Larry,
I was required, in order to get the tower permit, to provide "adequate
protection of the tower for unauthorized access". I put together three panels,
four (5) feet long. The cross piece, that holds the 4 foot long wood piece
(4"x1") together "hangs" on the screws that are attached to the tower legs. I
drilled holes in the cross members at a distance so the cross members are
lightly press the devise onto the tower legs. When I need access I simply
remove two screws, upper and lower, open the panel like a door and start
climbing.
There are no parts
I think it is picture #38 that show the anticlimb devise. As you can see, it
starts at 4 feet above the curb and reach 9 feet, too high to react over.
If you need more detailed pictures, write me back and I will send them directly
to you.
Best 73 de,
Hans - N2JFS
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Loen <lwloen@gmail.com>
To: TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 12:39 pm
Subject: [TowerTalk] [Tower Talk] Anti-climbing technology
As some may remember, I have a remote shack. I'm not there a lot,
obviously. So, the site has to basically "protect itself" when I'm not
there.
Accordingly, compared to some here, I have to seriously consider some sort
of anti-climbing technology for my tower.
I should have done this lone since, but I see a lot of problems:
1. I am having trouble finding vendors that make anti-climbing panels. A
vendor I've worked with on other things, emailed me and admitted he's
stopped making them -- too custom apparently to bother with. They would
have to resist removal without interfering with tower raising and lowering
-- a neat trick.
2. Another contractor I've worked with suggested I surround the tower with
cement block, festooned with wrought iron points on top. That would work
pretty well, except it is very expensive and it would have to be designed
carefully not to interfere with my tower tilt-over and my NN4ZZ tilt
plate. And, I'd have to have a big gate, making it a questionable
improvement overall compared to ordinary chain link fence which is probably
cheaper.
3. My Force 12 6BA already has tight tolerances when I tilt over; two of
the elements, on either side of it, barely clear the retracted tower's
triangle.
4. A wall that should be about 8 feet high plus spikes also has to be
wholly outside of the tilt over "foot print" as it lowers in 3 dimensions,
including the antenna tilting.
5. A European technology I've seen might actually be a better solution, if
I could find it. It basically would be a series of downward sloping spikes
that one would attach at, say, about 11 feet up and so be something the
erstwhile climber could not get around. In my case, it would have to
include an open ring and basically be an extra standoff for the coax and
stuff. I like this idea, but I would have to get on a ladder to install it
and then take it down (see clearances above) before every tower lowering.
6. The other scheme I've dreamed up is chain link with really huge gates
that swing entirely out of the antenna "sight lines" on lowering.
Ideas on this?
Larry WO7R
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|