[TowerTalk] Tower design question

[jeremy-ca]

Im a certified welder so that wasnt the issue. I simply decided that ground 
mounted verticals were not the way to go if I wanted to crack pileups.

Carl
KM1H


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer at comcast.net>
To: "'jeremy-ca'" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>; "'K4SAV'" <RadioIR at charter.net>; 
<towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 10:30 PM
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Tower design question


> Weld up the splits if they are not too bad and you should be good to go?
>
> 73
> Gary K4FMX
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:towertalk-
>> bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of jeremy-ca
>> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 8:58 PM
>> To: 'K4SAV'; towertalk at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower design question
>>
>> I have a 5 section Heights I pulled out of the town dump about 20 years
>> ago
>> thinking I might make a 80M vertical out of it.. Every section was split
>> from ice. So much for a stupid design!
>> Now that aluminum scrap is up I'll take it to the scrap yard.
>>
>> Carl
>> KM1H
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer at comcast.net>
>> To: "'Roger (K8RI)'" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>; "'K4SAV'"
>> <RadioIR at charter.net>; <towertalk at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 12:04 AM
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower design question
>>
>>
>> >I know of two manufacturers that do it "upside down". Heights is one and
>> > there is another (can't recall the name)  that looks almost like it 
>> > that
>> > is
>> > also upside down. They are aluminum towers and each section is tapered
>> (so
>> > you can't install them the wrong way) and the upper section joins the
>> > lower
>> > section by fitting inside of the lower part. It makes a nice funnel for
>> > rain. I have one.
>> >
>> > 73
>> > Gary  K4FMX
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:towertalk-
>> >> bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Roger (K8RI)
>> >> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 6:52 PM
>> >> To: K4SAV; towertalk at contesting.com
>> >> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower design question
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >I thought this was an interesting question, but no one tackled it
>> except
>> >> > for one guy who said that's the way it's done.  So is that really 
>> >> > the
>> >> > reason?
>> >>
>> >> I saw one answer that said that is *not* the way it is done.
>> >> I have never seen a tower designed the way you describe. They are all
>> the
>> >> other way around. The larger tube or bell on on the upper section and
>> >> sets
>> >> down *over* the lower.  Small end should always point up with the next
>> >> section setting down *over* it.
>> >>
>> >> That will still not keep water out of the legs except for rain.
>> >> Atmospheric
>> >> pressure changes be they barometric changes or due to temperature
>> changes
>> >> will cause water to condense inside the tower legs which is the reason
>> >> for
>> >> the bottom section setting in pea gravel or sand below the frost level
>> so
>> >> it
>> >> can drain.
>> >>
>> >> Roger (K8RI)
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Floyd Rodgers wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Something has been bothering me for a while. With all the discussion
>> >> >>and
>> >> >>problems with tower leg corrosion, filling with water and splitting,
>> >> etc.
>> >> >>Why do almost ALL the manufacturers design the joints to telescope
>> >> inside
>> >> >>from above which leaves water able to run inside joints and fill
>> tubes?
>> >> >>Why not simply invert the connection by telescoping over the bottom
>> >> >>section so water just runs outside not through the joint. I know
>> there
>> >> is
>> >> >>no difference in joint strength or assembly difficulty, so why?
>> >> >>_______________________________________________
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>_______________________________________________
>> >> >>TowerTalk mailing list
>> >> >>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> >> >>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > TowerTalk mailing list
>> >> > TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> >> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> TowerTalk mailing list
>> >> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > TowerTalk mailing list
>> > TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>