[TowerTalk] Re: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 56

[Daly, Greg TQO]

Bill:

     You're correct, for most amateur applications steel is probably the way
to go..... but these are light enough to yank up and down, and if you were
inclined to fool around with wire antennas it would make the model
simpler... they might be perfect for field day.... They claim these
structures are useful as replacements for utility poles, if they're very
"leaky" an insulator failure could be very exciting... in any case, it might
be fun to look at a few.... I wonder if I need my passport to go to Utah....
don't they have a bounty on Catholics?

     If somebody spots one in Oregon or Washington, I'd like to hear about
it... maybe save a few miles 

73 

Greg.  WB7RSG

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Bill Fuqua [SMTP:wlfuqu00 at uky.edu]
> Sent:	Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:02 AM
> To:	towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject:	[TowerTalk] Re: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 56
> 
> What is so great about nonmetallic towers?
> I seem to be missing something here.  They will not stop lightning and I 
> suspect that if they are hit.
> And strong electric fields develop across any of the nonmetallic members 
> the material may just
> explode due to the internal stresses in the "dielectric" bonding material.
> I can see lighting hitting the antenna and going down the feed-line and 
> damaging the tower along the
> way.   Do they mention the dielectric strength of the tower or resistance.
> 
> Is it non-conductive?
> 
> 73
> Bill wa4lav
> 
> >The thread about nonmetallic towers prompted me to contact the folks at
> >IsoTruss.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> Weather Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with
> any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk