Tower Help

[K7LXC at aol.com]

In a message dated 96-02-09 02:14:21 EST, you write:

>Although I agree with your statements that crankups are not capable
>of the holding as much wind load as a guyed tower, the fact of life
>here in Los Angeles is that there would be no towers if it weren't
>for crankups. I don't know of a guyed amateur tower within the LA
>city limits. Most of us don't leave them fully extended during windy
>conditions. And like many hams, some have seriously overloaded
>them. On the other hand, I'm always amazed at the number of
>antennas that some hams stack on Rohn 25G. In fact as I recall the
>cover of CQ featured the results of K1EA overloading his 25G
>installation (it was shown bent over).
>
>73 de Bruce, WA7BNM   (bhorn at netcom.com)

Bruce --

   Thanks for your input.  Yes, crankups are sometimes the only solution in
some places/situations.  And again, if you follow the manufacturer's specs
you're system will be reliable.  I think that the same situation exists in
Japan, I've never seen a picture of a guyed tower in Japan - just crankups or
self-supporters.  Some crankup owners leave their towers cranked up and say
that they'll crank them down when a wind comes up.  First of all, you're not
always at home when some storm comes  up and secondly, unless your tower has
positive pulldown, it won't crank down because of wind pressure on the
sections anyway.  The ones that I've installed with motorized positive
pulldown (such as US Towers) are really elegant - and expensive!

   Rohn will tell you that the number one cause of tower failure
(particularly amateur), is overloading -- surprise!  I think that it was Doug
Grant, K1DG, on that cover of the fallen tower -- the old maxim 'if it
doesn't come down, it's not big enough' isn't appropriate anymore.  

73, Steve  K7LXC

      "Up The Twoer"    now appears in CQ Contest magazine

>From k5na at bga.com (Richard L. King)  Fri Feb  9 17:19:11 1996
From: k5na at bga.com (Richard L. King) (Richard L. King)
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 11:19:11 -0600
Subject: K2WI ON ARRL AND CQWW 160 CONTESTS
Message-ID: <199602091719.LAA12847 at zoom.bga.com>


>I remember the days when well-equipped single op stations operated well by
>the likes of K5NA and K1ZM used to come out ahead of the multiops
>occasionally.  As competition drives the multiops to set up better stations I
>think that will happen much less frequently if ever again.

The difference is PacketCluster. I have used 2 radios for contesting since
the early 70s. The 160 meter contests were no exception. The drill is to
call CQ and listen with one ear while tuning the second radio that you are
listenning to with the other ear.

Before PacketCluster came along, that style of contesting in a
"single-band" contest  made you just as competitive as any multi-op station.
It was certainly harder work than a multi-op, but it was effective if you
could stay with it and keep up the "two-ear" tuning. There were always a lot
of mults to work and nobody worked more than 60 or 70 percent of what was
available.

When PacketCluster came along, the tide turned to the multi-op stations.
Most multipliers were spotted and multi-op stations would rarely miss any
multiplier that came on the band. As a single-op I could still find mults
with my second ear, but by the time I found them the pile-ups were bigger
because they had probably been previously spotted. This made it harder for
me, as a single-op, to get in-and-out fast with a QSO and to properly time
that QSO while holding a running frequency on another part of the band.
Before PacketCluster, the mults I would find would have little if no pile-up
at all making the timing easy. Usually one call would have them in the log.
Not so in today's world.

In many ways, I think I enjoyed contesting more before PacketCluster. But
there is no going back now!

BTW, please make note of my new Internet ID here in Texas. It is K5NA at BGA.COM.

73, Richard  -  K5NA
K5NA at BGA.COM


>From Hans Brakob <71111.260 at compuserve.com>  Fri Feb  9 17:23:06 1996
From: Hans Brakob <71111.260 at compuserve.com> (Hans Brakob)
Date: 09 Feb 96 12:23:06 EST
Subject: Unique uniques!
Message-ID: <960209172305_71111.260_EHM156-1 at CompuServe.COM>

In a copyrighted story, "WA6ITF at the Editors Desk" of
NewsLine (#964) reported:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
                         RECENT PIRATE CALL SIGNS

   KG0EI reports via packet radio on several pirated call signs he has
spotted in recent days.  KG0EI says that over 22% of the calls that he
worked in the recent SSB Sweepstakes either have no address which
matches the State given, are not available in callbook or listed in
most recent Buckmaster CD Rom.  Add the Pirates to this list and it
makes life interesting.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Sensational news! Just imagine 22% busted contacts in an SSB contest.

Does anyone REALLY believe that somone would pirate a US or Canadian
call in a domestic contest?