|
New (?) tower design
|
Minnie Bannister wrote:
Anybody know anything about this one? http://www.onemantowers.com/index.html A self-supporting 50 foot tower in a 100 mph wind would have to have a pretty good foundation. Better obtain their foundation cost specs before buying the tower. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
All that I know about this particular tower is what I've
seen on the website given. I think raising the tower sections in this way is a pretty 'niffy' idea. As for the rest of the tower, it seems like just another 'square' tower with something like the 'hazer' added. Nothing wrong with it as far as I could see, but also not really anything 'special'. As Cecil said, any 'free standing' tower needs to have a very good (and large) base under it. Of course, that depends a lot on the type of soil it's in, but compared to a guyed tower in the same 'dirt', get ready for a suprise when you find out just how big that base has to be (then hang on to your wallet). I think the 'unsafe' guys in the advertising is a bit much. Sure, guys are not something to play on/around, and you do have to pay attention so that you don't 'clothes line' your self, but are they as 'unsafe' as implied? I doubt it. At least, not if they are done right. Can't say it isn't a nice tower, but I think you could do just as well with another brand at a much cheaper total price. Then again, I didn't see a price... 'Doc |
Minnie Bannister wrote: Anybody know anything about this one? http://www.onemantowers.com/index.html A self-supporting 50 foot tower in a 100 mph wind would have to have a pretty good foundation. Better obtain their foundation cost specs before buying the tower. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Yea, allow about 6 to 10 yards of concrete for starters. Not sure how big of a hole that would take right off in dimensions. |
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:34:34 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote: Minnie Bannister wrote: Anybody know anything about this one? http://www.onemantowers.com/index.html A self-supporting 50 foot tower in a 100 mph wind would have to have a pretty good foundation. Better obtain their foundation cost specs before buying the tower. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Yea, allow about 6 to 10 yards of concrete for starters. Not sure how big of a hole that would take right off in dimensions. That's in the ballpark of a small concrete house foundation, isn't it? That would be 162 cu ft (for 6 yards of concrete) or 10 x 10 x 1.6 ft, or 6 x 6 x 4.5 ft. For reference, 10 yards is the typical capacity of a cement mixer truck. For any project, you need to look at the total cost of installation and all components, not just the primary component. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) ------------------------------------------------ at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:33:38 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote: As you have shown there are many ways to pour the material . I am sure the tower maker has their recommendations. I doubt it would do much good to have it only 1.5 feet deep and 10 feet wide. I would think it would be poured in more of a cubic form but deeper than it is wide. Also there is all the rebar to install correctly and if it is like some Rohn tower there is a specification of some rocks and sand at the bottom of the hole. Towers are not somthing youjust stick up and hope for the best. Agreed, it is not something to make up as you go along. You should have something designed by a civil engineer, including off-the-shelf designs. This would simplify getting a building permit, especially if your town engineer is unfamiliar with antenna towers. Might make your next-door neighbor happier, too. This includes how the bedding under the foundation is handled. Adjustment for frostline in your area is needed as well. A non-guyed tower is especially dependent on the strength of its foundation, and if you do the math of the windload leveraged from the top of the tower, some rather impressive forces are generated. The rebar needs to be tied together both physically and electrically, and thought needs to be given to grounding, both for lightning/short circuits and for a radio counterpoise. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) ------------------------------------------------ at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
Yea, allow about 6 to 10 yards of concrete for starters. Not sure how big of a hole that would take right off in dimensions. That's in the ballpark of a small concrete house foundation, isn't it? That would be 162 cu ft (for 6 yards of concrete) or 10 x 10 x 1.6 ft, or 6 x 6 x 4.5 ft. For reference, 10 yards is the typical capacity of a cement mixer truck. For any project, you need to look at the total cost of installation and all components, not just the primary component. As you have shown there are many ways to pour the material . I am sure the tower maker has their recommendations. I doubt it would do much good to have it only 1.5 feet deep and 10 feet wide. I would think it would be poured in more of a cubic form but deeper than it is wide. Also there is all the rebar to install correctly and if it is like some Rohn tower there is a specification of some rocks and sand at the bottom of the hole. Towers are not somthing youjust stick up and hope for the best. |
Just as an example, US Tower specifies a concrete slab of 4 x 4 x 7 for
their 72 foot self supporting crank up. Looking at their chart, the depth is always more than the width.. Their spec is for 50 mph. So, for 100 mph, the 4x4x7 would be good for around 35 - 40 feet of tower. Tam/WB2TT "Ralph Mowery" wrote in message ... Yea, allow about 6 to 10 yards of concrete for starters. Not sure how big of a hole that would take right off in dimensions. That's in the ballpark of a small concrete house foundation, isn't it? That would be 162 cu ft (for 6 yards of concrete) or 10 x 10 x 1.6 ft, or 6 x 6 x 4.5 ft. For reference, 10 yards is the typical capacity of a cement mixer truck. For any project, you need to look at the total cost of installation and all components, not just the primary component. As you have shown there are many ways to pour the material . I am sure the tower maker has their recommendations. I doubt it would do much good to have it only 1.5 feet deep and 10 feet wide. I would think it would be poured in more of a cubic form but deeper than it is wide. Also there is all the rebar to install correctly and if it is like some Rohn tower there is a specification of some rocks and sand at the bottom of the hole. Towers are not somthing youjust stick up and hope for the best. |
Looks like they just have "built-in" gin or or is jin pole capability.
