I have not heard of this concrete ground before. Is it made with conductive
concrete?
Best regards - Brian Carling
AF4K Crystals Co.
117 Sterling Pine St.
Sanford, FL 32773
Tel: +USA 321-262-5471
> On Jan 19, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/15 9:53 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>> It seems to me a valid question to ask on this thread: Do you gain anything
>> by, for example, drilling a hole to get a ground rod deeper?
>>
>> If you think about it, the answer might not be so simple.
>>
>> The point of a ground rod is to maximize electrical contact with the ground.
>> If you have to drill 48 inches of an eight-foot rod and don't employ some
>> kind of conductive filler (concrete, bentonite, etc.) to bond the rod to the
>> rock, how much better off are you than just putting in a 48-inch rod? Even
>> if you do use bentonite, is rock a good connection?
>>
>> If that's the case, what would be wrong with cutting the eight-foot rod into
>> two 48-inch rods and driving them 96 inches apart?
>>
>> The point of eight- or ten-foot ground rods is to get eight or ten feet of
>> contact area, not necessarily to get eight or ten feet deep, yes?
>
>
> Yes, and two short rods would work as well, if not better, than 1 big rod.
>
> However, there is a potential depth related issue: soil moisture varies a lot
> in the first few feet, and in a lot of places, the chemical composition of
> the soil changes (top soil vs subsoil). That's not really addressed in the
> building code, though.
>
> For what it's worth, the reason the code expresses a preference for Ufer
> grounds(concrete encased grounding electrodes) is just this sort of problem.
> A big block of concrete 20 feet long and a foot square is going to have a lot
> of contact area with the surrounding soil, in a lot of places, so local
> anomalies of dry or loosely compacted soil aren't going to be as big a
> problem.
>
>
>
>> Just curious on all this.
>>
>> 73, kelly
>> ve4xt
>>
>>
>>> On 1/18/15 10:04 PM, "Bill Aycock" <billaycock@mediacombb.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bill Aycock
>> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015
>>> 7:23 PM
>> To: Ken
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] w7ekb & ground rods
>>
>> Ken--
>> I was once
>>> told (Unofficially) by a power line guy that the length was more
>> important
>>> than depth, and a rod driven at an angle was often the only option
>> when rock
>>> was a problem.
>> However, Mr. Murphy ruled against me and I only knew I had a
>>> rock problem
>> when I had only about 8" left to go.
>> Bill--W4BSG
>>
>> -----Original
>>> Message-----
>> From: Ken
>> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 7:00 PM
>> To:
>>> maflynn@theflynn.org
>> Cc: towertalk@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk]
>>> w7ekb & ground rods
>>
>> If I may ask, what¹s the ³appropriate tool² when you have
>>> a rock layer 40²
>> down? i tried a hammer drill, waste of time. I rented an
>>> SDS-MAX hammer
>> and I got one in all the way, four others only made it most of
>>> the way. So
>> what is the recommendation?
>>
>> Ken WA8JXM
>>
>>> On Jan 18, 2015, at
>>> 7:46 PM, Martin A Flynn <maflynn@theflynn.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ran this past one of
>>> the code enforcement guys in the county. Surprising
>>> response:
>>>
>>> "We make
>>> you buy a UL listed panel board and breakers - what makes you
>>> think you
>>> can build a grounding system that is equal to UL *and* be able
>>> to prove it
>>> in court if there is a problem? Buy the listed rod(s) and
>>> drive them with
>>> the appropriate
>>> tool"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________
>>> ___________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing
>>> list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tow
>>> ertalk
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>> software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>>> _
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing
>>> list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tow
>>> ertalk
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|