Not that it matters, but before anyone should question what I was doing with
a V44 VFO in my first Contest station during March 63 with a Novice
license.....I got my General in Dec 62, not 63. It was a typo.
It took me 3 months to get my HB xmtr working without an Elmer's assistance,
so didn't make first ham QSO until after General.
Graduated to a DX 40 in 64....got to tangle with W2OY on 40 M AM. That put me
back on CW for good. No Lids, Kids, or Space Cadets. A real original.
73, Chas N8RR
>From kf3p@cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart) Tue Apr 23 05:34:07 1996
From: kf3p@cais.cais.com (Tyler Stewart) (Tyler Stewart)
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Elevated Guywire Anchor Posts]
Message-ID: <199604230434.AAA07740@cais.cais.com>
>X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
>Message-ID: <317C3469.2502@alaska.net>
>From: Del Seay <seay@alaska.net>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: Rod Greene <w7zrc@micron.net>
>Subject: Re: Elevated Guywire Anchor Posts
>References: <m0uBVFP-000iHdC@majordomo.micron.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Rod Greene wrote:
>>
>> Charlie,
>>
>> Maybe others can comment on this too, but I have heard of pouring concrete
>> inside the pipe to make it much stronger. I have steel I beams for my
>> elevated guy posts. Found them at the local electrical utility surplus yard
>> (they were new galvanized beams from a project that never was completed).
>> You might check your utility as a cheap source of heavy material.
>>
>> 73, Rod
>
>Rod & Stan, W7NI made some good points. Stan's comment to not use them
>is important. However, if there is not sufficient real estate to get
>proper angle on the guys, you can make it up with Sidewalk Guying,
>such as you suggested. Several important do's.
> Do use galvenized Steel I-Beams, rather than tubular, due to
> breaking strength.
> Do go as deep as possible. (100' tower, I'd go minimum of 10 feet!)
> Do Not disturb the adjacent earth. Make the hole as square as
> possible, and pour the entire hole. Disturbed earth will separate,
> even if tamped.
>And - if you're not comfortable with what you're doing, enlist the
>help of a professional.
>de KL7HF
>
While I agree I would have some reservations about
using the pipe you have without being able to make a good guesstimate of it's
physical properties, the use of elevated guy points is quite feasible and
doesnt require the overkill that has been suggested...this is, after all, only
90 feet of Rohn 45.
I have 110' of Rohn 45 with 3 sets of guys anchored approximately 85 feet
from the base (80%) using 10 foot pieces of 1/2 " angle steel, with just over
4 feet in 2/3 yard of concrete each, ie almost 6' above ground. The long edge
points toward the tower, with the corner cut off and a hold punched for the
3 point equalizer plate. In the ground, there are 2 holes punched near the
bottom for 2 one foot pieces of 1/2 inch rebar which are tied together at their
intersection.
It is important to note that these were designed and stamped by a PE, which
my county requires of all tower drawings. He specifically nixed using a
plain 8" I beam. This is because the web in an I beam is fairly thin, ie.
you dont want to attach the guy plate to a hole in the web. If you need the
strength of an I beam, you should have a tab welded onto the side of it
instead. This is fine, but much more expensive than the 1/2" angle if you
are paying someone else to do the welding, etc. N3RR went this route on
his tower,
but he's got 130 feet of heavy AB105 with TONS of antennas on it. He also spent
about 3 times as much money on the "posts".
It's important that whatever you use as a "post", should have some sort of
plate or rods tied in at the bottom so that it has no chance of pulling out
of the block of concrete.
My tower has been up 1.5 years now, sees an inordinate amount of wind, rain,
and ice, and is not lightly loaded with 3 stacked KT34XA's, a 402CD, several
wire antennas with some sideload on the tower, and several runs of good-sized
hardline,etc.
Note that all designs of this sort can vary dramatically if you have loose
soil, sand, etc. Mine is moderately hard clay, so it holds fairly well.
