On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 14:07:54 +0000, Dave wrote:

i have been on 50' of rohn 25 unguyed to take down a tribander.

Wow. You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. :-)

I actually wasn't planning on climbing it, rather planned on using one of
their hinge-over bases to raise and lower it when needed. I was thinking
of 40 feet, max.

To answer J's question... it's in a suburban setting on 2 acres of land,
and where the tower will be, if it fell over it would be all on my
property (i.e. no danger to neighbors or passersby). We're sufficiently
protected by trees such that only once in the 22 years I have lived here
have I seen winds of over about 40 MPH at below-the-treetops level (around
60-70 feet).

I have another Rohn 25G tower on the other end of the house that is
currently 40 feet, and I am in the process of adding another 10 feet for a
total of 50. It is guyed at the 30-foot level. I had to remove the top
section to add another 10-foot mid section, and now I'm in the process of
rasslin' the top section back into place (oh, so much fun). So, that'll
be 20 feet unguyed on top of 30 feet guyed. I'm trying to decide whether
I want to put a tribander on top of that or maybe get something light like
the Butternut Butterfly. I'm not a huge DX freak so don't really need a
full size multi-element 20-meter beam.

sorry, think again... no hinge bases allowed on free standing towers. those
are only for guyed or bracketed towers. free standing towers must embed the
base section in concrete.


"Rick (W-A-one-R-K-T)" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 14:07:54 +0000, Dave wrote:

i have been on 50' of rohn 25 unguyed to take down a tribander.

Wow. You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. :-)

I actually wasn't planning on climbing it, rather planned on using one of
their hinge-over bases to raise and lower it when needed. I was thinking
of 40 feet, max.

To answer J's question... it's in a suburban setting on 2 acres of land,
and where the tower will be, if it fell over it would be all on my
property (i.e. no danger to neighbors or passersby). We're sufficiently
protected by trees such that only once in the 22 years I have lived here
have I seen winds of over about 40 MPH at below-the-treetops level (around
60-70 feet).

I have another Rohn 25G tower on the other end of the house that is
currently 40 feet, and I am in the process of adding another 10 feet for a
total of 50. It is guyed at the 30-foot level. I had to remove the top
section to add another 10-foot mid section, and now I'm in the process of
rasslin' the top section back into place (oh, so much fun). So, that'll
be 20 feet unguyed on top of 30 feet guyed. I'm trying to decide whether
I want to put a tribander on top of that or maybe get something light like
the Butternut Butterfly. I'm not a huge DX freak so don't really need a
full size multi-element 20-meter beam.

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:58:42 +0000, Dave wrote:

sorry, think again... no hinge bases allowed on free standing towers.

Hmmm ... OK, I guess I will have to be able to climb it...

I suppose I could install temporary guys while I'm up on it doing antenna
work, but in that location permanent guying wouldn't work too well...

free standing towers must embed the base section in concrete.

How about the BPC25G base plate (non-hinged)?

I already have a concrete base in place, 6 feet deep, intended for the
predecessor to the US Tower MA-series crank-up mast. The mast (and the
base, and the tower on the other end of the house) belonged to my father
when he lived with us, but he sold the mast many years ago, and the new
ones are a bit too pricey for me right now.

So, it's too late to embed the bottom section directly into the concrete,
at least in that location.

Dear Rick WA1RHT:

You have received useful advice.

While you may not have seen serious wind nor serious ice, eventually
Conn. will see same.

Two sections above guys next to the house is pushing prudence. With a
clear area next to the proposed tower in the back, three sections with just
a VHF antenna seems reasonable in view of your description.

It is nice to see questions from actual radio amateurs who state their
call-sign. What was your father's call-sign? Good luck.

73, Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:
"Rick (W-A-one-R-K-T)" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:58:42 +0000, Dave wrote:

sorry, think again... no hinge bases allowed on free standing towers.

Hmmm ... OK, I guess I will have to be able to climb it...

I suppose I could install temporary guys while I'm up on it doing antenna
work, but in that location permanent guying wouldn't work too well...

free standing towers must embed the base section in concrete.

How about the BPC25G base plate (non-hinged)?

I already have a concrete base in place, 6 feet deep, intended for the
predecessor to the US Tower MA-series crank-up mast. The mast (and the
base, and the tower on the other end of the house) belonged to my father
when he lived with us, but he sold the mast many years ago, and the new
ones are a bit too pricey for me right now.

So, it's too late to embed the bottom section directly into the concrete,
at least in that location.

