[TowerTalk] RE: Is Tie-wrapping the rebar cage acceptable ???? tnx

[Kenneth M. Brockel]

I just installed a HDX-555 UST and when I built my rebar cage, I used
stainless steel hose clamps to hold the various rebar pieces together. I
started out using wire, but the stability wasn't there and didn't feel
comfortable moving the cage with the wire holding the connections together.
The hose clamps did add some extra cost to the project, but the cage was
rock solid and was much easier to move over to the hole with the clamps. I
decided too err on the side of safety rather that take the risk of the cage
coming apart. 

If anyone wants a shot of the structure, please email me off list.

73, de Ken, N2SMT
n2smt at optonline.net

>-----Original Message-----
>From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com 
>[mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
>towertalk-request at contesting.com
>Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 12:01 PM
>To: towertalk at contesting.com
>Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 9, Issue 61
>
>
>Send TowerTalk mailing list submissions to
>	towertalk at contesting.com
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	towertalk-request at contesting.com
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	towertalk-owner at contesting.com
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more 
>specific than "Re: Contents of TowerTalk digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. RE: Is Tie-wrapping the rebar cage acceptable ???? tnx
>       (Doug Rehman)
>   2. Verticals or low dipoles  in the city (Ve6wz_Steve)
>   3. RE: radials (Mike)
>   4. A3S Continuing saga (Gene Bigham)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:55:34 -0400
>From: "Doug Rehman" <rehman at surveil.com>
>To: "'Towertalk'" <towertalk at contesting.com>
>Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Is Tie-wrapping the rebar cage 
>acceptable ???? tnx
>Message-ID: <02db01c37fdb$14c50f10$6701a8c0 at RTSI>
>In-Reply-To: <3F6BA20A.2060906 at centurytel.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>	charset="us-ascii"
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Precedence: list
>Message: 1
>
>In reading through what I could find on Ufer grounds and rebar 
>bonding I found the following:
>
>1) There are two standard grades of rebar commonly used: 40 
>and 60. = Neither is intended to be welded, but the 40 has a 
>lower carbon content and is = more suitable for welding.
>
>2) Rebar that is intended to be welded is referred to as A706 
>and = usually has "weldable" or something similar imprinted on it.
>
>There was a lot of conflicting information about how to bring 
>the Ufer ground out of the concrete. In dry climates or 
>indoors, there were a lot = of comments about just bringing 
>the rebar out of the concrete. In wet = climates, many of the 
>comments said that the rusting of the rebar will damage the 
>concrete however. There was some mention of bonding copper 
>cable to the rebar inside the concrete and bringing the copper 
>out for connection, = but I found other comments about the 
>concrete degrading the copper. I didn't = see anything about 
>galvanizing at least the part of the rebar coming out of = the 
>concrete; it seems like this might be a viable alternative.
>
>I probably missed it in the archives, but wouldn't it make 
>sense to bond = the rebar cage in the concrete to the base 
>tower section in the concrete? = The three tower legs would 
>then be your Ufer ground connection and wouldn't require 
>anything else to penetrate the concrete.
>
>I saw a couple references to driving one or more ground rods 
>into the = bottom of the base hole and bonding them to the 
>rebar cage. Any thoughts as to positives or negatives of doing this?=20
>
>Doug
>K4DDR
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:10:52 -0600
>From: Ve6wz_Steve <ve6wz at shaw.ca>
>To: towertalk at contesting.com
>Subject: [TowerTalk] Verticals or low dipoles  in the city
>Message-ID: <002b01c37fed$f753d930$6501a8c0 at craftmain>
>In-Reply-To: <f6.3088bcee.2c9d3641 at aol.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>Precedence: list
>Message: 2
>
>The recent thread on 4 sq. vs Yagi on 80m got me thinking 
>about my own experience and the importance of surrounding 
>ground conditions.
>
>(I cannot compare my 80m 2 el Yagi with a 4 sq., since I don't 
>have both, but my Yagi plays very well.)
>
>A vertical, or 4 -sq. located in a rural setting, especially 
