[TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 154, Issue 57
Dale M. Schwartz
dale at immlawfirm.com
Tue Oct 27 19:22:34 EDT 2015
Dale M. Schwartz
SCHWARTZ | POSEL
Immigration Law Group
Suite 450 RiverEdge One
5500 Interstate North Pkwy., NW
Atlanta, GA 30328
Tel: 770 951-1100
Fax: 770 951-1113
www.immlawfirm.com
PAST PRESIDENT: AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASS'N
ADJUNCT PROFESSOR: EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
> On Oct 27, 2015, at 3:42 PM, "towertalk-request at contesting.com" <towertalk-request at contesting.com> wrote:
>
> 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: Guy Anchors (Donald Chester)
> 2. Re: Guy Anchors (Bruce Jungwirth)
> 3. cell phone antenna on ham tower? (ag6v at whidbey.com)
> 4. Re: cell phone antenna on ham tower? (Jim Brown)
> 5. Re: cell phone antenna on ham tower? (Chuck Dietz)
> 6. Re: cell phone antenna on ham tower? (W5GN)
> 7. Re: cell phone antenna on ham tower? (W2RU - Bud Hippisley)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:21:10 +0000
> From: Donald Chester <k4kyv at hotmail.com>
> To: "towertalk at contesting.com" <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Guy Anchors
> Message-ID: <BAY179-W524DB1A9512460FAB0B44EF4220 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
>> I am planning after the first of the year to put up my 80ft Rohn 45 guyed
>> tower.
>
>> Since my soil in Cheney is very rocky, I am not sure I can use the standard
>> Rohn concrete anchor (dead man) (4 ft. deep, 4 ft. wide by 6 ft. cement
>> anchor in rebar). I have just about solid rock 2 ft. under the surface. I
>> guess I could use a jack hammer. It is too solid to do with a backhoe or
>> small excavator.
>
>
>
>> I have debated as an alternative using 8 ft. I-beams, with 6 ft. below
>> ground... Is there a better alternative?
>
>
>> All suggestions appreciated.
>
>> Mel Ming N7GCO
>
> You don't HAVE to bury the guy anchor all the way in the ground, below grade. You could dig down 2 ft to the bedrock, and build concrete forms to extend the rest of the 4 ft anchor above grade, letting the partially buried block rest on the solid rock. You would have a 2 ft high 4' X 6' block of concrete above grade, but at least you wouldn't have to worry about keeping weeds cleared away from the anchor points, or someone running over a guy anchor with a mower. The soil on top of a buried anchor contributes infinitesimally to its staying power.
>
> Don k4kyv
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:28:02 -0500
> From: Bruce Jungwirth <k0son at frontiernet.net>
> To: Donald Chester <k4kyv at hotmail.com>
> Cc: "towertalk at contesting.com" <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Guy Anchors
> Message-ID: <E7AEBF70-E78C-4656-91BC-3190762D4F25 at frontiernet.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> You might also want to epoxy the rebar cage into the bedrock for increased stability.
>
> Bruce. K0son
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Oct 27, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Donald Chester <k4kyv at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I am planning after the first of the year to put up my 80ft Rohn 45 guyed
>>> tower.
>>
>>> Since my soil in Cheney is very rocky, I am not sure I can use the standard
>>> Rohn concrete anchor (dead man) (4 ft. deep, 4 ft. wide by 6 ft. cement
>>> anchor in rebar). I have just about solid rock 2 ft. under the surface. I
>>> guess I could use a jack hammer. It is too solid to do with a backhoe or
>>> small excavator.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have debated as an alternative using 8 ft. I-beams, with 6 ft. below
>>> ground... Is there a better alternative?
>>
>>
>>> All suggestions appreciated.
>>
>>> Mel Ming N7GCO
>>
>> You don't HAVE to bury the guy anchor all the way in the ground, below grade. You could dig down 2 ft to the bedrock, and build concrete forms to extend the rest of the 4 ft anchor above grade, letting the partially buried block rest on the solid rock. You would have a 2 ft high 4' X 6' block of concrete above grade, but at least you wouldn't have to worry about keeping weeds cleared away from the anchor points, or someone running over a guy anchor with a mower. The soil on top of a buried anchor contributes infinitesimally to its staying power.
>>
>> Don k4kyv
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:02:59 -0700
> From: ag6v at whidbey.com
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] cell phone antenna on ham tower?
> Message-ID:
> <2cb05117cd23dd7a8fb8057a02988400882dbc3b at webmail.whidbey.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi Folks:
>
> I'm sure some of you have an opinion/experience with cell phone antennas on
> your ham tower. Care to share?