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:39:37 -0500, J. Mc Laughlin wrote:

What was your father's call-sign?

K4MH. He became a silent key about a year and a half ago.

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:39:37 -0500, J. Mc Laughlin wrote:

Dear Rick WA1RHT:... eventually Conn. will see same.

Ah, I see. I was wondering why the reference to Conn. :-)

It's actually RKT (in New Hampshire) not RHT.

The cryptic spelling in my From: line is an attempt to deter spammers, who
no doubt harvest this and other rec.radio.amateur forums for call signs,
add " to the end, and add them to their spam lists.

Of course any such attempt to deter spammers is likely doomed to failure
but I do the best I can... :-(

As for ice we actually do get ice from time to time here, but high winds
are rare.

Of course, all you need is once, I suppose...

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:52:04 -0400, "Rick (W-A-one-R-K-T)"
wrote:

my From: line is an attempt to deter spammers, who
no doubt harvest this and other rec.radio.amateur forums for call signs,

Hi Rick,

I've laid my return address out there bare for more than a dozen
years, and the amount of spam hardly compares to my other email
(professional and social) accounts (sometimes 40-60 in a day for them,
compared to one or two a month here).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:39:37 -0500, J. Mc Laughlin wrote:

Two sections above guys next to the house is pushing prudence. With a
clear area next to the proposed tower in the back, three sections with
just a VHF antenna seems reasonable in view of your description.

I'm curious why two sections above the guys, next to the house, is
marginal but three sections self-supporting out in the open seems OK.

Actually the three sections self-supporting would be as close to the house
on one end as the guyed tower is on the other end.

Perhaps the tribander on the guyed tower makes the difference, but in
truth I think the chances are fairly slim that I'll end up doing that. I
have two inverted vees and two NVIS dipoles, which together cover 160
through 40, which these days are the only HF bands that really hold my
interest... I never was much of a DX hound and with the Internet and
satellite phones, it doesn't seem like hardly anybody wants to pass any
traffic or run phone patches anymore. Perhaps when the sunspots get more
favorable I'll re-think the notion of the tribander but until then it's
probably pretty low on the priority list.

I have fifty feet of 25G standing next to a pole barn... It is
bracketed to the eve at ~14 feet and free standing above that... It
has a gaggle of vhf/uhf stuff on it... It has withstood 80mph wind
gusts... It is a bit loosey goosey when you are at the top so I pull
some light rope up there when I climb up, and cinch it off to stop the
sway...

denny / k8do

Dear Rick: Sorry to have received the call-sign incorrectly. Your
Father's call does not ring any bells.

The main reason for two sections above a house bracket is because of the
significantly greater probability of greater wind pressure on the two
sections compared to three sections that start at ground level. You also
expect to have more effective area for the greater wind pressure to work on.

I have become convinced that the reason few urban TV/FM antennas and
Rohn 20 (no cross braces) towers fail is because of a dramatic reduction in
wind pressure up to about 35 feet above ground in a typical urban
environment.

The real limitation (for you) may turn out to be due to the building
code used in your area. When the time comes to have a serious antenna tower
for HF, do find a professional engineer licensed in your State who's advice
about how to satisfy the building code and 222G will be worth every penny
you pay to him or her.

Warm regards, Mac N8TT

P.S. My neighbor K8DO still does things that give me the willies. Even
when I was young, I sure would not climb 50 feet of un-guyed Rohn 25.
Medical school instills rather more "confidence" than engineering schools
do.
--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:
"Rick (W-A-one-R-K-T)" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:39:37 -0500, J. Mc Laughlin wrote:

Two sections above guys next to the house is pushing prudence. With a
clear area next to the proposed tower in the back, three sections with
just a VHF antenna seems reasonable in view of your description.

I'm curious why two sections above the guys, next to the house, is
marginal but three sections self-supporting out in the open seems OK.

Actually the three sections self-supporting would be as close to the house
on one end as the guyed tower is on the other end.

Perhaps the tribander on the guyed tower makes the difference, but in
truth I think the chances are fairly slim that I'll end up doing that. I
have two inverted vees and two NVIS dipoles, which together cover 160
through 40, which these days are the only HF bands that really hold my
interest... I never was much of a DX hound and with the Internet and
satellite phones, it doesn't seem like hardly anybody wants to pass any
traffic or run phone patches anymore. Perhaps when the sunspots get more
favorable I'll re-think the notion of the tribander but until then it's
probably pretty low on the priority list.