>surrounded by flat farmland will probably perform like the 
>models suggest.
>
>However......
>
>In an urban setting (city), the surrounding ground clutter 
>could make vertical performance questionable. As far as the 
>eye can see, the VE6WZ QTH is surrounded by pavement, 
>sidewalks, houses full of electrical wiring, covered in stucco 
>with underlying wire mesh, metal gutters and flashing, 
>power-lines etc. etc. I'm sure this is similar to many other 
>"average" ham QTH's.  What is the "actual" performance in 
>these situations regarding vertical far field pattern 
>development?  Is it really as the models show? I suspect a 
>combination of scattering and absorption from all this clutter 
>will greatly degrade actual performance.
>
>Likely the radiator of choice at many city locations is a 
>vertical because of space, and visual considerations (a small 
>footprint, even including a compromise radial system). 
>However, **if** a tower is available, I suspect a wire dipole 
>or Vee, or better still a short rotatable dipole, even at 50' 
>on 80m could beat the "compromise" city vertical.  This has 
>been my experience at VE6WZ. (except on 160).  Even at a "low" 
>height, a dipole still has some decent low angle energy, even 
>though the peak angle is almost 90 deg.  The horizontal 
>radiator is less dependant on the surrounding ground quality.
>
>I do NOT challenge the fact that "model" verticals are better 
>low-angle radiators than low dipoles, and I don't doubt many 
>have great success with them in the city.....but.....if you 
>are in the city and have a tower and enough room, don't 
>dismiss a wire or shortened dipole for 40 or 80m. Home brewing 
>an inductor loaded dipole is not that difficult.
>
>73, de steve VE6WZ.  http://www.qsl.net/ve6wz/index.html
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 22:27:10 -0400
>From: Mike <nasfred at 1bigred.com>
>To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
>Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] radials
>Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030902222416.00a49910 at mail.1bigred.com>
>In-Reply-To: <004801c371a1$d66c4900$d9bafea9 at steveninspiron>
>References: <005701c3718b$b509ff70$6401a8c0 at doc>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Precedence: list
>Message: 3
>
>Something to try for roof mounted vertical is to staple 
>aluminum foil to 
>the roof rafters in the attic and then tie it to vertical's 
>radial system .
>
>At 03:30 PM 9/2/03 -0700, Steven Gehring wrote:
>>Since your Hustler vertical is above ground and roof mounted, I would 
>>install at least one individually cut and tuned 1/4 wavelength radial 
>>for each band of operation.  Four or more would be better.  
>This advice 
>>especially holds true for the higher bands, like 20, 17, 15, 
>and 10M.  
>>On 40 and 75, the height of the antenna above ground is 
>pretty low, so 
>>tuned 1/4 wavelength radials aren't as necessary in my book 
>(especially 
>>on 75/80M). Just put down as much wire as you can for decent 
>40 and 75 
>>meter operation. I know it's a lot of wire, but if you want 
>it to play 
>>well then this is the route to take.  If it was ground mounted (like 
>>mine), I wouldn't worry too much about lengths, and just put down as 
>>much copper as possible (especially near the base of the 
>vert).  By the 
>>way, several articles have been written on tuned, above 
>ground, radial 
>>systems.  Search the internet and magazines, like QST, for 
>the articles 
>>and advice.
>>
>>73,
>>
>>Steve Gehring, KZ9G
>>Bothell, WA
>>E-mail: kz9g at arrl.net
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com 
>>[mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of arholub
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:52 PM
>>To: TowerTalk at contesting.com
>>Subject: [TowerTalk] radials
>>
>>
>>Possibly you could help with an ongoing discussion about radials.
>>
>>I have a roof mounted Hustler 6BTV.
>>
>>One friend, as well as Hustler, recommends that radials should be cut 
>>for the individual frequencies.
>>
>>Another friend recommends that only radials cut for the lowest 
>>frequency are needed.
>>
>>My antenna loads (vswr 1.6) on 30 meters ever though no radial is cut 
>>for that frequency but two are cut for 40 meters.  Incidentally, my 
>>roof mounting only allows me to mount radials over 180 degrees since 
>>the antenna is on one corner of the house.  I have two 
>radials each cut 
>>for 10/15/20/40 meters.  Would either of the two recommendations be 