>
> 73,
> ----
> Donna Hinshaw
> AG6V
> ARRL Life Member
> SKCC 6933T
> CWOPS 911
> Young Ladies Radio League
> Orca DX and Contesting Club
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:41:47 -0700
> From: Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] cell phone antenna on ham tower?
> Message-ID: <562FE18B.5010405 at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
>> On Tue,10/27/2015 1:02 PM, ag6v at whidbey.com wrote:
>> I'm sure some of you have an opinion/experience with cell phone antennas
>
> No experience, but caution -- beware of zoning issues that apply to
> commercial installations as opposed to ham towers.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:04:44 -0500
> From: Chuck Dietz <w5prchuck at gmail.com>
> To: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com
> Cc: "towertalk at contesting.com" <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] cell phone antenna on ham tower?
> Message-ID:
> <CAOk0j19NenDK==fCj9hkCm_d9KZ7bjOU-qG_xP5ShpLg0RmHRg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> When I turn my antennas toward a cell tower about a mile away, I get a lot
> of birdies on 6 and 10 meters. I am not certain it is the cell tower, but
> there is very little in between.
>
> Chuck W5PR
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> On Tue,10/27/2015 1:02 PM, ag6v at whidbey.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sure some of you have an opinion/experience with cell phone antennas
>>>
>>
>> No experience, but caution -- beware of zoning issues that apply to
>> commercial installations as opposed to ham towers.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:14:48 -0500
> From: "W5GN" <w5gn at mxg.com>
> To: "'Chuck Dietz'" <w5prchuck at gmail.com>, <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Cc: <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] cell phone antenna on ham tower?
> Message-ID: <010901d11104$e4f15e60$aed41b20$@mxg.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> About 10 years ago, AT&T installed their rectangular antennas on
> the 125 foot Power Pylon in the easement behind the house,
> and during the original install, swinging the OB16-3 8-el on 10
> beam thru the heading saw about a 5 db increase in hashy switching
> noise on the IC756PRO scope.
>
> The tower is 400 feet away bearing 335 (JA is 318).
>
> Last year more rectangular antennas were added at the top and
> the building at the base expanded, and now there is a 20 db increase,
> which is more noticeable but still doesn't seriously inhibit working
> that direction, except for the very weak.
>
> Barry, W5GN
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Chuck
> Dietz
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:05 PM
> To: jim at audiosystemsgroup.com
> Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] cell phone antenna on ham tower?
>
> When I turn my antennas toward a cell tower about a mile away, I get a lot
> of birdies on 6 and 10 meters. I am not certain it is the cell tower, but
> there is very little in between.
>
> Chuck W5PR
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> On Tue,10/27/2015 1:02 PM, ag6v at whidbey.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sure some of you have an opinion/experience with cell phone
>>> antennas
>>>
>>
>> No experience, but caution -- beware of zoning issues that apply to
>> commercial installations as opposed to ham towers.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:41:43 -0400
> From: W2RU - Bud Hippisley <W2RU at frontiernet.net>
> To: tower <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] cell phone antenna on ham tower?
> Message-ID: <50BF1CD8-095D-4BBF-993E-BBB42C558FD8 at frontiernet.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Donna ?
>
> Please let me expand on Jim?s very important comment.
>
> I spent six+ years looking into antenna zoning restrictions in my search for a new QTH. In general ? and this may not be true in your locality but it was / is true in by far the majority of municipalities I investigated ? amateur radio towers may be preferentially treated only as long as there is no commercial use co-located on the tower.
>
> Once there is a commercial application on your tower, it becomes subject to what are usually far more restrictive paragraphs in the local zoning ordinance. You may, for instance, be required to have public hearings when you weren?t required to for a ham tower. You may have to fly a brightly marked balloon, where previously you weren?t. And so on. And it gets worse ? and worse ? and worse.
>
> In short, you most likely will lose any protections you might think you have under PRB-1.
>
> Unless you live in a municipality that has no zoning at all ? and no restrictions at all on cell towers ? I don?t even recommend ?proceed[ing] with caution? ? I recommend not proceeding at all!
>
> Bud, W2RU
>
>
>> On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:41 47PM, Jim Brown <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue,10/27/2015 1:02 PM, ag6v at whidbey.com wrote:
>>> I'm sure some of you have an opinion/experience with cell phone antennas
>>
>> No experience, but caution -- beware of zoning issues that apply to commercial installations as opposed to ham towers.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 154, Issue 57
> ******************************************
More information about the TowerTalk
mailing list