>Wouldn't you think that NEC 810-13 is refering to two feet of clearance
>between the electrical service and a STANDING tower rather than two feet of
>clearance as it falls down?
>
>Stan w7ni@teleport.com
>
Stan, I wasn't very clear, obviously. Sorry. I agree with your interpretation.
Here is my response to someone else who interpreted what I said the
same way as you did, with some additional clarifications, since
my first clarification was also less than clear! I was just addressing
the issues marked by the >>> in the original post.
John W0UN
>>>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.)
Ken,
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
John Brosnahan
La Salle Research Corp.
24115 County Road 40
La Salle, CO 80645 USA
voice 970-284-6602
fax 970-284-0979
email broz@csn.net
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: K7LXC@contesting.com
Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & N4VJ / K4AAA
|