Posted by wmbjk on February 21, 2007, 9:42 am
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:23:44 -0500, "Solar Flare"
>It is not the balance that is the problem.
Balance is a serious problem Gymmy Bob. Have you ever tried raising a
30' long tower without equipment? No matter how he does it, a gin pole
is recommended, and a counterweight is a natural fit on the end of the
gin pole.
> It is the side force. A
>windsock does not have even the same magnitude of side pressuref from
>the wind that a wind turbine does.
That windsock is on 2" pipe, and the OP plans 3". Plus, I already
described successful Air installation on poles more spindly than he
has in mind.
> I suspect you will end up with a
>damaged bent mast when you are done with those lighter pipes.
I "suspect" that you don't have any experience building towers. And I
can pretty much guarantee that as usual, you'll fail to contribute a
single useful idea to the thread.
Wayne
Posted by Solar Flare on February 21, 2007, 9:37 pm
Once again you only add confusion and trolling to the thread.
Read the OP's sizes again and think this time.
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:23:44 -0500, "Solar Flare"
>>It is not the balance that is the problem.
> Balance is a serious problem Gymmy Bob. Have you ever tried raising
> a
> 30' long tower without equipment? No matter how he does it, a gin
> pole
> is recommended, and a counterweight is a natural fit on the end of
> the
> gin pole.
>> It is the side force. A
>>windsock does not have even the same magnitude of side pressuref
>>from
>>the wind that a wind turbine does.
> That windsock is on 2" pipe, and the OP plans 3". Plus, I already
> described successful Air installation on poles more spindly than he
> has in mind.
>> I suspect you will end up with a
>>damaged bent mast when you are done with those lighter pipes.
> I "suspect" that you don't have any experience building towers. And
> I
> can pretty much guarantee that as usual, you'll fail to contribute a
> single useful idea to the thread.
> Wayne
>
Posted by wmbjk on February 21, 2007, 9:38 am
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:12:43 -0800, 'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
>wmbjk said the following on 2/20/2007 4:43 PM:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:42:31 -0800, 'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
>>
>>> I have an Air 303 wind turbine. Still working fine. My issue is it is
>>> not high enough. It's only 15' off the ground although we are a few
>>> hundred feet off the valley floor on the side of a mountain and have
>>> decent wind flow. The actual "good" wind stream is about 15' higher. I
>>> plan to build a single pole tower of nested/stacked sched 40 steel pipe
>>> with a pivot arrangement at the bottom. The bottom will start at 3" and
>>> end up at the required 1.5 inch pipe. 3 to 2.5 to 2 to 1.5. I am
>>> looking for information on lateral forces I may encounter so I make sure
>>> I have enough concrete at the bottom and a stiff enough pole that will
>>> hold up to the gusts. My current thinking is a 15' section of sched 40
>>> 1.5 inch as the last step with the remaining steps in 5' sections.
>>> Overlaps at the welds will be 1.5 feet. I'm looking at about 800 lbs of
>>> concrete for the base set 5 feet deep. I have a C band satellite dish
>>> that has not moved in 12 years with this amount of weight at the base
>>> and a huge surface area even though it is mesh. Do you have any pointers
>>> to tech/engineering data that might help and what do you think of the plan?
>>>
>>> Any help appreciated
>>>
>>> Kirk
>>
>> A 303 is a pretty light load, I've seen quite a few on un-guyed towers
>> of 20 -30', most of lighter construction than you have in mind. Your
>> plan sounds fine to me, although I'd probably simplify it with fewer
>> steps in the pole. I posted some info previously that might give you
>> an additional data point - "Here's a photo of a similarly constructed
>> windsock tower.
>> http://citlink.net/~wmbjk/images/windsock.JPG Sock is 18"X96", pole is
>> close to 30' tall. It only bends a little in a stiff wind. The brace
>> at the bottom doesn't hold anything up, it's attached to a
>> counterweight so that I can raise and lower the pole by myself.
>> Concrete is about 18" in diameter, 36" deep. I dug most of the hole
>> using a powered chisel, which should give you some idea of the ground
>> hardness."
>>
>> Wayne
>Hadn't thought of a counter weight. Using that my plan should work fine
>with some changes in the steps. I'll stick with the overkill on the
>concrete since we have some wet spring thaws. Thanks!
My original plan was to use a chain as a link between the
counterweight end and the tower. That way the tower could lower
perhaps 30% of the way before picking up the counterweight, and more
of the effect of the counterweight would be available when the tower
was in the lowered position. But since the windsock is mounted on a
10% slope, folds uphill, and is lowered onto a crutch, the
counterweight worked well enough with a fixed link. It's a bear to get
the tower started down, but after that it's easy to handle. If you're
on level ground, you might use the chain, and perhaps even dig a pit
for the counterweight to maximize its effective range. What are you
planning to use for hoisting power?
