[TowerTalk] Re: Tower Talk Digest V3 #406
David Cretty
dcretty@mindspring.com
Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:52:44 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tower Talk Digest" <owner-towertalk-digest@contesting.com>
To: <towertalk-digest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 11:45 PM
Subject: Tower Talk Digest V3 #406
>
> Tower Talk Digest Wednesday, October 11 2000 Volume 03 : Number
406
>
>
>
> In this issue:
>
> [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
> Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
> [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
> [TowerTalk] Tightening hose clamps
> Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
> [TowerTalk] DX-Eng Insulator Needed
> [TowerTalk] NEED DESING - WARC BEAM !!!
> [TowerTalk] rotator fit inside LM470E?
> [TowerTalk] KLM Balun Phasing Marks
> Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
> Re: [TowerTalk] KLM Balun Phasing Marks
> Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
> Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
> Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
> [TowerTalk] Bigboy rotors
>
> See the end of the digest for information about towertalk-digest
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:49:03 -0500
> From: "Ford Peterson" <ford@cmgate.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
>
> Just another $0.02
>
> The selection of welding rod can make a significant impact on a weld's
> ability to hold. If the worker selected the wrong rod because it was too
> far to walk to the crib, that could explain a batch of bad welds.
Likewise,
> a rod tube (a collection of unused welding rods) could have been mis
marked
> or anything.
>
> Likewise, the metal tubes or the rod material could also be at fault. The
> Rockwell rating of the metal is not observable from a picture. It takes
the
> proper instruments to determine if a batch of improper hardness was used.
> In the event that the incorrect ingot was selected at the mill, the whole
> batch of 2000# tubes could be bad. I hope they can trace them down if
this
> is the case.
>
> Before you guys judge Rohn's QC, let them do their job. It is fairly
common
> practice (although sloppy) to accept the mill's rating on the metals.
> Likewise, a welding rod tube labeled improperly would easily slip through
> most QC departments. I hope they choose to inspect the welds, test the
> hardness of the materials used, etc. They should get back to Stan as to
the
> results. I hope to see the response from Rohn.
>
> Ford-N0OQW
> ford@cmgate.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:52:24 -0700
> From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@teleport.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> Yes, the weld fillets look pretty good from the outside of the tower.
Take a
> look at the other side of the weld . . . inside the tower. This is where
I
> found what appeared to be fractured welds.
>
> Stan
> w7ni@teleport.com
>
> Frank Ayers wrote:
>
> > >I looked at the pictures and quite frankly, the welds themself look
> > >pretty flaky to me. Not a lot of penetration there in my opinion.
> > >
> > >73
> > >Jim
> > >WB6YAW
> > >
> > I have 25G sections from 3 different vintages - some from 1974, some
from
> > about 1988, and the rest are from 1998. They all have serious fillets
where
> > they are welded. The ones in the pictures look like the braces are held
on
> > by the galvanizing.
> >
> > Frank
> > W2FCA
> >
> > --
> > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 02:24:56 -0500
> From: dcckc <dcckc@ncn.net>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
>
> >The selection of welding rod can make a significant impact on a weld's
> >ability to hold. If the worker selected the wrong rod because it was too
> >far to walk to the crib, that could explain a batch of bad welds.
Likewise,
> >a rod tube (a collection of unused welding rods) could have been mis
marked
> >or anything.
>
> I would be surprised to say the least if Rohn is using stick welders I am
> sure they use wire welders for the increase in production and less
splatter
> to be cleaned before dipping the chance of getting the wrong wire would be
> remote as they probably dont use a large selection of wires in production
>
> >Likewise, the metal tubes or the rod material could also be at fault.
The
> >Rockwell rating of the metal is not observable from a picture. It takes
the
> >proper instruments to determine if a batch of improper hardness was used.
> >In the event that the incorrect ingot was selected at the mill, the whole
> >batch of 2000# tubes could be bad. I hope they can trace them down if
this
> >is the case.
