.One problem with crimps is that they require the right tooling and a bit
.of training. The usual ham does this kind of thing once every 10-15
.years. It's sort of like installing coax connectors: when I used to do
.thin-net network cabling, I probably installed thousands of BNCs and I
.was really good at it. Today, 15-20 years later, even with the tooling,
.I'd probably screw up a good fraction of them.
I agree!
You MUST have the right tools (which cost many hundreds of $$ to thousands
of $$) to install irreversible crimps. For those that don't, Cadweld is a
great choice.
Motorola R56 allows crimps underground, but I encourage our site installers
to use Cadweld if at all possible. Even for easy stuff such as bonding 2ea
#2 AWG tinned.
73
Jim W7RY
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Lux
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:16 AM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Grounding
On 11/18/12 10:51 AM, Dale Sanders wrote:
This is the very reason that many of us that are hams and work with this
stuff on a day to day basis make very few comments. It's those of you
that
deal with the equations and book stuff that just don't understand what
goes
on in the "real world" While you may have never seen a conductor melted,
again, have you ever been in a cell site when the storm struck, or worked
on
a broadcast facility after it got struck?
Yes.
As for the cadwelding comments, you need to do your homework. Burndy has
crimps that have been tested and equaled or exceeded the same connection
that was cadwelded.
Actually, I'm a big believer in crimps. What I think you're referring
to is my comment about that for *lightning protection*, almost any clamp
will do. But not for electrical safety bonding.
One problem with crimps is that they require the right tooling and a bit
of training. The usual ham does this kind of thing once every 10-15
years. It's sort of like installing coax connectors: when I used to do
thin-net network cabling, I probably installed thousands of BNCs and I
was really good at it. Today, 15-20 years later, even with the tooling,
I'd probably screw up a good fraction of them.
Ditto for doing SMA's on .141 semi-rigid coax. Although I'm still a lot
better with the crimp tool than soldering them on.
That is, for the "casual user", the "professional technique" may not be
the best choice. What you want is the "best as applied by a casual user".
If you don't work with this stuff on a daily basis, you might want to
listen
to those of us that have been doing it for over 35 years. We know a
little
about what we're talking about.....and equations are fine but mother
nature
has never taken a course in quantum physics.
I don't think the two are really at odds.
That is, I doubt that there's anything in the field you've seen that
physics can't explain. If there is, then the physics needs to be updated.
My real quibbles (if any) are with:
Practices and procedures that are followed only because of historical
tradition, but not because there's an engineering/science basis for the
practice.
Insufficient recognition of economic and political factors that can have
as big a influence as science and engineering on why people do what they do.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
|