[TowerTalk] DX86 vs. HDX589

[K7LXC@aol.com]

In a message dated 08/06/2000 7:55:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
dave@dbtech.net writes:

> Sorry I pushed your button somewhere along the way.

    The only button is that anecdotal info is not given much value on 
TowerTalk. We're much more interested in facts and how they relate to tower 
and HF antenna topics. 
>  
>  I define "appears" as just that. They way something looks to me. Beauty in
>  the eyes of the beholder type of thing. I never made any claims as to the
>  trueness of my appearance claim, only that I liked the way she looked
>  captain. You may think the fact that she only has 4 teeth and drools when
>  she talks is a shortcoming :-)
>  
    Okay, now we're talking aesthetics. Since aesthetics have nothing to do 
with tower system reliability, I guess it's a non-issue. But it still doesn't 
have anything to do with how "sturdy" a particular tower is. 

>  I don't see how remotely operating a remotely operable device invalidates
>  the warranty. Just what is the difference between me remotely pressing a
>  button and electronically pressing the remotely located button?

    Well, you were talking about building the remote unit. I'm sure that 
anything different that YOU DO to the tower invalidates the warranty. 

    Tower manufacturing companies are insurance-driven. Therefore everything 
they do and say has insurance implications. You use non-factory parts to 
control the tower and all of a sudden there is an even larger risk exposure 
for the factory. In case of a failure, the first thing they're going to do is 
ask you if everything was from the factory (they can look it up on their 
invoice too) and when they find out you used a home-made unit, the warranty 
will be voided. I confess that I don't have a copy of the tower manual or 
factory warranty in front of me but I know there are lots of clauses and 
statements about what you can and can't do to and with the tower. 
>  
>  Both towers are advertised as being *remotely* operable. What good is
>  *remote* operation if I can only *remotely* lower my tower from my shack at
>  3:00am in the morning by sticking my head out the window with a searchlight
>  to make sure a cable doesn't snag?
>  
>  The extra limit switches were there so that there are always limit switches
>  in the circuit even if one fails.
>  
>  Obviously, you don't like the idea. I am sorry, but remote operation is 
what
>  I must have. 

    I don't have a big problem with remote operation. My quibble is the fact 
that when a crank-up is being controlled from another location, you take a 
BIG risk for tower damage. If YOU break it, you take responsibility for it 
and the factory is off the hook. (Then please don't get on TowerTalk and 
bad-mouth the manufacturer for what is really an 'operator error'.) 

    I'm not trying to discourage you using the tower the way you want. In 
fact 2 years ago during the factory open house US Tower had a real nifty 
windspeed/automatic lowering device hooked onto one of their towers (I think 
it was from Japan) but I haven't heard anything about it since. I imagine 
they don't handle it because of the increased risk exposure (we're back to 
insurance again).

> If that means that I have to jump through hoops to make it
>  reliable, then I will, even if it means re-engineering the product. 
>  
    Feel free but don't expect the factory to stand behind anything you do to 
the tower.

Cheers,   Steve   K7LXC
Tower Tech

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com