[TowerTalk] "K" factor gets sillier

[Stan or Patricia Griffiths]

Hi Leonard,

Yes, I think I got Pete's message wrong (sorry, Pete).   Rereading it, I now
understand Yaesu wants you to only use 60% of the K factor and not exceed it by
60%, but, as you point out, the K factor rating is still goofy if that is the
case . . .

Frankly, I never had the need to look closely at K factor ratings and I just
assumed that you would use the radius times the weight of each piece separately
and add them up.  I would have to agree that taking the weight of a long steel
mast and using the radius of the antenna mounted on it would be a silly way to
calculate your system for K factor.  It never occurred to me that anyone would
ever actually DO it that way . . . !

Stan  w7ni@teleport.com

Leonard Kay wrote:

> It sounds like Pete is saying:
>
> 1) Yaesu is recommending that you not exceed **60% OF** the K factor -
> NOT that you not exceed it BY 60% (let's hope not!).  I.e. if the
> K-factor is 1000, then don't go above 600 (not 1600). But then the
> question is still valid... why not derate them all by 40% and just
> say that you can't exceed them?!?
>
> 2) More importantly, I interpreted what was said to mean that
> Yaesu wants you to multiply the mast weight by the ANTENNA's
> turning radius - that sounds completely wrong. If you're going
> to include the (probably negligible) effect of the mast weight
> times its OWN 1"-2" turning radius, that seems to me to be the right
> way to do it.  Maybe that's what Yaesu meant?!? But then, even a
> 100 lb, 2.5" OD mast would only give a K of about 10 ft-lbs.
>
> Len K1NU




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