To: | Mark Spencer <mspencer12345@yahoo.ca> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [TowerTalk] Shack ground |
From: | jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net> |
Date: | Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:10:10 -0700 |
List-post: | <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com> |
Mark Spencer wrote: >> NEC cares about "don't burn down the building" and "don't >> kill/injure the occupants". Disasters like the MGM Grand hotel >> fire and swimming pool shocks feature a lot in the discussions of >> code makers when talking about Article 250. > > > Don't burn down the building and don't kill / injure the occupants > sound like a reasonable design criteria to me for the grounding of my > amateur radio instalation. The protection of my amateur radio gear > takes a distant third place to protecting the lives of my family > memebrs and our home. Having a separate "RF ground" or antenna > system ground that is not electrically connected to the electrical > service ground by a dedicated ground wire would be a non starter for > me. > Yep.. But you don't need to connect the two with 4/0 welding cable or 3" copper pipe, either. As you say, "safety" is different than "equipment protection" _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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] SPG is a terrible term, Roger (K8RI) |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [TowerTalk] SPG or whatever it is called now, to coax entrance ground question, jimlux |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [TowerTalk] Shack ground, Mark Spencer |
Next by Thread: | Re: [TowerTalk] Shack ground, Mark Spencer |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |