[TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 131, Issue 76
The Dynan's
dynanminer at msn.com
Sat Nov 30 18:29:18 EST 2013
The November 30 info in the message is incorrect: concrete is for building foundations , floor slab and streets, newly poured concrete is considered fully cured in 28 days.Maximum compressive stremgth of 60,000 psi would be attained.
Most standard concrete in use in the USA is 3,000 psi, and sometimes 5,000 psi compressive strength.
> From: towertalk-request at contesting.com
> Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 131, Issue 76
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:45:22 -0500
>
> 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: More crank-up questions (Bill Fikis)
> 2. Re: More crank-up questions (Bob K6UJ)
> 3. Re: More crank-up questions (Roger (K8RI) on TT)
> 4. Re: More crank-up questions (Patrick Greenlee )
> 5. Correction on post (Cqtestk4xs at aol.com)
> 6. Re: More crank-up questions (Steve Jones)
> 7. Re: Insurance for Tower (john at kk9a.com)
> 8. FW: FW: FW: FW: Crank up questions. (Matt)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:59:26 -0500
> From: "Bill Fikis" <w2ay at atmc.net>
> To: <nf4l at COMCAST.NET>
> Cc: towertalk reflector <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] More crank-up questions
> Message-ID: <0C23E7C66BA34B9F8BDCD9E3221590FD at bill>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Mike, I I disagree with a previous assessment of this tower.
> principally " gravity-no pull down"
>
> Picture self trying to lower the tower durin g a strong wind. (
> you may not have been home before the wind started) without pull
> down the tower can (will) get hung up on it self
> and hang there until the wind lets up & hopefully you haven't
> continued to let out cable
> while waiting for the wind to stop. That's when to tower drops
> vertically....
>
> I will never ever have another tower without the pull down
> feature.
>
> ................Bill / w2ay
>
> ************************************************************************************----- Original Message -----From: "Mike Reublin NF4L" <nf4l at comcast.net>To: "Edward" <navydude1962 at yahoo.com>Cc: "towertalk reflector" <towertalk at contesting.com>Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:32 AMSubject: Re: [TowerTalk] More crank-up questions> Thanks Ed.>> Mike NF4L> On Nov 30, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Edward <navydude1962 at yahoo.com> wrote:>>> It's a good tower. No limit switch. Gravity not positive pull down.Cure for 30 days and don't ground your rebar.>>>> For antenna mounts fabricate a cross arm and mount above second section.Works great.>>>> Good luck. Great tower. Have had mine for many years.>>>> Ed NI6S>>>> Sent from my iPhone>>>>> On Nov 30, 2013, at 18:38, Mike Reublin NF4L <nf4l at comcast.net> wrote:>>>>>> I plan to put up a motorized HG-70 HD, with a 4 element SteppIR and a 7element M2 6M beam.>>>>>> Hy-Gain says 1 week for foundation curing, UST says 4 weeks. What'srealistic?
> >>>>>> My current guyed tower has a side-mounted G-7 and a couple of vhfverticals. How best to mount those on the crank-up? I was thinking ofhanging the G-7 upside down.>>>>>> Does this tower have latches, or is the weight on the cables whenextended?>>>>>> What about limit switches or stops?>>>>>> I'd like to carry over my 80 and 160M 1/4 wave slopers. Is that too muchstress? What about ground continuity top to bottom?>>>>>> Does the concrete/rebar cage make a Ufer ground? Do I need ground rodsin addition?>>>>>> 73, Mike NF4L
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:14:21 -0800
> From: Bob K6UJ <k6uj at pacbell.net>
> To: towertalk reflector <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] More crank-up questions
> Message-ID: <63139CE1-EEC0-4206-B1BB-F7473A1B2BEC at pacbell.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Mike,
>
> FYI, newly poured concrete for foundations reaches 70% of its maximum compressive strength in 7 days.
> It is considered fully cured in 28 days.
>
> Bob
> K6UJ
>
>
>
>
>
> concrete is for building foundations , floor slab and streets, newly poured concrete is considered fully cured in 28 days.Maximum compressive stremgth of 60,000 psi would be attained.
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Mike Reublin NF4L wrote:
>
> > Thanks Ed.
> >
> > Mike NF4L
> > On Nov 30, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Edward <navydude1962 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It's a good tower. No limit switch. Gravity not positive pull down. Cure for 30 days and don't ground your rebar.
> >>
> >> For antenna mounts fabricate a cross arm and mount above second section. Works great.
> >>
> >> Good luck. Great tower. Have had mine for many years.
> >>
> >> Ed NI6S
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On Nov 30, 2013, at 18:38, Mike Reublin NF4L <nf4l at comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I plan to put up a motorized HG-70 HD, with a 4 element SteppIR and a 7 element M2 6M beam.
> >>>
> >>> Hy-Gain says 1 week for foundation curing, UST says 4 weeks. What's realistic?
> >>>
> >>> My current guyed tower has a side-mounted G-7 and a couple of vhf verticals. How best to mount those on the crank-up? I was thinking of hanging the G-7 upside down.
> >>>
> >>> Does this tower have latches, or is the weight on the cables when extended?
> >>>
> >>> What about limit switches or stops?
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to carry over my 80 and 160M 1/4 wave slopers. Is that too much stress? What about ground continuity top to bottom?
> >>>
> >>> Does the concrete/rebar cage make a Ufer ground? Do I need ground rods in addition?
> >>>
> >>> 73, Mike NF4L
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:52:22 -0500
> From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk at tm.net>
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] More crank-up questions
> Message-ID: <529A5006.6020503 at tm.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I'll try again...
>
> Comparing the new base (yours) to the old base (mine), I'm wondering how
> different they are.
>
> The old rebar cage is a simple affair consisting of a bunch of straight
> pieces tied together. There are no bends.
>
> The hole is 3'6" X 3'6" X 6'6" deep which appears minimal to me.
>
> There are no bolts holding the base ears. They are welded to #10 (inch
> and a quarter) 60" long rerod that extends to the top of the ears. #3
> rerod extends them to within 6" of the bottom of the hole. It does not
> give the latitude you have with two bolts holding each ear. It's a
> strong set up, but appears much more primitive than your LM470 base
>
> 73
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:05:32 -0600
> From: "Patrick Greenlee " <patrick_g at windstream.net>
> To: "Mike Reublin NF4L" <nf4l at comcast.net>, "towertalk reflector"
> <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] More crank-up questions
> Message-ID: <0C8FA52163E74D0584DC001B695A72BC at PatrickPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Mike, The Portland Cement Association says that standard mixes cure to 90%
> of their final strength in 28 days. There is no magic number for 100% cure.
> Strength asymptotically approaches its final value and (theoretically)
> never quite gets to 100% but surely CLOSE ENOUGH. Depending on your mix and
> weather (and moisture etc.) at what point along the way toward 28 days will
> it be strong enough for your needs? Unless the strength of your mix is
> marginal at 90% you should be OK after 3 weeks or so. Sooner MIGHT be OK
> but why set yourself up to regret at your leisure what you might do in
> haste. Consider the hassle if you load it prematurely and let that color
> your decision.
>
> 73 and best of luck to you,
>
> Patrick AF5CK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Reublin NF4L
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:38 AM
> To: towertalk reflector
> Subject: [TowerTalk] More crank-up questions
>
> I plan to put up a motorized HG-70 HD, with a 4 element SteppIR and a 7
> element M2 6M beam.
>
> Hy-Gain says 1 week for foundation curing, UST says 4 weeks. What's
> realistic?
>
> My current guyed tower has a side-mounted G-7 and a couple of vhf verticals.
> How best to mount those on the crank-up? I was thinking of hanging the G-7
> upside down.
>
> Does this tower have latches, or is the weight on the cables when extended?
>
> What about limit switches or stops?
>
> I'd like to carry over my 80 and 160M 1/4 wave slopers. Is that too much
> stress? What about ground continuity top to bottom?
>
> Does the concrete/rebar cage make a Ufer ground? Do I need ground rods in
> addition?
>
> 73, Mike NF4L
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:20:24 -0500 (EST)
> From: Cqtestk4xs at aol.com
> To: TOWERTALK at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Correction on post
> Message-ID: <ab99d.25a9fb42.3fcbb098 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Several people emailed me about the antenna insurance I have. It is not
> Marsh, it is a company called HRIA. hamradioinsurance.com is the site for
> more info.
>
> Bill K4XS
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:33:34 -0800
> From: "Steve Jones" <n6sj at earthlink.net>
> To: "'Patrick Greenlee '" <patrick_g at windstream.net>, "'Mike Reublin
> NF4L'" <nf4l at comcast.net>, "'towertalk reflector'"
> <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] More crank-up questions
> Message-ID: <001901ceee13$d3174530$7945cf90$@earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Mike-
>
> Talk to your local concrete supplier about the mix. If you add more bags of
> Portland cement, it will increase the final compressive strength. So you'll
> reach a higher strength after the first 7 days. US Tower said I needed 2500
> psi concrete on my HDX589. I ordered a 5000 psi mix which should have
> reached 2500 psi in the first week. I waited 2 weeks before I removed the
> forms anyway.
>
> 73,
>
> Steve
> N6SJ
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Patrick Greenlee
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 1:06 PM
> To: Mike Reublin NF4L; towertalk reflector
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] More crank-up questions
>
> Mike, The Portland Cement Association says that standard mixes cure to 90%
> of their final strength in 28 days. There is no magic number for 100% cure.
