[TowerTalk] AN Wireless

[Rob N1KEZ]

I'm building a tower as we speak. (Well... K7PN and his great crew are for me). 

After some research I realized that if I would ignore the local rules and regulations, a lot more, and cheaper, options could be considered. If I wanted all the work be done correctly and to code, then AN Wireless was only reasonable priced option available for a ridge top location that can meet the seismic ratings, wind rating (130mph) for an OB12-6 at 60 feet. (With the 11x11x6 base and a PE stamp on the paperwork)

Will the maximum strength ever be needed? Hopefully not. Probably not. But it certainly makes me sleep well knowing that the hard earned money isn't going to be lost the next time a storm comes by. 

AN Wireless has every right to be proud of his product. In my opinion they should let the results speak for itself and not be distracted by those that beg to differ. 

73!
N1KEZ de Rob

Sent from my mobile device. 
Pse excuse brevity and any errorz. 

> On May 9, 2016, at 7:39 AM, Jim Thomson <jim.thom at telus.net> wrote:
> 
> Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 19:47:29 -0500
> From: "ve4xt at mymts.net" <ve4xt at mymts.net>
> To: David Gilbert <xdavid at cis-broadband.com>
> Cc: "towertalk at contesting.com" <towertalk at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AN Wireless
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> It seems to me the question isn't if AN makes good towers or whether they spec bulletproof bases. Clearly, they do. Dave is certainly to be congratulated for a first-rate installation.
> 
> The question is whether an experienced, respected tower professional opining the base may be overkill, or whether Trylon is good enough for the average ham, rises to the level of defamation.
> 
> Does anyone think it does?
> 
> Difference of opinion does not equal defamation.
> 
> 73, kelly, ve4xt 
> 
> ###  LXC sez to follow the  prime directive, do what the manufacturer sez to do, including the base..and dont 2nd guess, and play...junior engineer, and dont get involved with....
> hip pocket engineering.   AN uses a big base, why, cuz it’s a BIG, HEAVY tower, that designed for a BIG windload.   Those angle frame towers are not streamlined, and the tower
> itself presents a big windload, never mind the ants on top.  Put 14 foot of mast above the top of the tower, and you have almost effectively added another section of tower to the mess.
> Worse case is if the tower is loaded to its max windload rating,  and  you experience extreme high winds  some day.   Do the maths, and the overturning moment at the base of the
> tower is extremely high.   Think of a free standing tower as a giant torque wrench,  but with a big windload on the tower iteself, then add the load of the ants on top.   This is before you
> add any ice to the mix.   And some of the ants are not at the top of the tower, they are as much as 14 ft above the top of the tower.   Ever gone through a 75++ mph windstorm, and you will
> wish you had twice as much concrete.
> 
> ## I view it as a one shot deal, just use the prescribed amount of concrete, and then some, to begin with...and use  4000-5000 psi strength, and lotsa rebar.  Pay once, cry once. You cant 
> add more concrete...after the fact, too late.
> Sure, the trylon is good enough for the average ham..... but not when it cost more than the AN, is far weaker, and NO pe stamp available.   The light duty trylon titan series windload ratings
> drop like a rock, as the wind speed exceeds 70 mph.   They are not ice rated, nor earth quake rated.   They were originally designed as a cheap, generic tower, for the masses, for non critical
> application use.  They are not cheap anymore.   They are not the big bang for the buck they once were. 
> 
> ##  Ok , if you want an angle framed tower, designed to handle winds up to 120 mph, huge windloads, and 1 inch of ice, seismic rated, and can have a PE stamp, then trylon offers the real deal, in several 
> different formats, like their super titan series, ( which use just as much concrete as the AN does, virtually identical concrete specs  for a similar width /height tower).   The super titan uses  90 deg angle steel, that has been 
> bent in 15 degs on each side, part way out  from the 90 deg corner...to achieve the 60 deg angle. Rohn uses the same process on its 60 deg angled legs.  Available knocked down, or pre-assembled.  Available up to 190 ft. 
> Trylon also now makes  welded free standing towers, that use tubular legs and solid round bracing. They come in 10 ft sections, and each section is heavy as hell, check it out.  Bottom section  weighs > 1000 lbs alone,
> decreasing as you move up to the smaller sections.   Huge flange plates..similar to rohn 65G, but bigger..and thicker.   Now these welded freestanding towers are also unique, they are streamlined, which increases
> ant windload even more, since the windload on the tower itself is vastly reduced  vs the angle frame towers.   They also come with several  horizontal 7/8 inch solid  rod  climbing steps..on one face only.  They look
> like Z  bracing on one face..and W  bracing on the other two faces.   The climbing, horz  7/8 inch bars are welded between the tower legs.each one also comes with a steel plate welded  below each climbing rung,
> to  attach several heliax feedlines.....all the way up one face.  They are priced similar to the super titan towers, and will also handle  1 inch of ice and  120 mph winds.  Available up to 150 ft.  
> 
> ##  The legs on both the AN  + the light duty Trylon both consist of bent plate..formed into a U shape, with a 60 deg angle. The AN uses stronger steel, 50 ksi  vs  32 ksi, and a lot thicker legs.
> Both use bent plate  to make the braces, same deal again, the AN uses  thicker steel, and a lot stronger  50 ksi  vs  30 ksi.   AN forms the legs, punch the holes, THEN hot dip galvanizes the
> legs...ditto  with the braces.   Trylon shears the leg lengths from existing galvanized steel sheets,  then punchs the holes.  End result on the trylon is the edges of the legs have no zinc on em..and will rust, and
> ditto with the punched leg and brace holes. 
> 
> ##  So steve is wrong on both counts.  I would not call it defamation by any stretch.  AN shouldnt be worried at all, they sell a superior product...for less $$.   Their independent Peng analysis of  AN  vs 
> Trylon tower sections proves that.  
> 
> Jim  VE7RF  
> 
> 
>