Tower Help

[K7LXC at aol.com]

In a message dated 96-02-09 17:57:27 EST, you write:

>Steve, Hi: I'd be interested what you would include as preventive
>maintenance for a crank-up tower, as well as any suggestions you might have.
>I've been following and enjoying your comments on the reflector. I have
>a 4-year old US Towers TX-455 55-footer (3 sections), which so far has
>given me good service.  I moved it to Va beach with a job change and
>reinstalled it in 1994, completely replacing the cable and fully maint-
>tenancing it then. I have a Sommer XP807 about 3 feet up on the mast
>which I turn with a Yaesu G-1000 rotor.  I've been doing the obvious -
>tightening bolts and nuts, greasing the cable and pulleys, and keeping
>the winch well-oiled and greased.  Appreciate your comments, and will 
>look for you on the air. Vy 73, Don W4ZYTz

Hiya, Don --

   I can't see anything wrong with your preventive maintenance on your
crankup.  A couple of people have asked the same thing so I'll be researching
it further with the manufacturers.  I'm sure that it'll appear in my column
but I'll put it out on the reflector as soon as I've got something worth the
bandwidth.  BTW, the US Towers that I've installed have been impressive -
especially the motor drive versions.

Thanks for your input and 73, Steve  K7LXC

     "Up The Tower"  now appears in CQ Contest magazine

>From broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan)  Sun Feb 11 03:48:36 1996
From: broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan) (John Brosnahan)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 20:48:36 -0700
Subject: Tower modeling programs
Message-ID: <199602110348.UAA16429 at lynx.csn.net>

Fred, here is my thought process comparing tower engineering programs to
spreadsheet programs.

Spreadsheets just do well established mathematical operations (sums,
differences, percentages, etc.) on functions that are generated by the end
user.  All results are solely dependent on the creation of appropriate
models by the end user and any safety factors he might build into his models
are his and his alone.  The spread sheet is no more than a multi-dimensional
calculator.  

A tower modeling program, on the other hand, is a collection of formulas and
safety factors developed by the author of the program for which the end user
has little or no control, especially the unsophisticated end user who is
solely dependent on the assumptions and accuracy of the model.

Tower modeling is made even more complex because it is dependent not only on
the accuracy of the models which are developed by the author, but also
dependent on the accuracy of the data provided by the end user--soil
characteristics, etc, and by the performance of the person doing the
installation.   And this is where the lawyers (and expenses) get involved.
Was it the model that was wrong, or was it the end user's data that was
entered into the program that was wrong, or was there a problem with the
installation itself.  Lotsa room for finger pointing here.  I have been an
expert witness in three way finger pointing cases--only fun when you're the
one making the big bucks no matter which way it goes.

If I were to provide a stand alone tower modeling program and the tower fell
down I think I would stand a good chance of being sued no matter what.  If I
provided a tower modeling program that ran under Lotus 1-2-3 I would still
get sued,  and Lotus might even get sued (deep pockets) but would probably
win because their program only provided mathematical functions such as 2+2,
but made no assumptions as to strength of materials or suitability. 

But then I am no lawyer.............

73  John  W0UN

PS  Possibly a better comparison can be made between tower modeling programs
and tax preparation programs.  The end user is subject to the assumptions
and models in the tax program.  Maybe the CYA disclaimer of a tax program is
strong enough--especially if the tower program is sold only as a preliminary
design program and advises everyone to have the results signed off by a PE
in the state of use.  But then I think one should be able to sue the IRS for
bad advice but they have their own disclaimer!


John Brosnahan  
La Salle Research Corp      24115 WCR 40     La Salle, CO 80645  USA
voice 970-284-6602            fax 970-284-0979           email broz at csn.net


>From broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan)  Sun Feb 11 03:48:39 1996
From: broz at csn.net (John Brosnahan) (John Brosnahan)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 20:48:39 -0700
Subject: Comparing Radios
Message-ID: <199602110348.UAA16432 at lynx.csn.net>


>Does significant variability exist between radios of the same make and
>model?  If so, how much?

>73 -
>Ralph  -  K0IR


All radios fall into two classes at HF with respect to sensitivity.  Those
that have been used with Beverages without protection and those that have
not been used with Beverages.  (Do YOU practice "safe receiving" on 160?)
The difference is about 40dB.   ;-)

73  John  W0UN  (you can tell I am in one of my "moods".)

John Brosnahan  
La Salle Research Corp      24115 WCR 40     La Salle, CO 80645  USA
voice 970-284-6602            fax 970-284-0979           email broz at csn.net


>From mihry at ns1.koyote.com (michael  ihry)  Sun Feb 11 04:45:03 1996
From: mihry at ns1.koyote.com (michael  ihry) (michael  ihry)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 22:45:03 -0600
Subject: help with t-shirt
Message-ID: <199602110445.WAA11631 at ns1.koyote.com>

hi all

can anyone tell me who is in charge of the t-shirt sending for the

caifornia qso party?? they cashed my check, but still no t-shirt.


tnx...de ac5ct..mike in tx


>From Robert Penneys <radio at UDel.Edu>  Sun Feb 11 06:43:49 1996
From: Robert Penneys <radio at UDel.Edu> (Robert Penneys)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 01:43:49 -0500
Subject: Sprrrrint results.
Message-ID: <199602110643.BAA19778 at copland.udel.edu>


171 x 40 = 6840. Ugh.

Tnx all.

Bob WN3K

GO FRC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!