>
> Having worked in a steel mill for nearly 12 years in the past this would
be
> a easy one to verify as the paper work on any piece of steel to a
> customer is easily traced including all chemistry from the melt to the
> shipping door. It could be the wrong steel but is highly unlikely as
> almost any steel that can be made into this size tubing would be easily
> welded by a wide range of wire and heat combinations. Having said all this
> my guess after supervising employees for nearly thirty years is this is
> more likely a case of under or missed trained worker or a disgruntled
> worker. All to often people are under trained when put into production
> lines and I have seen far to many cases of unhappy workers who make bad
> product when they know they are quitting that day
> Dave/WB0PKK
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 01:55:41 HST
> From: "Ted Leaf" <tleaf@hotmail.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Tightening hose clamps
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I agree that that you can't tighten hose clamps enough with a screw
driver.
> But I hope Glenn doesn't mean to use the ratchet handle with the socket,
> because if he does, you can easily strip or break the clamp.
>
> What I do is use the spinner (screw driver) handle in the socket. This
> gives you more force than with a screw driver blade, but not enough force
to
> strip the clamp.
>
> 73, Aloha
> Ted Leaf, K6HI
> Kona, Hawaii
> <tleaf@hotmail.com>
>
>
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> X-problem with
> assembling large yagi antennas is that people do not plan, get
> organized
> or they try to skip steps or do steps out of order. My
> recommendation to
> you is as follows;
>
> 15. Now that everything is identified gather up your following
> tools.
> good wrenches are a good investment if you do not have any go to
> sears or
> home depot. a 1/4 inch socket set is necessary to tighten clamps
> and small
> bolts. Do not over tighten clamps. However you can not get them
> tight
> enough with just a screw driver.
> 73
>
> Glenn VE3GLN / VA3ZL ( ex VO1DV, VE3MPR )
>
> 613-746-3776
>
> VE3GLN@RAC.CA
> OR
> Glenn.McLeod@CRC.CA >>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 08:30:39 -0400
> From: "Paul Christensen" <paulc@mediaone.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
>
> I am sure Rohn would be very interested in seeing these photos in order to
> establish causation. From what I've seen, this is a significant
> risk-management issue.
>
> - -Paul, W9AC
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stan or Patricia Griffiths" <w7ni@teleport.com>
> To: "Frank Ayers" <w2fca@qsl.net>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
>
>
> >
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > Yes, the weld fillets look pretty good from the outside of the tower.
> Take a
> > look at the other side of the weld . . . inside the tower. This is
where
> I
> > found what appeared to be fractured welds.
> >
> > Stan
> > w7ni@teleport.com
> >
> > Frank Ayers wrote:
> >
> > > >I looked at the pictures and quite frankly, the welds themself look
> > > >pretty flaky to me. Not a lot of penetration there in my opinion.
> > > >
> > > >73
> > > >Jim
> > > >WB6YAW
> > > >
> > > I have 25G sections from 3 different vintages - some from 1974, some
> from
> > > about 1988, and the rest are from 1998. They all have serious fillets
> where
> > > they are welded. The ones in the pictures look like the braces are
held
> on
> > > by the galvanizing.
> > >
> > > Frank
> > > W2FCA
> > >
> > > --
> > > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > > Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> > > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > > Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> >
> >
> > --
> > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:04:47 EDT
> From: N4CW@aol.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] DX-Eng Insulator Needed
>
> While doing maintenance on my DX-Engineering 6DX-6, I broke an element
> insulator. It's the molded some-kind-of-plastic type that attaches to the
> boom with a hose clamp. Can a TT-er with one to spare sell it to me? It
would
> save me a lot of grief...
> Please reply directly to me. Thanks.
> Bert, N4CW (N4CW@AOL.COM)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:22:14 +0200
> From: "Marc Wullaert" <on4ma@village.uunet.be>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] NEED DESING - WARC BEAM !!!
>
> Hi tt'ers,
> I'm looking for a design to build a warc beam 2 or 3element for 12/17m
> on 1 boom.
> any help for this or some url i can look up.
> any expierence with a homebrew warc beam ?
