Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Grounding Article

To: "Tower Talk List" <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower Grounding Article
From: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:51:39 -0700
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:15:12 -0400, Roger D Johnson wrote:

>My understanding is that it appears as a leaky
>capacitor to the lightning strike. There must be sufficient 
>capacitance available to absorb the peak of the strike as the
>energy leaks off  through the semi-conductive concrete. A few
>rebars bonded together in a small tower pier do not a Ufer ground
>make!

I think you may misunderstand the relative conductivities of 
concrete and soil. Both vary widely, depending on their chemistry. 
Some concrete mixes are good enough insulators to be used as 
insulators for electric railways, or to have pavement heaters 
imbedded in them, while others have very good electrical 
conductivity. It is entirely possible that the conductivity of a 
concrete mix may be greater than that of the soil it is embedded 
in. 

Your comment regarding the connection to earth being comparable to 
a leaky capacitance is, however, quite good -- IF you apply it to 
virtually all earth connections. Soil is rather resistive. We are 
able to measure relatively low values only because there is so 
much soil in parallel to provide a path. It is also useful to 
think of a radial system, insulated or not, as providing a 
parallel path to earth. That path, like the path via a ground rod 
or Ufer, will have R, L, and C components. Since the energy 
contained in lightning has a broad peak in the MHz range, the 
radial system may conduct more of the strike to earth than ground 
electrodes. 

I haven't read every word of the magazine piece, but a quick skim 
of it looks pretty good. I do, however, strongly disagree with the 
use of chemically enhanced grounds unless the enhancement will be 
regularly maintained. Here today, gone tomorrow, as the rain 
washes it away. :)  I also agree with comments regarding the 
measurement of impedance to earth at audio, and its relevance to 
lightning -- that is, not much. If you think of lightning as 
anything less than a multi-megawatt MHz-range transmitter, you're 
likely to regret it. 

73,

Jim Brown K9YC


_______________________________________________



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

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