Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] The Need for Grounding

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] The Need for Grounding
From: Robert Harmon <k6uj@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 07:24:35 -0800
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Hi Roger,

I am concerned now with my planned ground screen around the base of my tower.
I am planning a shunt feed to the tower for 160.
I will have separate elevated radials, 4 of them, at 14 feet above the ground. The ground screen will extend out 15 to 20 feet from the base of the tower in all directions and will not be attached to the tower. I am thinking of leaving a 1 foot clearance from the tower to the ground screen. The rub is I am thinking of also connecting the ground screen to a nearby 15' x 70' parking slab welded wire mesh which is in the slab for reinforcement. This would give me more ground screen. Now I am thinking of the lighting possible arcing over to the ground screen and then possibly going out and cracking the concrete slab. Maybe I should leave more than 1 foot space from the ground screen and the base of the tower.......... Or forget about tying in to the 15 x 70 slab too ?
BTW,  I have 3,  10 foot ground rods attached to the tower.

Bob
K6UJ


On 1/14/16 3:36 AM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
Inductance and magnetism.
Lightening is not a single event, but at its simplest, it is a series of pulses alternating between going up and going down with relatively steep rise and fall time. Remember, Lightening is not a single DC event, LIGHTENING IS AN "RF" EVENT with the average stroke peaking "IIRC" around 1 MHz and tapering off above and below that point. The rapidly rising current in any conductor produces a rapidly increasing magnetic field. This magnetic field builds a voltage of the opposite polarity (reverse EMF), often reaching a point, where the easiest path is no loner through that conductor. So, the lightening leaves that conductor for an easier path. I've seen commercial towers struck, where the lightening would jump to grounded guys and jump from the guys across a rather large gap to ground rather than following the already grounded guy. Hence the reason for multiple (earth) grounds. The lightening stroke will divide itself between many possible paths. Some will carry a lot of some of them, little, with the corresponding voltages

Spend some time on Google, or other search engines reading about lightening, what it is and how it works. Moving, opposing charges in clouds and on the earth. Charges move around in the clouds and on the earth. "Ground" is not just "Ground", or a single potential. It's an interesting subject. Depending on your background in math and electronics, you can spend many hours just studying, lightening!

Follow some of the links provided by Jim Brown K9YC

73

Roger (K8RI)

On 1/13/2016 Wednesday 7:42 PM, W3YY wrote:
The latest posts about grounding, and finally some free time here, prompt me
to ask the following question.

Given lightning's desire to find the quickest way to ground, why doesn't it expend itself in a single 8ft ground rod at the base of a tower, rather than passing through another 250ft of transmission and control lines (also buried in the ground) leading to the shack? I would think that by then it has had
plenty of opportunity to arc to ground itself.

I am not disagreeing with the experts on this subject, but I just don't
fully understand what is commonly recommended.  With only a single 8ft
ground rod at the base of my 100ft and 120ft towers which are about 100ft
and 250ft from my house, I have only suffered two minor damages from a
lightning strike in over 40 years. And, I'm not sure that even had anything
do with the towers, but was just an unrelated power line surge.

73, Bob - W3YY

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of EZ
Rhino
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 6:05 PM
To: Towertalk Reflector
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Grounds, 'remote' towers, 'house' power system

I'm not in disagreement with you Jim, but then why doesn't NEC specify to do
things for lightning protection such as commonly followed by nearly all
commercial tower installations? Such as multiple ground rods, flat strap, star grounds, etc? (Think Polyphaser's docs). We know that one ground rod is woefully inadequate for a direct hit. If NEC is all about lightning, why doesn't is specify using more than one? It sure seems like NEC is about the
bare minimum for AC protection and when it comes to RF and towers, it
doesn't really give much pertinent info at all.

Chris
KF7P






On Jan 13, 2016, at 15:49 , Jim Brown wrote:

On Wed,1/13/2016 2:35 PM, N3AE wrote:
The NEC is focused on electrical safety and not necessarily the most
effective system for lightning protection.

This is NOT true. The bonding required between your tower and power system
sub-panel is for LIGHTNING protection.

In general, proper bonding is critical for lightning protection, electrical safety, fire safety, and to minimize hum, buzz, and RFI. Proper bonding is
described in

http://k9yc.com/GroundingAndAudio.pdf

I'm not going to repeat it here for those too lazy to study it.

BTW -- I TAUGHT courses on Power and Grounding for about ten years.

73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________



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

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