Hi JC,
I think I understand what you are saying but some may not. A copper tube
doesn't have better conduction at higher frequencies than a solid conductor
just because the frequency is increased. But when comparing it to a solid
conductor of the same diameter, as frequency increases the center core of
the solid conductor becomes less important to the point that because most or
all of the current is flowing on the outer part of the conductor, the center
core can be eliminated. So the tubing would be as good a conductor at high
frequencies as a solid conductor would at the same frequency. But it would
never be better.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:towertalk-
> bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of JC Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:04 PM
> To: 'Robert Chudek - K0RC'; towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] TT SHUTDOWN (was: 4 awg copper wire and Amp
> locks)
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I've used scraps of copper tubing (I was a mechanical contractor) to build
> all sorts of low resistance conductors and busses, mostly for 12-V stuff.
> One of the things I did, without really thinking about why, was slide the
> tubing over the end of a ground rod (after grinding off the "mushroom")
> and
> clamping the tubing to the rod with an acorn clamp. It just seemed
> logical
> that I would end up with good contact that way, but I believe it has the
> additional advantage of providing the straightest possible path to ground
> (don't want to confuse those electrons). For calculating equivalent DC
> load
> capacity you can compare the cross sectional area of a particular tube
> size
> to the cross sectional area of a particular gauge of solid copper wire.
> For
> AC, the tube is even better because of the increased surface area. How
> much
> better depends on the frequency. The higher the frequency, the shallower
> into the copper the current travels (at least that's how I learned it).
>
> 73 - JC, K0HPS
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Robert Chudek - K0RC
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 5:13 PM
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] TT SHUTDOWN (was: 4 awg copper wire and Amp
> locks)
>
> Craig, my apology to you, personally, that my "violation" comment was in
> reference to the photo on your website. I have to believe that image is a
> stock photo from the manufacturer of the product and not something that
> you
> shot yourself.
>
> Since my original post, the variety of responses has me wondering whether
> some people are actually reading the messages and comprehending the
> information that is being presented! Probably the most appropriate
> (although
> unexpected) comment was by one individual who said the choice of grounding
> technology boiled down to "risk assessment".
>
> You don't fool with mother nature. People and their houses (who don't even
> own a tower or antenna) have been stuck be lightning... with a variety of
> consequences. So I have to agree with "risk assessment"... do nothing, do
> the best you can, or take out a second mortgage for a grounding system...
> Then sit back and let the dice roll.
>
> Regarding the Amp C-loks, they seem to be in the same price category as
> the
> Cadweld units. And I agree, the copper prices have gone through the roof.
> In
> general, solid and stranded wire are in the same price range. (I'm
> seriously
> thinking about pulling out all my house wiring and selling it on the scrap
> market... I'll just get me some of them wireless extension cords I saw
> earlier this year.)
>
> One interesting idea that did came out of this thread (so far) is the use
> of
> copper tubing instead of solid wire. I'd like to hear more comments
> pro/con
> about this. I would expect tubing would be more cost effective and equal
> in
> the capability to dissipate the energy in a strike.
>
> Finally... I also agree with you regarding this reflector. I find it a
> very
> useful vehicle for the exchange of ideas. I see the participants' range of
> knowledge from those who come here to ask questions and learn, to those
> who
> are the professionals in the specific industry being discussed.
>
> Where I find a problem is in the people who can articulate old wives tales
> into sounding reasonable and probable, therefore perpetuating junk
> science.
> Let's try these topics on for size... I need help selecting some good
> divining rods to help locate a new well on my acreage. Or more appropriate
> for TT, a standard single phase 240 VAC 30 amp circuit for your rotating
> tower wired to NEC specs contains how many wires?
>
> 73 de Bob - K0RC
>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:46:30 -0400
> From: Craig Clark <jcclark@wildblue.net>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] TT SHUTDOWN
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060711161419.03b8eac8@wildblue.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>
> >
> >Well we might as well shut down this Tower Talk reflector for as
> >much good as it's doing... I can't believe after weeks of
> >discussions regarding proper ground system bonding, this post has
> >been made... The picture shows two violations... #1) a stranded
> >ground wire and #2) a non exothermic connection.
> >
> >73 de Bob - K0RC
> >
> >
>
> Bob
>
> Gee. I wonder what Amp is doing selling the Cloks then? They are
> specifically sold for attaching stranded copper wire to ground rods
> and include a corrosion inhibitor.
>
> Secondly, IMHO copper braid is more of a concern than stranded copper
> wire. Properly waterproofed at the ground rod, I think you'd have a
> fine ground; no solder to melt or burn out.
>
> My desire was to share pricing on copper wire to inform TT'ers of the
> latest HUGE price increase in all copper products.
>
> As for a "violation," well, there are many divergent opinions here on
> TT. Get two of us together and you have a conversation. Get three
> involved and it always seems to generate an argument......which I am
> NOT trying to provoke with my esteemed colleagues.
>
> Craig K1QX
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|