Prev: In despriation and panic, Phildo resorts to libel.
Next: If a mic is or isn't a filter ?
From: Joe Kotroczo on 17 Jul 2008 16:20
On 17/07/08 21:28, in article i1Nfk.2819$jT6.1351(a)bignews5.bellsouth.net,
"jakdedert" <jakdedert(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:

(...)
>>
>> Over here we always use water ballasts. (Or whatever you call them in
>> English.) They are plastic water tanks with metal frames that you can move
>> with a forklift and weigh next to nothing when empty, and hold 1000 liters,
>> which translates into a metric ton when filled with water.
>>
>>
> Sounds like a good plan. I don't have any idea how to calculate the
> loads on the various guy wires that would result from wind loading on a
> roof of a given size (but I'm sure that Thomas knows). Likewise, I
> don't know if any formula exists for the load-bearing limits of an iron
> stake of given length driven into a particular type of soil...lots of
> variables: length, angle, type of soil, soil moisture content etc.
> Usually there are large iron stakes pounded into the ground (or asphalt,
> if the stage is on a parking lot). Usually they hold.
> Occasionally--like this time--they don't.

Uh-oh, stakes pounded into asphalt? I'm pretty sure that if one were to do
that over here, one would get presented with the bill for re-asphalting the
entire parking lot. It's a big no-no over here. That's why we have the
water-ballasts in the first place. Oh, and granite is a favourite for paving
town squares and such... ;-)

> However, one would have to infer that the same method was used on the
> much larger main stage; which causes me to wonder why it stayed, and the
> aux stages did not. Also, the plethora of tents on-site survived the
> same winds, with presumably the same type of anchorage.

I've seen mentioned that the main stage is a "permanent structure", a
"shed"? Dunno what that means...

And a tent, closed all around, is probably going to behave differently than
a stage with one side open. Incidentally, I remember the Germans discussion
to have a regulation where the side tarps rip off at a certain wind speed...
Don't know if that got anywhere.

> Water anchors would seem to eliminate most of the variables involved,
> the friction coefficient of the container on the particular surface it
> lay, being the only one left.

Well, the softer the ground gets, the more friction there is as the
container sinks slightly into the ground. So if you calculate for a hard
surface, you're safe on any surface.

> FWIW, the various power companies on this side of the Pond probably have
> extensive research data on the strength of iron pounded into the earth,
> as that is the primary method of guying transmission line support poles.
> the one in front of my house has two guys, one of them is slack; and
> the other was probably installed to back it up. It's obviously newer.....

That's not done over here, everything has concrete foundations if it's meant
to be permanent. Even the guys.

--
Joe Kotroczo kotroczo(a)mac.com

From: jakdedert on 17 Jul 2008 17:18
Joe Kotroczo wrote:
<snip for brevity>
>
> Uh-oh, stakes pounded into asphalt? I'm pretty sure that if one were to do
> that over here, one would get presented with the bill for re-asphalting the
> entire parking lot. It's a big no-no over here. That's why we have the
> water-ballasts in the first place. Oh, and granite is a favourite for paving
> town squares and such... ;-)
>
They always carry repair material to fill the holes, and it's the
expected method. We don't use so much stone for paving here.

>> However, one would have to infer that the same method was used on the
>> much larger main stage; which causes me to wonder why it stayed, and the
>> aux stages did not. Also, the plethora of tents on-site survived the
>> same winds, with presumably the same type of anchorage.
>
> I've seen mentioned that the main stage is a "permanent structure", a
> "shed"? Dunno what that means...
>
I didn't see that, and it would explain a lot.

> And a tent, closed all around, is probably going to behave differently than
> a stage with one side open. Incidentally, I remember the Germans discussion
> to have a regulation where the side tarps rip off at a certain wind speed...
> Don't know if that got anywhere.
>
That would seem to be counterproductive. Once the side curtains were
gone, the wind could get under the structure. Seems it would (like the
collapsed roofs) increase the danger of failure.

>> Water anchors would seem to eliminate most of the variables involved,
>> the friction coefficient of the container on the particular surface it
>> lay, being the only one left.
>
> Well, the softer the ground gets, the more friction there is as the
> container sinks slightly into the ground. So if you calculate for a hard
> surface, you're safe on any surface.
>
Wet grass is pretty slick. I don't know how far this thing would
sink...probably has some kind of anti-skid device on the bottom(?)

