I have the small white insulators but not sure if they are 502's or if there
was a 501? I'd like bigger ones ...maybe if you can give me the dimensions
of your 504's I'd know. Mine are 2 1/4 long by 1 3/8 across. 73 JACK
----- Original Message -----
From: <towertalk-request@contesting.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 11:55 PM
Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 21, Issue 35
> Send TowerTalk mailing list submissions to
> towertalk@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@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> towertalk-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of TowerTalk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Wind power (Steve Katz)
> 2. Re: Fwd: [TowerTalk] (no subject) (Gary)
> 3. WTB: P-P #502 insulators (N9EN@VOYAGER.NET)
> 4. Defending Joel (Bill Aycock)
> 5. Apology re name. (Bill Aycock)
> 6. Re: Calculations (Alan C. Zack)
> 7. Re: Calculations (Alan C. Zack)
> 8. Control Cable protection (CubexCo@aol.com)
> 9. Re: Calculations (Jim Lux)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:47:50 -0700
> From: Steve Katz <stevek@jmr.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Wind power
> To: 'Blake Bowers' <bbowers@townsqr.com>, TOWERTALK@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <DC6063575EF1D4118C300050040D2E9301782A1F@mail.jmr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
>
>
> > Most of the wind turbine fields are still experimental, and very
> > little money is being expended in most areas.
> >
> > //Might be true, but it's a major source of power and revenue here in
> > California. Most of the Palm Springs - Palm Desert grid is wind turbine
> > powered; ditto goes for Tehachapi, Livermore and lots of other places.
> > One thing these have in common is that they're all in CA, and the other
is
> > they're all windy! -WB2WIK/6
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:22:09 -0600
> From: Gary <mcduffie@actcom.net>
> Subject: Re: Fwd: [TowerTalk] (no subject)
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <lqack01h4dndbm88rhg62577boil7ivud7@4ax.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:08:54 -0500, Michael Urich wrote:
>
> > And LOUD ... yes those things can be quite noisy on a windy day.
>
> Wow...I wonder if this is a type-specific problem. I've stood in the
> middle of a hilltop with 7 of them on it and they don't make much noise
> at all.
>
> Gary
>
> --
> ag0n at arrl dot net
> http colon slash slash garymcduffie dot com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:30:59 -0500
> From: "N9EN@VOYAGER.NET" <n9en@voyager.net>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] WTB: P-P #502 insulators
> To: "TOWERTALK" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <000601c499f2$354583a0$7d4dcfa9@net>
>
> Hello T-Ters,
>
> I was wondering if anyone might have 6 or 9 of the small
> Porcelain Products brand #502 guy strain insulators that
> they might want to sell? Or, if you have some of these and
> are in need of the larger #504 insulators, maybe we could
> work out some kind of a trade, as I have quite a few of
> the #504 units. I also have some of the even larger #506
> insulators, in case anyone is in need of that model.
>
> Thanks for reading this!
>
> 73 de Brad, N9EN @ Radio Free Roscoe (IL) [tm]...
>
> E-Mail: n9en@voyager.net
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:24:48 -0500
> From: Bill Aycock <baycock@direcway.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Defending Joel
> To: Towertalk@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20040913200657.01eb1cf8@pop3.direcway.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> I have followed the thread started when Joel asked (Specifically!) for
> advice re his control cable and box. Almost all the posts before his later
> request covered almost every lightning related subject EXCEPT rotor
cables.
> Single point ground methods, virtues of "arrestors", anecdotes about Coax
> arcing, etc, were there in full force. However, except for the reference
> repeated posts, many of the posts did not even mention rotors or their
> cables. Only after he re-posted did specific mention of Polyphasor and ICE
> devices made FOR rotor cables show up.
> I, also was beginning to wonder if the subject line did not need changing.
> However, at least two pertinent posts did show up, after his last post.
> TT is great, but it does wander, at times. The wandering does provide a
> generous education, but when you have a specific problem, the wandering
> does not help.
>
> Bill Aycock - W4BSG
> Woodville, Alabama
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:28:25 -0500
> From: Bill Aycock <baycock@direcway.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Apology re name.
> To: Towertalk@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20040913202532.01eb7cc0@pop3.direcway.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> I am sorry I said "Joel", not "Noel". With this long thread, the origin
> post line was off the top of the page. That is a poor excuse, but --
there
> it is!
> Bill
>
> Bill Aycock - W4BSG
> Woodville, Alabama
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:53:47 -0700
> From: "Alan C. Zack" <k7acz@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Calculations
> To: WarrenWolff@aol.com, towertalk@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <41465D3B.7020102@cox.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> And why does a major tower manufacturer stick to outdated UBC-97 50
> and 70 MPH wind calcs rather than the newer IBC-2000 specs. UST did
> send me a nice set of drawings based on UBC-97 that my Bldg Dept said
> were great IF they were based on IBC-2000 instead. I suppose some
> hams will order and install the towers without a Bldg Permit or some
> Bldg Depts still accept the UBC-97 specs, but why can't they provide
> what the Bldg Dept requires?
