[RFI] DirecTV to ground or not to ground

[jvpoll at dallas.net]

Just  two points in response, Jim:

a) I  have endeavored to learn the reason why the NEC 
'calls out' certain specific methods and have decidely not 
found the underlying rationale solely based in the 'text books'

b) History, practice and more importantly, mistakes in 
practice (accidents) have made important contributions 
to the NEC than simple theory would or  could predict;
take for iinstance grounding practices. What _is_ the 
rationale for grounding the secondary circuit (the 
service to the home) of a power transformer for instance? 

This isn't strictly neccessary for that service to 
function. (I am asking this for the purposes of bringing 
forth an example; I can cite cases where, in practice, this 
has saved property and/or life, but that is different than 
a statement or the treatment a textbook might give.)

Could you cite a textbook wherein that rationale is brought 
to light? 


(The whole point of the original post was to underscore the 
importance of grounding, BTW, not beating up the NEC. I 
thought the original poster was taking a rather cavalier 
stance toward grounding and the NEC and their rules. YMMV)


JimP // WB5WPA //


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Brown" <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
To: <rfi at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: [RFI] DirecTV to ground or not to ground


> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:35:53 -0600, Jim P wrote:
> 
> >because, it underscores
> >the need for a 'static-electricity drain path' to earth; the
> >NEC may be seeking in their usual round-about way
> >to provide this, albeit without outright stating so (in the
> >vein of 'Rules without explaining the Rationale').
> 
> Why are you beating up on NEC? It's a very good safety code. 
> It is not a textbook. You want to learn how things work and 
> why the code is written the way it is, you study a textbook. 
> 
> 73,
> 
> Jim K9YC
>