Good luck! 73, Tyler kf3p@cais.com
>From AA7BG--Matt <AA7BG@worldnet.att.net> Tue Apr 23 06:08:34 1996
From: AA7BG--Matt <AA7BG@worldnet.att.net> (AA7BG--Matt)
Subject: Beginner Contest Stns
Message-ID: <199604230508.FAA28737@mailhost.worldnet.att.net>
Received call WN7CFL on Oct. 9, 1975 (16 yrs. old). Learned the code on my
own with assistance from AMECO 33 1/3 LP and copying Q's off the air. Didn't
even know any hams until I was ready to take novice test. Called SCM and he
gave me the name of a guy 40 miles away.
Went to WIMU hamfest at Mac's Inn, ID in 1976, met W4KFC there. We had
worked in the NR earlier in the year. We talked about the NR and a bit about
contesting in general. I think it was Vic who poured gas on my already
smoldering contester embers. First "ham" rcvr was S-38D that my Dad had (he
isn't a ham). Got a Realistic DX-160 as gift, I think the S-38D was better!
Rec'd WB7CFL on 1/1/76 as FCC phased out WN calls. Skipped a day of school
in April 1977 and drove 135 miles one way to take general in Helena, stayed
at Motel 6 and crammed the night before.
First contest: 1976 NR Results:CHECKLOG!!! Didn't fill in time for each Q.
I only marked times on and off. Boy was I chafed.
2nd Contest: 1977 NR Results: 6th in nation, 665 Q's (only time I've been
in top 10 box :-} ).
I had a gotham quad on a 40' HBX and it worked fine until the first 45 mph
breeze came up. Dad and I spent many a winter's day hingeing that thing up
and down in the snow in efforts to repair the quad. Rig by now was a
FT-101EE. Got my first keyer while living in Denver in 1984, straight key up
til then.
I could go on. All I can say is that I can't think of a more fulfilling
hobby. I think contestors are a pretty optimistic lot all told. How can you
get depressed when you know the 1st weekend of Nov. is ever approaching or
the 2nd weekend of December or ______(pick your favorite). It's kinda like
looking forward to Christmas when we were kids.
73
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AA7BG@worldnet.att.net Matt Power, Montana
>From AA1K Jon Zaimes <jon.zaimes@dol.net> Tue Apr 23 11:01:45 1996
From: AA1K Jon Zaimes <jon.zaimes@dol.net> (AA1K Jon Zaimes)
Subject: Elevated Guywire Anchor Posts
Hi Charlie....I'm no engineer ...but here's my experience with elevated guy
posts...
At old QTH in Bear, Del., I had 100 ft of Rohn 25, guyed at 33 ft, 66 ft and
100 ft or thereabouts. Two of my guy posts were 10-foot long, 3.5 inch
galvanized steel pipe from local junk yard. The wall was at least 1/4 inch
thick. Each was set 3 ft into a block of concrete that was about 2 ft by 2ft
square by 3 to 4 ft deep into the ground. At the center of the hole, I dug
down an additional two feet or so with a post hole digger, and in the center
of that i drove in an 8-ft long welding rod (over an inch in diamter steel).
The elevated post was placed over the welding ground rod and guyed
temporarily to keep it vertical, then the hole and the pipe were filled with
concrete. At the top of the elevated post two holes were drilled to
accommodate a piece of 5/8-inch galvanized steel, threaded rod (pole
hardware) perpendicular to the plane of the guy wires. These were inserted
before the concrete filled the pipe.
The turnbuckles for the guys slipped over the threaded rod (two on one side
of the post and one on the other) and a nut made sure they didn't slip off.
At the bottom of each post several holes were drilled and 12-inch long, 5/8
inch diam. galv. steel bolts or rebar was inserted to keep the post from
twisting.
The third post was a 4-inch diameter, 12-foot long non-galvanized piece of
steel pipe from a neighbor's junk pile, installed similar to the other two
above.
They were in place for 10 years, and the tower never fell. The posts never
budged (one of them took on added duties after the first couple of years as
the guy point for a second tower, and later the same post was the guy point
for a third tower).
I shaped the concrete at the top of each post so it was convex -- bulging up
a bit so rainwater wouldn't "pool" there. I never bothered to paint any of
the posts -- not even the non-galvanized one, which had a heavy rust coating
on it, though that might have been a good idea for a longer-term installation.