Seems like you could do the same thing with a triangular section tower. Looks neat, though. Pretty husky too...however... I wonder about the fact that there is no diagonal bracing. The horiz bracing is quite heavy looking, but it looks like one giant parallelogram to me. What would 'ole Octave Chanute say? -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. "Minnie Bannister" wrote in message ... Anybody know anything about this one? http://www.onemantowers.com/index.html Alan AB2OS |
"'Doc" wrote in message ... All that I know about this particular tower is what I've seen on the website given. I think raising the tower sections in this way is a pretty 'niffy' idea. As for the rest of the tower, it seems like just another 'square' tower with something like the 'hazer' added. Nothing wrong with it as far as I could see, but also not really anything 'special'. The one thing I don't like about it... I don't see any triangles, anywhere. All square construction. This causes it to rely on the material, rather than the design, for strength. Self-supporting towers should taper... is this not obvious? __ Steve KI5YG .. |
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:33:38 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote: Yea, allow about 6 to 10 yards of concrete for starters. Not sure how big of a hole that would take right off in dimensions. That's in the ballpark of a small concrete house foundation, isn't it? That would be 162 cu ft (for 6 yards of concrete) or 10 x 10 x 1.6 ft, or 6 x 6 x 4.5 ft. For reference, 10 yards is the typical capacity of a cement mixer truck. For any project, you need to look at the total cost of installation and all components, not just the primary component. I figure I have as much invested in concrete as I do in the tower and mine is guyed. http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/tower.htm As you have shown there are many ways to pour the material . I am sure the tower maker has their recommendations. I doubt it would do much good to have it only 1.5 feet deep and 10 feet wide. I would think it would be Although it's not normally recommended to go that way, the weight is the stabilizing factor to be considered. poured in more of a cubic form but deeper than it is wide. Also there is A cube is normally fine, but still, there are zoning restrictions and the engineering standards by which to abide. With ROHN they come right out and give you the specs. Disclaimer: Do not use my calculations for anything other than an examples. Refer to the specific pages in the ROHN catalog for actual requirements. Going over the catalog they list the base for a free standing ROHN 45-G as requiring 4.1 yards of concrete. That makes the assumption the builder will strictly adherer to the ROHN Specs and maximum wind loading. Based on the 45 G specs the concrete base will be 5'3" on a side, or for a ball park figure that is 27.5 sq ft. A cubic yard is 3 X 3 X 3 or 27 cubic feet. Sooo... we can figure *roughly* with a base of those dimensions, each foot of depth equals one yard of concrete. Then the base would be 4 feet deep and 5' 3" square. BUT the 45 G is limited to only 11.4 sq ft of wind load at 45 feet when free standing with a 70 MPH wind limitation and no ice. (certainly they do have a healthy safety factor built into those calculations. Using the same calculations for a 65-G results in 8.9 cubic yards of concrete and *roughly* 65 feet for an 11 sq ft wind load at 70 MPH and no ice. This tower base is 7' 9" square, or 60 cubic feet for each foot of depth. That is 2.2 cubic yards. So, 8.0/2.2 surprise 4 feet deep again. It turns out, in my guyed installation I also happened to have about 9 yards of concrete. 1.5 yards at the base and the rest evenly divided between the guy anchors. I used slightly more concrete than required in the base. On thing emphasized by ROHN is there will be *no* welding of the reinforcements/rerod in the concrete. All the reinforcements are free floating. They have a whole set of specifications on those as well. all the rebar to install correctly and if it is like some Rohn tower there is a specification of some rocks and sand at the bottom of the hole. 6 inches of compacted sand and gravel for a drainage bed. There is also a specification as to the soil in the sides of the hole and requires soil samples to verify the soil is strong enough to meet their specs. Otherwise more concrete is required and I don't have the figures for that. Towers are not somthing youjust stick up and hope for the best. At least nothing more than a small TV antenna tower installation. This is probably the main reason the insurance companies don't want to see towers bracketed to the end of a house, or to the eves. My insurance carrier was willing to insure mine as long as there was no direct connection to the house. (coax doesn't count) Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:23:10 -0600, "Steve Nosko"
