On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What IS complicated is how so many clearly have some kind of stake in
>> it NOT being true.
>
> I wouldn't call it "some kind of stake" as much as simple doubt
> because what you assert is, to be charitable, unsupported by
> observation.
"Unsupported by observation" You jest?
The disintegration is very much supported by measurement and
observation. Those measurements, and the methods used, are recently
posted on this reflector.
I would also counter that durability outdoors, **particularly** given
THHN is not manufactured to this use, and forbidden for wet
environments in the NEC, is no more than an **assumption**. If THHN
were misused in this way in a professional setting it would be
considered an outright error in judgement. Certainly outdoor exposed
THHN would flunk an electrical inspection, with all the delay and cost
penalty involved.
So just why is THHN durability in outside environment given the free
pass to skeptical treatment?
I'll go back to the charitable "some kind of stake" because I really
do not get it.
73, Guy K2AV
>
>>Someone with a low band dipole in the air using unstripped THHN may be
>>paying quite a penalty, especially if it's been up a long time.
>
> How long is "a long time?"
2,3,4,5 years perhaps to get to the extreme deterioration we measured.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|