I think the new owner (not a ham) used some dynamite to remove the posts.
After these were installed, I read an article in CQ about elevated guy posts
that used much less concrete -- perhaps 6 inches in diameter or so.
So here at the new qth, the blocks are not quite as big (only 12-18 inches
diamter, and 4-5 feet deep) and I didn't bother with the 1-inch rods down to
8 ft deep. Now all of the posts are galvanized steel and 4-inches diameter,
filled with concrete. On one post, where I had to get the lower guy a bit
higher to clear potential vehicular truck traffic in the driveway, an
additional 2.5 inch diamter steel pipe was inserted into the 4-inch pipe
(the 4-inch pipe sticks up 7 feet above ground and the smaller pipe an
additional 7 feet or) and also filled with concrete.
The tower now is 120 feet of Rohn 45; house-bracketed at 28 feet, guyed at
60 feet and 100 feet.
Nothing's budged in 5 years.
The Rohn 25 held a 204BA and a 4-el 15m Wilson yagi (17 ft boom). Catenaries
for 80m and 40m wire arrays also tugged on one side of the tower at 70 feet
and 80 feet or so.
The Rohn 45 holds a 204BA (at 120 feet) a 3-el 10m yagi at 108 ft (side
mounted), and the Wilson 4-el. 15m yagi at 100 feet, and a 20 ft boom at 90
ft that supports 80m 2-el wire yagi and 40m 2-el delta loop. A 160m bent 1/2
wave sloper also hangs off the tower at 100 ft. Stacks to come on 20 and 15m.
73/Jon AA1K jon.zaimes@dol.net
At 11:27 4/22/96 -0500, Charlie Ocker wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>I am in planning stage of next phase of tower project. It will be 73' of 45g,
>guyed in 2 places per Rohn specs. I'd like to bring guywires to elevated
posts.
>Thinking 3 or 4 feet above ground. I have access to some fairly good size
>steel posts (4 to 5 inches diamter, hefty wall) but do not know specs of the
>material, as it is surplus.
>
>Would appreciate any hints, kinks, pros/cons, etc. Will make a summary avail-
>able for those interested.
>
>73,
>Charlie KD5PJ/9 ocker@chasind.com
>
>From mraz@rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz) Tue Apr 23 13:02:20 1996
From: mraz@rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Kris I. Mraz) (Kris I. Mraz)
Subject: Elevated Guywire Anchor Posts
Message-ID: <9604231202.AA25008@maverick.aud.alcatel.com>
I've already responded directly to Charlie about my limited elevated
guypost experience. However, all this talk of concrete brings to mind
another related question:
When pouring concrete for the base or guy anchors is it OK to use
plywood forms and leave the forms in the ground after the concrete has
set? Or should the forms be removed to let the concrete set-up against
the earth? I've heard both ways and would like to know what the
conventional wisdom says. Thanks.
73
Kris AA5UO
mraz@aud.alcatel.com
>From Richard Hallman <ki3v@rnodx.org> Tue Apr 23 14:02:32 1996
From: Richard Hallman <ki3v@rnodx.org> (Richard Hallman)
Subject: Misinfo re: SF Bay Area Packet Cluster Gang
Message-ID: <317CD4F1-00000001@rnodx.org>
>Jay has indicated, that at least at one time, the Hawaii Packet system
had
>been interlinked with VE7CQD, who is linked most of the time via KI3V's
>internet gateway to the SF Area Cluster. At least I have seen nothing get
>to Kauai which indicates such a link, either full or part time, so must
>have been a link of the past.
I am connected to VE7CQD 99.9% of the time since about two months
ago....If you are not seeing any of our traffic from CQD, Send VE7CQD a
message and ask him if he has filters turned on.....
