Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Guy alignment - friendly wager

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Guy alignment - friendly wager
From: philk5pc@tyler.net (Phil Clements)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:14:41 -0500
If you check the Rohn specs on tower/guy alignment, the tolerance falls 
somewhere
between transit and hand grenade. The purests will vote transit in your poll, 
but
Rohn
is a bit more liberal for the "string men" out there.

One of my ground instructors at Braniff always told us to "measure it with a
micrometer,
mark it with chalk, and cut it with an axe!"

(((73)))
Phil, K5PC



>
>Anyone care to help settle a friendly argumentative discussion and wager on
>aligning guy points?
>
>A discussion on aligning guy points led to a wager between a couple local
>tower planners.
>
>Ham (1) Says:  The only satisfactory means to position guy points is to use a
>transit at the point where the tower will be placed and accurately position
>the center of each anchor point hole exactly 120 degrees apart.
>
>Ham (2) Says:  While using a transit is the ultimate method. Using string
>tied to each leg stretching them to the desired guy hole distance, then
>carefully measure and move each string until all three are the same distance
>apart  (measurement taken 25 feet from the tower on all three strings) is
>"close enough" so long as "String number 1 is carefully "eyeballed to be
>straight with the leg it is tied to.
>
>Ham (1) Replied:  Close enough only counts in hand grenades and horse shoes
>and after considerable discussion both agreed to wager a cold six pack of
>cold 807's on Tower Talk responses.  The method receiving the most votes wins.
>
>I raised a third consideration which is: Let's see what the Tower Talk gang
>come back with in the way of votes but also consider recommended alternatives.
>
>Now this is a serious situation cause a cold 6 pack of 807' s is on the line.
> So... anyone care to vote, comment or make  alternate recommendations?
>
>I will tally and post the votes along with other appropriate recommendations.
> It will be interesting to see what comes up, who knows, we may all learn
>something new.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jack W0UCE
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
>Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
>Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
>


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>