Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Cadweld vs clamps

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Cadweld vs clamps
From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:22:58 -0400
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
On 10/23/2014 11:38 PM, Bill Turner wrote:

Seeing actual clamps that can be lifted off the ground rods after a couple years is no old wives tale. It was that way on our house.

The clamps were installed (underground as required here) when we upgraded to a 200A service. They were checked a couple years later when we went to an underground service. Corrosion even raising the contact resistance to a half ohm leaves little protection from lightening.

There would be little protection from that 4KV line with clamps that could be lifted off the ground rods, but aren't underground connections required to be exothermic, or compression by the NEC?

73

Roger (K8RI)


------------ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------(may be snipped)

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:51:16 -0700, Jim Lux wrote:

And from a electrical code standpoint.. a low-medium voltage feeder at
4kV falling on your antenna or tower will probably be held off by the
corrosion, or the wrap of tape, or whatever, and the whole thing will be
live.
REPLY:

If the above were true, the NEC would mandate exothermic bonding
instead of clamps. They don't. Clamps work.

A lot of old wives' tales floating around here.

73, Bill W6WRT
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


--

73

Roger (K8RI)


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>