73 Rich KI3V
**********************************************************
Richard Hallman ki3v@rnodx.org
11870 Heartpine St
Reno Nv 89506 ki3v@w7ta.#nonev.nv
**********************************************************
>From John Brosnahan <broz@csn.net> Tue Apr 23 14:34:11 1996
From: John Brosnahan <broz@csn.net> (John Brosnahan)
Subject: Elevated Guywire Anchor Posts
Message-ID: <199604231334.HAA01713@lynx.csn.net>
At 07:02 AM 4/23/96 CDT, you wrote:
>When pouring concrete for the base or guy anchors is it OK to use
>plywood forms and leave the forms in the ground after the concrete has
>set? Or should the forms be removed to let the concrete set-up against
>the earth? I've heard both ways and would like to know what the
>conventional wisdom says. Thanks.
>
>73
>Kris AA5UO
>mraz@aud.alcatel.com
Rohn Drawing C-641208-R3 states in NOTE 5. All forms MUST
be removed from concrete before placing compacted backfill.
73 John W0UN
John Brosnahan
La Salle Research Corp 24115 WCR 40 La Salle, CO 80645 USA
voice 970-284-6602 fax 970-284-0979 email broz@csn.net
>From aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) Tue Apr 23 14:42:05 1996
From: aa4lr@radio.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) (Bill Coleman AA4LR)
Subject: Beginning stations
Message-ID: <v01540b00ada284985ddd@[206.28.194.40]>
I got my start back in 1971, when I received a Heath GR-81 for Christmas.
My older brother Ben (now NJ8J) received a GR-64 (having gotten a Realistic
Globe Patrol the previous Christmas).
At first, I wasn't so much interested in ham or SWL, and focused on BCBDX.
My brother went through the SWL phase in 1972, then later got very much
into ham radio SWLing. I dismissed this primarily because I had determined
I could not learn the code.
Then, in February 1975, Ben got his Novice license. That really cut it for
me. Although five years younger, I always tried to do everything he did. In
March 1975, using money from my paper route, I ordered a Heath HR-10B and
put it together. I started copying W1AW code practice and listening to hams
as much as I could. By November 1975, I had my Novice license - WN8WOY
(later WB8WOY).
Realising the HR-10B was a really stinko receiver, I got a used Heath
SB-301 in December 1975. By June 1976, I had saved enough paper route money
to get a matching used SB-401 and finally got on the air. (My brother still
has this transmitter)
Using the SB-301/401 pair, I worked on my WAS using a variety of simple
antennas. First was a 40m inverted V that followed the roof peak.
Initially, I ran the 401 with just one final tube at 75 W input, but later
found out that novices could use 200 W PEP and put in the second tube.
Other antennas included various long and random wires (poor on 80m), a
slinky vertical wired between a bedpost and a ceiling hook (ok on 15m), a
40m double-bazooka (ok on 40m, but a free dipole was better).
In 1977, my license expired. By then I had bought a computer kit instead of
a car, and didn't re-enter the amatuer scene until summer of 1979 when I
took and passed the General test in one sitting, much to the surprise of
the FCC examiner. As N8BHE, I discovered 2m VHF and had a lot of fun with
it, although I tried to work some HF stuff as well. Going to school made
that difficult, and eventually I sold the SB-401 transmitter to my brother.
I worked on a QRP CW transceiver one summer while at home, but I never
could get it to work.
My first contest experience happened at Georgia Tech. I stopped by the
W4AQL station in March of 1980 one night to find someone operating the WPX
phone contest. He put me to work at one of the stations for a few hours,
and I worked some 20m and 40m phone. I really had no idea what I was doing
or what the rules were or anything.
The guys in the W4AQL club distained anyone with less than an Extra class
license. I passed mine on Friday, June 13, 1980. It was during finals week,
and I hadn't copied a dit of code in months. Ironically, my brother went
with me to the same FCC testing session and missed his Extra by just a few
questions. But he walked out with his Advanced. (It would be years before
he finally upgraded to Extra)
September 1985, I finally bought a modern transceiver, a Kenwood TS-430S.
By the next year, I bought my first house, and started to think about
setting up a station like I'd always dreamed about. Since my property was
long and skinny, I put up a 300 foot long wire, thinking I'd really burn up
the bands.