>
> many thanks
>
> marc on4ma
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:48:15 -0700
> From: "Al Williams" <alwilliams@olywa.net>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] rotator fit inside LM470E?
>
> Has any towertalker successfully installed an ORION 2800 rotator inside
the
> new Triex
> LM470E (now called the SKY470) top section?
>
> I have two new SKY470's on the ground and have been planning to install
the
> ORION 2800 rotator in each of them (not ordered yet). However, although
the
> FirstCall advertisement states that "The top section is very large (16
1/2")
> allowing for most rotators to fit inside while fully retraced.", the
towers
> delivered to me measure only about 11 1/16" between the vertical legs.
The
> ORION 2300 that I have (which I assume is the same dimension as the ORION
> 2800) measures about 9" diam for about 7" high with a smaller diameter for
> the remaining height for mast attachment. My ORION 2300 is inside a used
> HDX572 so I cant easily remove it to try in the new SKY470.
>
> The cross bracing of the SKY470 has me wondering if the ORION 2800 will
> mount inside without having to cutaway some cross bracing.
>
> Thanks in advance for all responses.
>
> k7puc
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:34:00 +0100
> From: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] KLM Balun Phasing Marks
>
> I have 3 new KLM 4:1 baluns purchased with KLM-610 Monobanders
> last fall. While doing some preventative maintenance, I noticed one of
the
> connection studs broke clean at the outside of the nut against the PVC
case
> (so there is no way to make another connection). I also have an old KLM
> Balun circa 1980's which I can use as a substitute if I can determine the
> proper phasing connection. Note...both baluns are the same construction
with
> a PVC tube and end caps...not the old old (skinny) baluns from the 1970's.
>
> Looking at the newer baluns with the label on top as you look from
the
> connector end, the phasing mark is on the right stud. However, on the
older
> balun looking the same way (label on top viewed from the connector), the
> phasing mark is on the left stud. Does anyone know if KLM was consistent
with
> their phasing marks over the years? Has anyone mixed new and old baluns?
I
> am tempted to assume the phasing mark is correct but it bothers me that it
is
> in a different position relative to the label. M2 says there is no simple
way
> to tell the correct orientation without taking the baluns apart and
visually
> inspecting both.
>
> Which brings me to my next question! Has anyone disassembled one
of
> these baluns? It appears you can do so by undoing the locknut on the coax
> connector and knocking the end cap off. This may be the easiest way to
> check for proper phase of the two baluns but I would like to hear from
anyone
> who may have done this before I start tearing both apart.
>
> Better yet, does anyone have a better idea? I suppose I could
remount
> the antennas and check for gain when the two lower ones are selected but
am
> open to any ideas.
>
> 73, Bill W4ZV
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:47:24 -0700
> From: Kurt Andress <K7NV@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
>
> Stan or Patricia Griffiths wrote:
>
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > Yes, the weld fillets look pretty good from the outside of the tower.
Take a
> > look at the other side of the weld . . . inside the tower. This is
where I
> > found what appeared to be fractured welds.
> >
> > Stan
> > w7ni@teleport.com
>
> Hi Stan,
> I looked at the pictures and couldn't find any cracked welds, plenty of
cracks in
> the heavy zinc coating caused by the damaged brace deformation.
>
> Don't see how we can rag on Rohn for that?
>
> I think we are barking up the wrong tree about quality here.
>
> Nice shot in there of one of those damned zinc spikes....
>
> - --
> 73, Kurt, K7NV
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:38:24 -0600
> From: Dave Hachadorian <k6ll@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] KLM Balun Phasing Marks
>
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:34:00 +0100 Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
> writes:
>
> > I also have an old
> > KLM
> > Balun circa 1980's which I can use as a substitute if I can
> > determine the
> > proper phasing connection. Note...both baluns are the same
> > construction with
> > a PVC tube and end caps...not the old old (skinny) baluns from the
> > 1970's.
>
> Here is a repost of a technique suggested by N2IC
> - -----------------------------------------------
> I have a pair of KT34XA's stacked on one of my towers. I have found that
> the only sure-fire way to make sure that the phase is the same on the 2
> baluns is to measure it. Here's how I did it ...
