Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Site Grounding

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:

>Does it make sense to bury some length of flashing
>instead of driving a rod, then?  Is depth an

...uh, "issue?"

This one got away before I finished typing. I hate it when that

Mark, N5OT

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>