>> FWIW, the various power companies on this side of the Pond probably have
>> extensive research data on the strength of iron pounded into the earth,
>> as that is the primary method of guying transmission line support poles.
>> the one in front of my house has two guys, one of them is slack; and
>> the other was probably installed to back it up. It's obviously newer.....
>
> That's not done over here, everything has concrete foundations if it's meant
> to be permanent. Even the guys.
>

We have a lot more overhead wires than you do. Pouring concrete would
get to be uneconomic. But then, few poles come down. I've never seen
an anchor accidentally pulled up.

jak
From: Joe Kotroczo on 18 Jul 2008 09:25
On 17/07/08 23:18, in article JFOfk.2812$9V5.500(a)bignews6.bellsouth.net,
"jakdedert" <jakdedert(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Joe Kotroczo wrote:
> <snip for brevity>
>>
>> Uh-oh, stakes pounded into asphalt? I'm pretty sure that if one were to do
>> that over here, one would get presented with the bill for re-asphalting the
>> entire parking lot. It's a big no-no over here. That's why we have the
>> water-ballasts in the first place. Oh, and granite is a favourite for paving
>> town squares and such... ;-)
>>
> They always carry repair material to fill the holes, and it's the
> expected method. We don't use so much stone for paving here.

Even if one would repair the holes, the authorities would still get upset
about the "scars". It's all about appearances over here... :-(

(...)
>> And a tent, closed all around, is probably going to behave differently than
>> a stage with one side open. Incidentally, I remember the Germans discussion
>> to have a regulation where the side tarps rip off at a certain wind speed...
>> Don't know if that got anywhere.
>>
> That would seem to be counterproductive. Once the side curtains were
> gone, the wind could get under the structure. Seems it would (like the
> collapsed roofs) increase the danger of failure.

Like I said, I don't know if it got implemented or not, I just remember
there being a discussion.

>>> Water anchors would seem to eliminate most of the variables involved,
>>> the friction coefficient of the container on the particular surface it
>>> lay, being the only one left.
>>
>> Well, the softer the ground gets, the more friction there is as the
>> container sinks slightly into the ground. So if you calculate for a hard
>> surface, you're safe on any surface.
>>
> Wet grass is pretty slick. I don't know how far this thing would
> sink...probably has some kind of anti-skid device on the bottom(?)

Not as such, it's shaped like a pallet on the bottom, so you can move it
around with a forklift. It doesn't sink in very far, but it'll leave a
"footprint" on soft ground.

>>> FWIW, the various power companies on this side of the Pond probably have
>>> extensive research data on the strength of iron pounded into the earth,
>>> as that is the primary method of guying transmission line support poles.
>>> the one in front of my house has two guys, one of them is slack; and
>>> the other was probably installed to back it up. It's obviously newer.....
>>
>> That's not done over here, everything has concrete foundations if it's meant
>> to be permanent. Even the guys.
>>
> We have a lot more overhead wires than you do. Pouring concrete would
> get to be uneconomic. But then, few poles come down. I've never seen
> an anchor accidentally pulled up.

Yes, the only overhead wires we have a 20.000 Volt and higher. The guys I
mentioned belong to the antennas of a longwave transmitter. They are the
only guyed masts I can think of...


--
Joe Kotroczo kotroczo(a)mac.com

From: Eeyore on 18 Jul 2008 09:39


Joe Kotroczo wrote:

> Even if one would repair the holes, the authorities would still get upset
> about the "scars". It's all about appearances over here... :-(

When did you last see British roads and footpaths ? !

Graham

From: Joe Kotroczo on 18 Jul 2008 10:06
On 18/07/08 15:39, in article 48809D0A.59E89870(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore"
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

> Joe Kotroczo wrote:
>
>> Even if one would repair the holes, the authorities would still get upset
>> about the "scars". It's all about appearances over here... :-(
>
> When did you last see British roads and footpaths ? !

Hmm... Must've been 2 years ago. When did you last see a Luxembourg parking
lot?


--
Joe Kotroczo kotroczo(a)mac.com

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: In despriation and panic, Phildo resorts to libel.
Next: If a mic is or isn't a filter ?