[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Grounding

Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Grounding
From: Jim Lux <>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 11:16:57 -0800
List-post: <">>
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?


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

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