Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Guywires\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Guywires\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: kb9cry@comcast.net (Phil Camera); Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:28:32 +0000; How often do guy wires need to be replaced? They should be replaced when they have become worn, abused, or corroded. You know this from your annual (min.) tower inspection. Where in the Rohn catalog; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-12/msg00378.html (7,719 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: "Wilson Lamb" <infomet@embarqmail.com>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:42:20 -0500; Well, we have certainly beaten this horse, although I doubt if we have cleared anything up! I want to make a couple of points. I think the long guy, more horizontal, more catenary, WILL have a lower; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00324.html (8,678 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: "K1TTT" <K1TTT@ARRL.NET>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:40:35 +0000; Guyed towers have relatively small bases, my 180' rohn 55 base is only 4'x4'x5'. Self supporting towers have much bigger base requirements. David Robbins K1TTT e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net web: htt; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00326.html (7,589 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: "Michael Ryan" <mryan001@tampabay.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:13:05 -0500; This thread just keeps getting better and better...very entertaining...not very factual....but entertaining...pass the popcorn. - Mike Guyed towers have relatively small bases, my 180' rohn 55 base i; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00328.html (9,908 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: "Bill K2OWR" <k2owr@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:22:56 -0500; Here comes round two..... Bases. I can't wait to learn what I should have been doing with those all these years And from quite a few people who have never even actually put up a tower :-) BILL _____; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00329.html (11,362 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: "K1TTT" <K1TTT@ARRL.NET>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:33:30 +0000; If you really want facts, the rohn catalog calls for a 2'6"x2'6'x4' base for 180' of 55g. but a 64' bx series rohn tower calls for a 5'9"x5'9"x4' base. David Robbins K1TTT e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.n; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00330.html (11,482 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: Steve Maki <lists@oakcom.org>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:53:28 -0500; Which people would that be? -Steve K8LX _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.co; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00331.html (8,064 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: Kevin Normoyle <knormoyle@surfnetusa.com>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:56:56 -0800; Is this analysis wrong? http://wiki.contesting.com/index.php/Guyed_tower_study If so, where? It's a 45g analysis. I would think that means 25g sees more deflection at the top. I didn't understand peo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00332.html (8,680 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:27:23 -0600; And if you really want confusing facts, the Delhi/Taco self supporting DMX - 68' in Canada specifies approximate (their wording) base widths of 46" x 48" deep bell bottom base. Soil type is omitted.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00336.html (8,917 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:33:58 -0800; Some flexing is good. What the typical analysis does is look at the forces on the vertical tubes and diagonal braces (the braces are longer and skinnier, so even though they're not loaded as heavily; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00337.html (10,345 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: "K1TTT" <K1TTT@ARRL.NET>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:28:59 +0000; Looks reasonable to me, you see something wrong with it? David Robbins K1TTT e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net web: http://www.k1ttt.net AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net _____________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00340.html (10,011 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:44:43 -0500; I'm not sure why you say "only" as your base is much larger than necessary. To: "'Tower and HF antenna construction topics.'" <towertalk@contesting.com> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires From: "K1TTT; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00342.html (8,865 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: "Bill Aycock" <billaycock@centurytel.net>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:19:07 -0600; The problem with following what the manufacturer says is that Rohn (just for example) is massively inconsistent. They will tell you to use a humongous reinforced concrete base for a 50 foot 25G, guye; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00344.html (9,077 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: "K1TTT" <K1TTT@ARRL.NET>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:09:56 +0000; The manufacturer is right, they have done the design for their towers. You can, if you want to pay for it, have it redesigned to your specifications or to fit a situation that wouldn't permit the ori; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00346.html (10,207 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Guywires (score: 1): Author: Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>; Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:56:40 -0600; According to your figures, Rohn specifies a much larger tower base (5'9"x 5'9"x4') than does Delhi (46" x 46" x 48" deep bell bottom base) for essentially the SAME tower. So who is right? Doug I'll r; /archives//html/Towertalk/2010-01/msg00347.html (11,075 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]