Wayne
Posted by 'Captain' Kirk DeHaan on February 21, 2007, 9:55 am
wmbjk said the following on 2/21/2007 6:38 AM:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:12:43 -0800, 'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
>
>> wmbjk said the following on 2/20/2007 4:43 PM:
>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:42:31 -0800, 'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
>>>
>>>> I have an Air 303 wind turbine. Still working fine. My issue is it is
>>>> not high enough. It's only 15' off the ground although we are a few
>>>> hundred feet off the valley floor on the side of a mountain and have
>>>> decent wind flow. The actual "good" wind stream is about 15' higher. I
>>>> plan to build a single pole tower of nested/stacked sched 40 steel pipe
>>>> with a pivot arrangement at the bottom. The bottom will start at 3" and
>>>> end up at the required 1.5 inch pipe. 3 to 2.5 to 2 to 1.5. I am
>>>> looking for information on lateral forces I may encounter so I make sure
>>>> I have enough concrete at the bottom and a stiff enough pole that will
>>>> hold up to the gusts. My current thinking is a 15' section of sched 40
>>>> 1.5 inch as the last step with the remaining steps in 5' sections.
>>>> Overlaps at the welds will be 1.5 feet. I'm looking at about 800 lbs of
>>>> concrete for the base set 5 feet deep. I have a C band satellite dish
>>>> that has not moved in 12 years with this amount of weight at the base
>>>> and a huge surface area even though it is mesh. Do you have any pointers
>>>> to tech/engineering data that might help and what do you think of the plan?
>>>>
>>>> Any help appreciated
>>>>
>>>> Kirk
>>> A 303 is a pretty light load, I've seen quite a few on un-guyed towers
>>> of 20 -30', most of lighter construction than you have in mind. Your
>>> plan sounds fine to me, although I'd probably simplify it with fewer
>>> steps in the pole. I posted some info previously that might give you
>>> an additional data point - "Here's a photo of a similarly constructed
>>> windsock tower.
>>> http://citlink.net/~wmbjk/images/windsock.JPG Sock is 18"X96", pole is
>>> close to 30' tall. It only bends a little in a stiff wind. The brace
>>> at the bottom doesn't hold anything up, it's attached to a
>>> counterweight so that I can raise and lower the pole by myself.
>>> Concrete is about 18" in diameter, 36" deep. I dug most of the hole
>>> using a powered chisel, which should give you some idea of the ground
>>> hardness."
>>>
>>> Wayne
>> Hadn't thought of a counter weight. Using that my plan should work fine
>> with some changes in the steps. I'll stick with the overkill on the
>> concrete since we have some wet spring thaws. Thanks!
>
> My original plan was to use a chain as a link between the
> counterweight end and the tower. That way the tower could lower
> perhaps 30% of the way before picking up the counterweight, and more
> of the effect of the counterweight would be available when the tower
> was in the lowered position. But since the windsock is mounted on a
> 10% slope, folds uphill, and is lowered onto a crutch, the
> counterweight worked well enough with a fixed link. It's a bear to get
> the tower started down, but after that it's easy to handle. If you're
> on level ground, you might use the chain, and perhaps even dig a pit
> for the counterweight to maximize its effective range. What are you
> planning to use for hoisting power?
>
> Wayne
My original plan was to use a gin pole with the winch from my ATV with
the ATV anchored to a car or truck for "ballast".
--
Kirk
"Screw the planes, take a train", Me
Posted by wmbjk on February 21, 2007, 7:19 pm
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:55:25 -0800, 'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
>My original plan was to use a gin pole with the winch from my ATV with
>the ATV anchored to a car or truck for "ballast".
Excellent. Your tapered pole already has a low-as-possible cg. If you
limit the lift so that the turbine starts off at say, 5' off the
ground (still a convenient enough work height), and use a
counterweight to help with the initial lift, then you should be able
to hoist the tower *without* a normal gin pole. The counterweight arm
can be shorter and lighter than a gin pole need be, and would
eliminate the need for a pulley. The ATV's front wheels might come off
the ground a little part-way through the lift, but that shouldn't
hurt. Just make sure to have the winch cable wind and unwind neatly so
that it doesn't jerk under load. I helped a friend hoist a well pump a
few weeks ago with a $35 ATV winch (1/8" cable). Heaviest lift was
perhaps 400lbs, and it worked pretty well except for some jerking. We
should have pulled all the cable off the winch and rewound it neatly
before starting. Back to your tower... you might make part of it
telescoping. If everything works out OK at 30', you could extend it
another 5 or 10 feet.
Wayne
XML site map