>
> - - Run a little RF (< 1 watt) into both baluns simultaneously, using a
> T-connector.
> - - Attach the balun leads in series.
> - - Using an RF voltmeter or oscilloscope, measure the output voltage.
> - - Flip the leads on one of the baluns around
> - - Re-measure the output voltage.
>
> You will see a large difference in the output voltage - indicating in one
> configuration you had the baluns in-phase, and the other configuration
> out-of-phase. Now put a mark on each balun indicating the phasing.
>
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC/0
> - -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Which brings me to my next question! Has anyone disassembled
> one of
> >these baluns? It appears you can do so by undoing the locknut on the
> coax
> >connector and knocking the end cap off. This may be the easiest way to
> >check for proper phase of the two baluns but I would like to hear from
> anyone
> >who may have done this before I start tearing both apart.
>
> The cap is glued on there pretty tightly, but it can be dislodged by
> wedging a screwdriver between the cap and the pvc body, and whacking the
> screwdriver with a hammer. You may do some damage to the pvc, but you
> can glue it all together again later. It's a basket case anyway, right?
>
> Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
> Yuma, AZ
> K6LL@juno.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:36:28 -0700
> From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@teleport.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Yes, Rohn has seen the pictures and sent me 12 replacement tower sections.
> Rohn now has the actual damaged sections in their possession for
evaluation.
>
> Stan
> w7ni@teleport.com
>
> Paul Christensen wrote:
>
> > I am sure Rohn would be very interested in seeing these photos in order
to
> > establish causation. From what I've seen, this is a significant
> > risk-management issue.
> >
> > -Paul, W9AC
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stan or Patricia Griffiths" <w7ni@teleport.com>
> > To: "Frank Ayers" <w2fca@qsl.net>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Frank,
> > >
> > > Yes, the weld fillets look pretty good from the outside of the tower.
> > Take a
> > > look at the other side of the weld . . . inside the tower. This is
where
> > I
> > > found what appeared to be fractured welds.
> > >
> > > Stan
> > > w7ni@teleport.com
> > >
> > > Frank Ayers wrote:
> > >
> > > > >I looked at the pictures and quite frankly, the welds themself look
> > > > >pretty flaky to me. Not a lot of penetration there in my opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > >73
> > > > >Jim
> > > > >WB6YAW
> > > > >
> > > > I have 25G sections from 3 different vintages - some from 1974, some
> > from
> > > > about 1988, and the rest are from 1998. They all have serious
fillets
> > where
> > > > they are welded. The ones in the pictures look like the braces are
held
> > on
> > > > by the galvanizing.
> > > >
> > > > Frank
> > > > W2FCA
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > > > Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> > > > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > > > Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > > Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> > > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > > Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> > >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:51:21 -0700
> From: Stan or Patricia Griffiths <w7ni@teleport.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
> Of course one of the things I was hoping would happen is to get others
concerned
> about what I saw here. We have had plenty of discussion about it and I
think some
> guys have gone off the deep end and come to conclusions about this too
early and
> fixed blame a little too early as well.
>
> You suggest that the cracks may only be in the galvanizing and you may be
right, but
> how can we tell? I think welds can be x-rayed but I certainly can't do it
and I
> doubt that I can afford to have it done by anyone else. I am not too
happy about
> cracks in the galvanizing either . . .
>
> Since the damage appears to be caused by the truck loading technique and
it is Rohn's
> technique that was used on the first 12 damaged sections, I would say Rohn
bears some
> responsibility for this. They have taken the sections back and sent 12
replacements
> and one of the replacements arrived with similar damage. Now that Rohn is
aware that
> such damage occurs during shipping, perhaps they could initiate some
program to
> prevent the use of fork lifts during the loading/unloading process.
Covering the
> ends of the tower with a heavy cardboard cover with a big "Do Not Use a
Fork Lift"
> warning printed on it comes to mind . . . So there are perhaps a few
preventative
> measures that ONLY Rohn could (and should) take . . .
