I don't have my copy of NEC here, but if I'm not mistaken, the
code you're referring to was written to require seperation of
conductors on a utility line, such as power distribution and
telephone/cable tv lines run on the same supports. (Poles, buried,
John Brosnahan wrote:
> >>>Again, yes, it's a good idea, but is it really "code"? (I don't have
> >>>the NEC handy to determine if what his says is valid or correct.)
> I think you are correct in your interpretation. I was just trying
> to quote part of the NEC and show that 1) that paragraph does exist
> and 2) that it addresses <250V rather than >250V.
> Chad will have to argue the interpretation on his own, but it is clear
> to me that it doesn't mean "falling" distance.
> John Brosnahan
> La Salle Research Corp.
> 24115 County Road 40
> La Salle, CO 80645 USA
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & N4VJ / K4AAA