wrote: Looks like they just have "built-in" gin or or is jin pole capability. That was my impression. Kind of a nifty feature, but I'm not so sure about the rest. I don't really like the idea of using square tubing and no diagonals. Seems like you could do the same thing with a triangular section tower. You can. Looks neat, though. Pretty husky too...however... I'd have to see the data on the tubing and the quality of the welding. I wonder about the fact that there is no diagonal bracing. The horiz I'd not be concerned about it as much in a guyed installation, but I'd kinda like to see then in a free standing tower. bracing is quite heavy looking, but it looks like one giant parallelogram to me. I'd also prefer to see a triangular tower cross section. As you say it looks like a giant parallelogram in 3 dimensions. It may be plenty strong, but "I'd think" the box cross section would be more susceptible (less resistant) to torque than a triangular one. What would 'ole Octave Chanute say? Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
That's interesting! A guy on the TowerTalk discussion group said that
his insurance co. insisted that his AN Wireless tower must be attached to the house. Alan AB2OS On 01/27/04 09:32 pm Roger Halstead put fingers to keyboard and launched the following message into cyberspace: Towers are not somthing youjust stick up and hope for the best. At least nothing more than a small TV antenna tower installation. This is probably the main reason the insurance companies don't want to see towers bracketed to the end of a house, or to the eves. My insurance carrier was willing to insure mine as long as there was no direct connection to the house. (coax doesn't count) |
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:26:35 -0500, Minnie Bannister
wrote: That's interesting! A guy on the TowerTalk discussion group said that his insurance co. insisted that his AN Wireless tower must be attached to the house. I find that surprising as my current home owners policy (State Farm) and the previous company (who I can't remember right now) were very specific. It attaches to the house and they wouldn't insure it. I signed up for tower talk, but it was a long time back. Now if I can only remember how to get there... Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Alan AB2OS On 01/27/04 09:32 pm Roger Halstead put fingers to keyboard and launched the following message into cyberspace: Towers are not somthing youjust stick up and hope for the best. At least nothing more than a small TV antenna tower installation. This is probably the main reason the insurance companies don't want to see towers bracketed to the end of a house, or to the eves. My insurance carrier was willing to insure mine as long as there was no direct connection to the house. (coax doesn't count) |
..
I find that surprising as my current home owners policy (State Farm) and the previous company (who I can't remember right now) were very specific. It attaches to the house and they wouldn't insure it. That is what my State Farm agent found out. I have cars with them and decided to insure the house. They turned me down because the 40 foot tower was attached to the house. I hope to try again when I move soon and see what hapens with a tower that is not attached. |
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:37:48 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote: . I find that surprising as my current home owners policy (State Farm) and the previous company (who I can't remember right now) were very specific. It attaches to the house and they wouldn't insure it. That is what my State Farm agent found out. I have cars with them and decided to insure the house. They turned me down because the 40 foot tower was attached to the house. I hope to try again when I move soon and see what hapens with a tower that is not attached. My wife tells me we are now insured with Auto Owner's, but it's still the same. They didn't want the tower attached. It could be within 6 inches of the house as long as it was not mechanically attached. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com