>
> Stan
> w7ni@teleport.com
>
> Kurt Andress wrote:
>
> > Stan or Patricia Griffiths wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Frank,
> > >
> > > Yes, the weld fillets look pretty good from the outside of the tower.
Take a
> > > look at the other side of the weld . . . inside the tower. This is
where I
> > > found what appeared to be fractured welds.
> > >
> > > Stan
> > > w7ni@teleport.com
> >
> > Hi Stan,
> > I looked at the pictures and couldn't find any cracked welds, plenty of
cracks in
> > the heavy zinc coating caused by the damaged brace deformation.
> >
> > Don't see how we can rag on Rohn for that?
> >
> > I think we are barking up the wrong tree about quality here.
> >
> > Nice shot in there of one of those damned zinc spikes....
> >
> > --
> > 73, Kurt, K7NV
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:24:14 -0700
> From: Jim <wb6yaw@dreamsoft.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn Tower Damage Pictures
>
> I must be looking at different pictures then. I can see daylight quite a
ways into some
> of the 'weds'. They certainly look insufficient to me. I'd be leary
climbing on those
> braces. Of course, I don't climb anyway but if I did, I'd be leary.
Maybe I
> misunderstand the engineering requirements of the welds but I'd think
they'd need a bit
> of bead on both sides, not just the outside. Just my opinion, right or
wrong.
>
> 73
> Jim
> WB6YAW
>
> Stan or Patricia Griffiths wrote:
>
> > Hi Kurt,
> >
> > Of course one of the things I was hoping would happen is to get others
concerned
> > about what I saw here. We have had plenty of discussion about it and I
think some
> > guys have gone off the deep end and come to conclusions about this too
early and
> > fixed blame a little too early as well.
> >
> > You suggest that the cracks may only be in the galvanizing and you may
be right, but
> > how can we tell? I think welds can be x-rayed but I certainly can't do
it and I
> > doubt that I can afford to have it done by anyone else. I am not too
happy about
> > cracks in the galvanizing either . . .
> >
> > Since the damage appears to be caused by the truck loading technique and
it is Rohn's
> > technique that was used on the first 12 damaged sections, I would say
Rohn bears some
> > responsibility for this. They have taken the sections back and sent 12
replacements
> > and one of the replacements arrived with similar damage. Now that Rohn
is aware that
> > such damage occurs during shipping, perhaps they could initiate some
program to
> > prevent the use of fork lifts during the loading/unloading process.
Covering the
> > ends of the tower with a heavy cardboard cover with a big "Do Not Use a
Fork Lift"
> > warning printed on it comes to mind . . . So there are perhaps a few
preventative
> > measures that ONLY Rohn could (and should) take . . .
> >
> > Stan
> > w7ni@teleport.com
> >
> > Kurt Andress wrote:
> >
> > > Stan or Patricia Griffiths wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Frank,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the weld fillets look pretty good from the outside of the
tower. Take a
> > > > look at the other side of the weld . . . inside the tower. This is
where I
> > > > found what appeared to be fractured welds.
> > > >
> > > > Stan
> > > > w7ni@teleport.com
> > >
> > > Hi Stan,
> > > I looked at the pictures and couldn't find any cracked welds, plenty
of cracks in
> > > the heavy zinc coating caused by the damaged brace deformation.
> > >
> > > Don't see how we can rag on Rohn for that?
> > >
> > > I think we are barking up the wrong tree about quality here.
> > >
> > > Nice shot in there of one of those damned zinc spikes....
> > >
> > > --
> > > 73, Kurt, K7NV
> >
> > --
> > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:30:04 -0400
> From: "Frank Ayers" <w2fca@qsl.net>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Bigboy rotors
>
> Anybody have any experience pro or con with sales/service on the BigBoy
> rotors?
>
>
> Frank
> W2FCA
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Tower Talk Digest V3 #406
> ********************************
>
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: towertalk-digest-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-towertalk-digest@contesting.com
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com