> Even my local AES store tried to get the IBC-2000 specs for me and
> were also unsuccessful.
>
> WarrenWolff@aol.com wrote:
>
> > And once a fellow gets a set of 90 MPH calculations for $250 or so,
why, o'
> > why should any future sales of the same calculations cost the next
fellow the
> > same $250? The non-recurring cost should be minimal; right?
> >
> > Warren
> > W5KKW
>
>
> --
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> Alan Zack
> Amateur Radio Station K7ACZ
> Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
> Quality Engineer, The Boeing Company, Retired
> Aviation Chief Warrant Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Retired
> U.S. Coast Guard, Always Ready, Always There
> Every hour, Every day, Around the Clock and Around the World
> SEMPER PARATUS
> http://gocoastguard.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:24:01 -0700
> From: "Alan C. Zack" <k7acz@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Calculations
> To: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
> Cc: towertalk@contesting.com, WarrenWolff@aol.com
> Message-ID: <41466451.5090005@cox.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Having had just gone through this process I have the following comments:
> I agree the $250.00 charge seems reasonable as the P.E. has to take
> the manufacturer's drawings and calculate the wind loads, etc, from
> them. What I received was two sets of nine pages of very complicated
> calculations. I have a E.E. degree and an I.E. degree but don't fully
> understand what is contained in the calcs. They are based on the
> IBC-2000 Bldg code using UBC 1618 wind loads. The first and last
> pages have the wet stamp by the P.E. I had thought the Bldg Inspector
> might have kept them for awhile and looked them over before approving
> them but the first guy who I had been dealing with said they looked
> good, called over his supervisor who had previously explained to me
> what I needed, who also approved them. They kept one of the two sets
> and gave me the other set with a stamp on each page showing approved
> for construction. I have to have this set available for the field
> inspector when he comes out to see the hole and rebar before the
> concrete is poured and again for the final approval.
> I would disagree on the cost of the shipping of the drawings. It was
> included in the price of the calcs and were sent in one of those USPO
> Priority Mail flat rate envelopes for $3.25 that I received in about
> two days.
> I agree that the P.E. should be paid a reasonable fee for his services
> but what is wrong with the tower manufacturer paying for it and
> getting the rights to be able to provide the drawings to customers
> when required? There is a copyright notice on the drawings but it is
> held by the tower manufacturer, not the P.E., so it seems the drawings
> are the property of the manufacturer.
>
> Jim Lux wrote:
>
> > I'm sure you meant "recurring costs should be minimal"...
> >
> > It depends on how the company getting the calculations contracted with
the
> > engineer.
> >
> > Most building departments want a "wet-stamped" set of calculations,
which
> > implies that the engineer has reviewed the calculations for that
specific
> > installation and so forth. This "individual review" would be both
legally
> > and ethically required. The engineer is responsible for also knowing the
> > local peculiarities of the code, etc. Just to put $250 into perspective,
> > that's probably around 2-3 hours of the engineer's time, plus all the
> > incidental costs involved. (does the $250 include shipping the drawings,
for
> > instance.. that's $25 right there)
> >
> > Indeed, the incremental cost for an engineer to "review" the
calculations
> > might be less than the first time, but bear in mind that's probably what
the
> > engineer is doing the first time. That is, the $250 pays for the
licensed
> > engineer to review the calculations provided by the manufacturer. I'm
not a
> > tower designer, so if someone just brought me all the drawings for the
> > tower, it would cost a lot more than $250 to do all the calculations
from
> > scratch. You'd have to look up the material properties of the parts the
mfr
> > used, check the drawings for the kinds of welds and bolts, etc. Someone
who
> > designs towers and similar structures for a living would have all this
> > information at their fingertips, and would know at a glance if the mfr
is
> > using a "generally accepted industry practice" so the strutctural
analysis
> > they'd be reviewing would be fairly cookbook.A "skilled practitioner"
would
> > know where the trouble points might be and home in on those.
> >
> >
> > All in all, $250 is very reasonable for this kind of professional
review.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <WarrenWolff@aol.com>
> > To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 12:58 AM
> > Subject: [TowerTalk] Calculations
> >
> >
> >
> >>And once a fellow gets a set of 90 MPH calculations for $250 or so,
why,
> >
> > o'
> >
> >>why should any future sales of the same calculations cost the next
fellow
> >
> > the
> >
> >>same $250? The non-recurring cost should be minimal; right?
> >>
> >>Warren
> >>W5KKW
> >>_______________________________________________
>
> --
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> Alan Zack
> Amateur Radio Station K7ACZ
> Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
> Quality Engineer, The Boeing Company, Retired
> Aviation Chief Warrant Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Retired
> U.S. Coast Guard, Always Ready, Always There
> Every hour, Every day, Around the Clock and Around the World
> SEMPER PARATUS
> http://gocoastguard.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:39:51 EDT
> From: CubexCo@aol.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Control Cable protection
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <77.339d16d0.2e77c207@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> excerpts of comments on the subject -
> --------------------------------------------
> I am quite sure that you cannot easily manufacture the required
> grounding blocs yourself????
