North Dakota tower

[Bob DeMattia]

We were travelling through that area a few years ago (about the time of the
bridge
collapse in Minneapolis, in fact we had gone over that bridge not two days
earlier.
When we hit the Dakota's, we were in the middle of the wildest thunderstorm
system I'd ever experiences.  Strong gusty winds, hail, it looked like
midnight
at 3 in the afternoon.  If our "sample" of the weather out there is typical
I commend
the tower engineers for designing such a sturdy structure.

-Bob


On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Dan.Strassberg <dan.strassberg@att.net>wrote:

> Maybe I don't understand--easily possible; although I am an engineer,
> I am certainly not a structural engineer. But it seems to me that, as
> long as the ratio of height to cross-section of the entire tower as
> well as the ratio of the length to cross-sectional area of the
> individual structural members and guy cables were held constant, it
> appears to me that the tower would be just as strong as a shorter
> tower having comparable dimensional ratios. The taller tower would be
> much heavier than a shorter one with the same dimensional ratios
> (wouldn't the weight increase in proportion to the cube of the linear
> dimension?), so it would require a much sturdier foundation. Maybe
> the forces that would bring the taller tower down do not scale
> linerarly with the dimensional ratios, but it is not obvious to me why
> they wouldn't. So if you can explain, I would be appreciative.
>
> -----
> Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
> eFax 1-707-215-6367
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Doherty" <dave@skywaves.net>
> To: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org>; "Scott Fybush"
> <scott@fybush.com>
> Cc: <boston-radio-interest@BostonRadio.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 4:02 PM
> Subject: Re: North Dakota tower
>
>
>
>> I don't think there are any standing uniform guyed steel towers
>> anywhere that are much higher than 2063'.  When they get that big,
>> all it takes is some ice, and maybe a breeze.
>>
>>
>