>
> Strength asymptotically approaches its final value and (theoretically)
> never quite gets to 100% but surely CLOSE ENOUGH. Depending on your mix and
> weather (and moisture etc.) at what point along the way toward 28 days will
> it be strong enough for your needs? Unless the strength of your mix is
> marginal at 90% you should be OK after 3 weeks or so. Sooner MIGHT be OK
> but why set yourself up to regret at your leisure what you might do in
> haste. Consider the hassle if you load it prematurely and let that color
> your decision.
>
> 73 and best of luck to you,
>
> Patrick AF5CK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Reublin NF4L
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:38 AM
> To: towertalk reflector
> Subject: [TowerTalk] More crank-up questions
>
> I plan to put up a motorized HG-70 HD, with a 4 element SteppIR and a 7
> element M2 6M beam.
>
> Hy-Gain says 1 week for foundation curing, UST says 4 weeks. What's
> realistic?
>
> My current guyed tower has a side-mounted G-7 and a couple of vhf verticals.
>
> How best to mount those on the crank-up? I was thinking of hanging the G-7
> upside down.
>
> Does this tower have latches, or is the weight on the cables when extended?
>
> What about limit switches or stops?
>
> I'd like to carry over my 80 and 160M 1/4 wave slopers. Is that too much
> stress? What about ground continuity top to bottom?
>
> Does the concrete/rebar cage make a Ufer ground? Do I need ground rods in
> addition?
>
> 73, Mike NF4L
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 22:40:33 -0000
> From: <john at kk9a.com>
> To: <TOWERTALK at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Insurance for Tower
> Message-ID: <FCDD2A2AE6CA42B3958FD83F73F45207 at kk9a>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> The 10% structure coverage is usually on a standard homeowners policy, you
> can increase this limit if you wish. I have not seen a policy specifically
> state ham radio tower, but this should not be necessary. I find it hard to
> believe that your structure is not covered to some degree.
>
> John KK9A
>
>
> To:towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject:Re: [TowerTalk] Insurance for Tower
> From:"Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
> Date:Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:28:12 -0500
> List-post:<towertalk at contesting.com">mailto:towertalk at contesting.com>
>
> I suspect your insurance agent is misinformed ... *any* structure (and
> a tower is a "structure") on a property is generally covered to 10% of
> the policy limit as as "accessory structure". This is similar to a
> free standing garage, barn or storage shed. Whether your insurance
> company will write a *rider* to provide additional coverage for the
> tower and antennas is a matter of company policy but if one has a house
> valued at/insured for $150,000, 10% covers a good deal of damage to a
> typical amateur tower.
>
> Your results may vary depending on state and insurance company. Shop
> around or consider the ARRL "all perils" policy for separate coverage
> on the ham gear and antennas.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 11/26/2013 3:09 PM, Wayne Willenberg wrote:
>
> Now that I have my tower nearly completed, I asked my homeowner's insurance
> agent if I could obtain coverage in case it is damaged. The simple answer
> was "no".
>
> Is my insurance carrier being unreasonable or is it generally true you
> can't get insurance coverage for a tower that is not attached to a house?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Wayne, KK6BT
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:45:05 -0600
> From: "Matt" <km5vi at flukey.cc>
> To: "'reflector -tower'" <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] FW: FW: FW: FW: Crank up questions.
> Message-ID: <008301ceee1d$d05bea30$7113be90$@flukey.cc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> >> The base and rebar are sure different that the factory drawing I have for
> the old rebar setup. The tower base is not separate from the rebar.
>
> >> What size are the holes you dug?
>
> >> Roger (K8RI)
>
> The bases for the two Triex towers are my own design as I wanted provisions
> for adjustable leveling and potential for future tower exchange. They were
> designed to be stronger than the towers at failure. I had previously
> modeled all the towers using finite element analysis to analyzed tower
> strength under some different loadinf conditions and also to estimate the
> maximum base loads at the point of tower's failure. I used those max base
> load reactions + additional safety factor for the design of the bases.
>
> The excavations dimensions were approximately:
>
> 66W x 72L x 94D
> 66W x 72L x 72D
> 54W x 60L x 80D
>
> In some areas, I ended up over-excavating in the process of dealing with the
> harder than expected clay. I just formed these up flat to the ground
> surface beyond the base extensions and incorporated them into the concrete
> pour so as to maintain the foundation bearing on undisturbed soil.
>
> Had I acquired a test boring prior to sizing the foundations I would have
> probably reduced the target dimensions quite a bit to take advantage of the
> high bearing strength of my soil below 18". But at that time I had not dug
> more than about a foot so I had not encountered the Caliche clay. In any
> event, I won't be worrying about the foundation strength.... I'll try to
> put up some more info on the tower bases when I get some more time.
>
> Matt
> KM5VI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 131, Issue 76
> ******************************************
More information about the TowerTalk
mailing list