> ----------------
> Affraid if you are not going to set-up a production line, you even wont
> find the different elements needed in small qnt.
> ( And if.......At what price ?....)
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> I was surprised to see the range of comments and particularly to two above
> regarding the problem of lightning protection for rotor control cables.
Clearly
> they must be protected, and there are at least two commercial sources
> manufacturing packages that handle up to 8 conductors. But there are
alternative
> solutions that permit some customization as well.
>
> My problem for rotator control was protecting the 9 lines for DC power and
> direction indication. Using 110volt selsyns for direction indication was
a
> problem for the standard commercial products as they are limited to the
lower
> voltage of most rotators - I think the peak voltage was less then 80volts.
Okay
> for 24 vac sources, but not higher voltage.
>
> The first thing to do is find out what the commercial guys use to make
their
> devices. Disassembly of one revealed low inductance ground strip foil,
and
> short leaded devices looking like disc capacitors. These turned out to be
> radial lead Varistors. Checking one of the components sources (Jameco) a
whole
> series of varistors is listed with various voltage ratings and peak
current
> ratings. The cost is nominal less then $0.60 each in packs of 10. They
can be
> mixed allowing me to make 5 terminals for 110v and 4 for 24volts. The
housing
> may take a little creativity depending on the the requirements (indoor or
> outdoor). These devices can be added at both ends of the cable which
might be
> useful in protecting the intermal circuitry of the rotor itself.
>
> There usually is no "magic" in these types of electronic products, but
there
> are some rules. low inductance common ground termination for each device,
and
> short leads to the "hot" terminals. Good mechanical connections first,
then
> secure with solder. Of course the package has to be connected to a low
> inductance ground system as well. In my case it is the SPG entry to the
shack.
>
> Jameco also carrys a line of diecast boxes that work well for this
> application. www.jameco.com
>
> Regards,
> Norm W4QN
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:02:01 -0700
> From: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Calculations
> To: "Alan C. Zack" <k7acz@cox.net>, <WarrenWolff@aol.com>,
> <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <000901c49a0f$a685a5a0$32a8a8c0@LAPTOP152422>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Probably because most building departments don't require IBC-2000 yet.
Codes
> get revised every few years, but municipalities don't have to adopt them,
> and sometimes prefer to stay with the older code, since everyone is used
to
> it. For instance, Thousand Oaks, where I live, uses the California
Building
> code, 2001 Edition, which is based on UBC97. I would assume that most of
> California is the same. One should also bear in mind that folks doing a
LOT
> of construction, or who have significant development plans might agitate
for
> a change in codes in a locality to make their life easier. Since you're in
> the Las Vegas area, where there's a lot of new residential development,
and
> some pretty significant resort/hotel development as well, maybe one of the
> developers likes the particular provisions of the other code, for what
> they're spending their millions of dollars on, and is willing to convince
> the city to go along.
>
> It would probably cost a fair amount for the mfr (several thousand $,
> perhaps) to update all the calculations, etc., and unless a majority of
> their customers want it, they're not going to invest the dollars. How
many
> towers does the mfr sell in a year? How many of a particular model
(because
> the calculations are model specific)? Say they sell one tower of a given
> type a week (50 a year) at $2000 a crack, retail. They actually only
> probably get $1500 or so wholesale for the tower, so they're making around
> $150 profit on each one. Call it $7500 total profit on that model for a
> year. Say it takes an engineer a week to do all the calculations. That's
> about $3000-$4000 (by the time you count the benefits, burden, taxes,
etc.).
> It's just not worth it for the company to blow half their profit margin on
a
> set of calculations that a small fraction of the customers need. They'll
> figure that those folks who really need it will fork out the bucks needed
to
> persuade their local building department. As far as the retailer being
able
> to get data where you can't, I would think it unlikely. If the mfr has
it,
> they'll supply it. If they don't, the retailer's probably not going to do
> any better than you, unless they can convince the mfr that they've got
> customers lined up to buy towers, if only the mfr had the calcs.
>
> So, in summary, it's just the economics of the situation. When it comes
to
> building regulations, hams are an anomaly, with little incentive on
> anybody's part to make life easier (at least not for free).
>
> Jim, W6RMK
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan C. Zack" <k7acz@cox.net>
> To: <WarrenWolff@aol.com>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 7:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Calculations
>
>
> > And why does a major tower manufacturer stick to outdated UBC-97 50
> > and 70 MPH wind calcs rather than the newer IBC-2000 specs. UST did
> > send me a nice set of drawings based on UBC-97 that my Bldg Dept said
> > were great IF they were based on IBC-2000 instead. I suppose some
> > hams will order and install the towers without a Bldg Permit or some
> > Bldg Depts still accept the UBC-97 specs, but why can't they provide
> > what the Bldg Dept requires?
> > Even my local AES store tried to get the IBC-2000 specs for me and
> > were also unsuccessful.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 21, Issue 35
> *****************************************
>
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|