First real contest was CW SS in 1986. I'd read about contesting for years,
and I always wanted to try it, but I didn't know anything about it. I
jumped in to the CW version because I had always operated a lot of CW,
never having much success on phone (because of low power and el stinko
antennas).
I had a lot of fun! I couldn't copy the 40 wpm CW, but I was hooked. In the
Phone version, I was terribly nervous. I put off entering and eventually
got only seven hours of operating time in. But phone was even more fun!
I've been focused on contesting ever since. I don't get to operate much
(especially today, with the shack under construction), but my logs since
1986 show nearly exclusively contest operation.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, AA96LR Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>From Lee Buller <k0wa@southwind.net> Tue Apr 23 15:12:14 1996
From: Lee Buller <k0wa@southwind.net> (Lee Buller)
Subject: TVI Tips
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960423141214.0067ff44@southwind.net>
Ok guys...
It has been a few years since I've dealt with TVI issues. So, I want to pick
your collective brains about tips how to deal with some of this stuff. I just
put the amp back in line for the first time in ten years (I've been moving a
lot, but now am staying put) and I have TVI troubles.
The amp is grounded to a rod behind the desk. Low Pass filter installed.
All grounds bonded to one point through a buss on the back of the table.
A good source for good High Pass filters? Where do you find ferrite cores
these days? Any help would be appreciated. TU
Lee Buller, K0WA
k0wa@southwind.net
>From Del Seay <seay@alaska.net> Tue Apr 23 14:11:58 1996
From: Del Seay <seay@alaska.net> (Del Seay)
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Elevated Guywire Anchor Posts]
References: <199604230434.AAA07740@cais.cais.com>
Message-ID: <317CD71E.32BB@alaska.net>
T
> While I agree I would have some reservations about
> using the pipe you have without being able to make a good guesstimate of it's
> physical properties, the use of elevated guy points is quite feasible and
> doesnt require the overkill that has been suggested...this is, after all, only
> 90 feet of Rohn 45.
>
> I have 110' of Rohn 45 with 3 sets of guys anchored approximately 85 feet
> from the base (80%) using 10 foot pieces of 1/2 " angle steel, with just over
> 4 feet in 2/3 yard of concrete each, ie almost 6' above ground. The long edge
> points toward the tower, with the corner cut off and a hold punched for the
> 3 point equalizer plate. In the ground, there are 2 holes punched near the
> bottom for 2 one foot pieces of 1/2 inch rebar which are tied together at
> their
> intersection.
>
You have a good sound system. The difference that I see, is that your
guy attachment is only six feet above ground level.
Perhaps I assumed the need of the original request was for a much higher
attachment. (I would prefer a higher attachment, than to cheat on the
proper angles)
I have one tower in place, (70 foot) where the real estate was only
50 foot square. My overhead guy posts are 35' High! The tower load is
minimum, however, holding only a single 4 foot dish.
Again, I would stress that if anyone contemplating this type of
use is not comfortable with their own design ability, spend a few
bucks and get a pro to look at it. (A PE would also give you a bit of
liability comfort) Where there's a will, there's a way. Or better put,
necessity is a mother!
de KL7HF
>From Del Seay <seay@alaska.net> Tue Apr 23 14:17:40 1996
From: Del Seay <seay@alaska.net> (Del Seay)
Subject: Elevated Guywire Anchor Posts
References: <9604231202.AA25008@maverick.aud.alcatel.com>
Message-ID: <317CD874.4AC0@alaska.net>
Kris I. Mraz wrote:
>
> I've already responded directly to Charlie about my limited elevated
> guypost experience. However, all this talk of concrete brings to mind
> another related question:
>
> When pouring concrete for the base or guy anchors is it OK to use
> plywood forms and leave the forms in the ground after the concrete has
> set? Or should the forms be removed to let the concrete set-up against
> the earth? I've heard both ways and would like to know what the
> conventional wisdom says. Thanks.
>
> 73
> Kris AA5UO
> mraz@aud.alcatel.com
My preference is to pour directly against the ground, but to make
a form at the top where the concrete is exposed. This makes for a
clean appearance where exposed, yet does not require any forms to
be removed below ground where movement could occur.
de KL7HF
|