[Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS - Not a panacea

[Jim White, K4OJ]

I am waiting for the professionals to reply...

I see you have never witnessed a foldover/nested tower collapse...something
which can never happen with a fixed tower...period!

Again I think you are really selling yourself that you have some sort of
control over what Mother Nature is going to do in times of a
Hurricane...Andrew removed a portion of roof from my parents home in
Homestead...it wasn't in their year, it wasn't in their neighbors yard....it
could have ended up in the middle of the Everglades...

As far as what is safer...I would rather work aloft on a fixed tower than
stand on a step ladder putting boom to mast bolts on a beam going on a
tiltover tower....

If the weather is strong enough to do damage it will do damage...again, if
you like to feel that damage will be less by your lowering the antenna
great...but just don't be surprised when the storm ends up picking it up and
depositing it in another county...

Don't mess with Mother nature - accept it.

73,

Jim, K4OJ



----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Otten" <res0958z@verizon.net>
To: "Jim White, K4OJ" <k4oj@tampabay.rr.com>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS - Not a panacea


> Jim,
>     In hurricane winds, Andrew or not, a lowered and secured tower has to
be
> less of a threat to damage than one extended to full height. The wind load
> is reduced, torque factors reduced, lever factor reduced, and there's far
> less for it to damage falling from 10 foot eave height than from 60 ft
> extended. If it fell from that height my neighbors homes would be at risk!
> At the tilted over eave height level my entire tower presents a much
smaller
> wind load than a 60 foot long by 10 foot high mobile home and I'd venture
to
> say that excepting the mobile homes frame, there's a lot more strength in
> the triangular structure of my tower than anywhere within the walls of
those
> mobile homes that wound up adorning the avocado trees.
>
> Regarding the safety of a crank up tilt-over -- how can you substantiate
> your opinion that a crankup/tiltover is LESS safe as far as servicing ? I
> don't have to deal with potential for collapse because it's NEVER climbed
> while extended, in fact -- it's never climbed! Why climb? That's what the
> point of my argument was --- the crankup tiltover can be lowered to ground
> level for any servicing. I replace any coax, any tower cabling, and
> adjustments, any routine maintainance from the safety of ground level. You
> want to know what the greatest danger from my crankup tiltover is ?? Bird
> Droppings! I'd go back and reread my original post again with careful
> attention to the adjectives -- "tremendously reduces" and "much safer",
I'm
> not claiming a panacea here, just common sense. Working at ground level is
> safer than climbing aloft and a retracted, tilted over and secured tower
is
> not going to be the same risk as a fully extended tower guyed or not, in
big
> winds. How hard is that?
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim White, K4OJ" <k4oj@tampabay.rr.com>
> To: "Bill Otten" <res0958z@verizon.net>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:27 am
> Subject: Re: [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS - Not a panacea
>
>
> > I think your fooling yourself...
> >
> > Having seen what Andrew did - NOTHING - no matter how low it is is any
> less
> > likely to become airborne!
> >
> > I saw the sides of mobile homes wrapped around avocado trees....they
were
> > low to the ground!
> >
> > If a hurricane is going to come it is going to come and it is going to
> level
> > anything it wants to, period.
> >
> > I feel that you are simply kidding yourself thinking that a lowered
> antenna
> > is safer.  It is far less safer as far as servicing - it is far less
safer
> > as far as potential for collapse...
> >
> > A properly installed fixed tower is like a building - at the top of our
> 135
> > footer (Rohn 55) it is rock solid - as if you are at the ground level.
I
> > swear you could park a car on it...I suspect the fears of tall fixed
> towers
> > are those of guys who prefer not to climb and not the feelings of those
> who
> > it, especially those who do it for a living...lets hear from some of the
> > tower pros logged onto this reflector...
> >
> > If it gives you a warm fuzzy to think lowering your antenna is better -
> > great - but I would be interested to hear the professional response on
> this
> > as far as which type of tower they would rather work on....I think it
will
> > be the fixed one where there is less to go wrong.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Jim, K4OJ
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Otten" <res0958z@verizon.net>
> > To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS
> >
> >
> > > Yes! One of the benefits to having the crank-up /tilt-over tower IS
the
> > > capability of removing it from harm's way during severe weather. Being
a
> > > Florida resident (besides being a resident in the Lightning capital of
> the
> > > USA -- we just lost the world title to Rwanda!) we occasionally get a
> > major
> > > storm. Anyone who thought their tower might survive -- guyed or
> otherwise
> > > during Hurricane Andrew got his hurricane party started a bit too
early.
> > > Common sense would suggest that if homes, railcars, yachts, buildings,
> > > trees, and just about everything else was in danger -- towers might be
> > > also??  Having the crank down/tiltover tower tremendously reduces the
> risk
> > > to calamity too -- again, simple common sense. Tilted over, my tower
> sits
> > > lower than the eave of my home and once tilted is supported by the
base
> > > fixture and the support fixture some 25 feet away. Undeniably, it's
MUCH
> > > safer that way in severe winds than extended to it's full 60' height
> with
> > 12
> > > sq. ft. of antenna!
> > >
> > > Bill KC9CS
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
> > > To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 12:30 pm
> > > Subject: Re: [Towertalk] CRANK UP TOWERS
> > >
> > >
> > > > > I got to  disagree with you on this one K4RV...
> > > > >
> > > > > No way is having a crank down and or tiltover better - I would go
> with
> > > the
> > > > > guyed tower over and over again - ESPECIALLY AFTER SEEING WHAT
> ANDREW
> > > DID!
> > > >
> > > > Isn't a major point in owning a crank-up tower that the operator
> > > completely or at least partially nests the tower when not actively
> > > > operating?
> > > >
> > > > -Paul, W9AC
>
>
>