28
To: Glenn Pritchard
Cc: Jim Thomson; dj7ww@t-online.de; towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] High VSWR

I can see the attraction of a system such as this to government, where a single 
antenna to cover all of HF might be needed, but in an amateur station, it seems 
like a ton of money putting all eggs into one basket. One clamp failure and 
your entire antenna system is a crumpled heap of aluminum. 

Perhaps one tower is all he had space to raise, but it also seems like a huge 
sum of money to not even get SO2R capability.

Cool project to follow in the photo essay, and condolences on the final result, 
sincerely. 

73, kelly, ve4xt 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 1, 2019, at 08:04, Glenn Pritchard <gpritchard7000@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The antenna and tower design was fine, we had over the years installed quite 
> a few of these systems from Sabre, Hy-Gain, Rockwell to US Antenna and never 
> had a failure.
> It was unfortunate that the clamps were not torqued to spec.
> Reading from the projects start there were issues with the pressurized line 
> etc.
> These tilt over LP’s are made to do this along with that tilt boom bracket.
> Cable crimp’s were never used on these turnkey LP antennas that we had 
> installed and the rotation system has been pretty much standard.
> 
> Glenn, VA7UO 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Sep 1, 2019, at 5:13 AM, "dj7ww@t-online.de" <dj7ww@t-online.de> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> That is a bad idea, the torque force on the rotor under high winds will 
>> become much larger.
>> 
>> 73
>> Peter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original-Nachricht-----
>> Betreff: [TowerTalk] High VSWR
>> 
>> ##  with  more  boom on the  shorter ele  side.....vs  the   longer  ele  
>> side, the required  rotor
>> torque  will  be  sky high.   They  have  mounted the  boom  at its   CG.   
>> They  should have 
>> mounted at  center of  boom,  and  added  a counterweight  at  light  end  
>> of  boom. 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>