>>better or worse for radiation angle, etc?
>>
>>Thanks
>>Doc
>>WA6OGO
>>
>>
>>
>>Visit our web site, www.arholub.com, to get the latest news, computer 
>>class information and Orange Coast College marine course information. 
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>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
>
>         73,
>         Mike, K4GMH From contesting at eircom.net  Sun Sep 21 
>08:16:56 2003
>Return-Path: <contesting at eircom.net>
>X-Original-To: towertalk at contesting.com
>Delivered-To: towertalk at contesting.com
>Received: from mail2.mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193])
>	by dayton.akorn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA923193F6
>	for <towertalk at contesting.com>; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 
>08:16:56 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from v-airlock067.esatclear.ie ([213.202.162.67] helo=host)
>	by mail2.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
>	id 1A1395-0004L3-00
>	for towertalk at contesting.com; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:16:55 +0100
>Message-ID: <00f101c3803a$5c80a8a0$9aa6cad5 at host>
>From: "Tim Makins, EI8IC" <contesting at eircom.net>
>To: "TowerTalk" <towertalk at contesting.com>
>Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:06:26 +0100
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>	charset="Windows-1252"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
>Subject: [TowerTalk] VK4VKD Towers
>X-BeenThere: towertalk at contesting.com
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: Tower and HF antenna construction topics. 
><towertalk.contesting.com>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>,
>	<mailto:towertalk-request at contesting.com?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://dayton.akorn.net/pipermail/towertalk>
>List-Post: <mailto:towertalk at contesting.com>
>List-Help: <mailto:towertalk-request at contesting.com?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>,
>	<mailto:towertalk-request at contesting.com?subject=subscribe>
>
>I see VK4VKD has a new page these days 
>http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~aeitower/
>
>and there's a link to an engineering report
>
>http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~aeitower/15mOMTEP.htm
>
>Does anyone have any comments about these towers ?
>
>Any owners on Towertalk ?
>
>73s Tim EI8IC
>www.qsl.net/ei8ic
>
>'Global Overlay Mapper' demo now online.
>The web's most comprehensive free prefix maps.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 08:16:58 -0500
>From: "Gene Bigham" <jbigham2 at kc.rr.com>
>To: <TowerTalk at contesting.com>
>Subject: [TowerTalk] A3S Continuing saga
>Message-ID: <002a01c38042$a392a740$0900fea9 at kc.rr.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>	charset="iso-8859-1"
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Precedence: list
>Message: 4
>
>Chuck Kraly went up and took the Van Gordon voltage balun off 
>my A3S = yesterday.  When it hit the ground I saw some 
>droplets of water come off = of it.  Upon examination both eye 
>bolts on the sides showed some = corrosion and were loose, one 
>turning freely in place. He placed the driven element from an 
>A4S with an add on kit for 30 = meters to replace my A3S 
>driven element, as I wanted the additional band = capability.  
>We measured all lengths according to Cushcraft instructions = 
>splitting the difference for the phone/cw settings as I work 
>mostly = PSK31. The Centaur 3KW balun went up and was attached 
>and the beam oriented as = it had a bit of windmill to it and 
>all hardware retighten. Thank You Chuck. All bands have a 
>resonant point below that particular ham band but this = is 
>due to the addition of pig tails from the balun to the 
>element.  = Today if weather and time permit I will go on roof 
>to shorten the = element for each band a bit. Looking over the 
>A3S traps all are fine, no water or debris inside, = element 
>is completely resonant on all three bands.  It looks like the 
>= cheap balun was the culprit. Live and learn. Thanks to all 
>who have commented to previous posts and many thanks to = 
>Chuck for climbing at KB0GU! Gene Bigham------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk at contesting.com 
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo>/towertalk
>
>
>End 
>of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 9, Issue 61
>
>****************************************
>