To: | "Mark Beckwith" <mark@concertart.com>, <towertalk@contesting.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [TowerTalk] Site Grounding |
From: | Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net> |
Date: | Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:49:17 -0700 |
List-post: | <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com> |
At 10:44 AM 10/21/2003 -0500, Mark Beckwith wrote:
I just wrote: Indeed, it's more of a surface area in contact with the soil than a depth of penetration issue. Burying the rod horizontally in a trench a foot deep is probably as good as driving it 10 feet deep. Recall though, that a "ground" can serve several functions: RF grounds can actually be insulated (since the capacitive coupling from wire to soil is substantial); Lightning grounds need to take very high peak currents (and also have DC conductivity); Electrical safety grounds need to carry sufficient current to insure that circuit breakers trip and that the enclosure of device with a fault remains safe to touch; Signal common is yet another "ground", where you're concerned about common mode voltages, etc. _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA. _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: [TowerTalk] Site Grounding, Jim Lux |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [TowerTalk] Site Grounding, Tony King - W4ZT |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [TowerTalk] Site Grounding, Mark Beckwith |
Next by Thread: | Re: [TowerTalk] Site Grounding, Michael Neverdosky |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |