|
House ground rod question
Just moved into my new home and I am in the process of building my shack in
my basement. I would like to use my house ground rod and run a heavy copper wire from it to a ground strip on my table in my shack for my rig and amp. I would also like to use this ground rod to ground my Butternut H9V vertical antenna. Do you folks think it would be OK to do this or should I buy another ground rod to install it for the shack and vertical? Thanks for your help. |
Hi Joe,
IMHO it is best to isolate the ground used in the shack from the household ground. This should reduce noise from any mains supplied appliances. You could use a third rod for the antenna no problem. Good luck, Rob (M0LET) "Joe" wrote in message news:5Xaae.9574$NU4.2639@attbi_s22... Just moved into my new home and I am in the process of building my shack in my basement. I would like to use my house ground rod and run a heavy copper wire from it to a ground strip on my table in my shack for my rig and amp. I would also like to use this ground rod to ground my Butternut H9V vertical antenna. Do you folks think it would be OK to do this or should I buy another ground rod to install it for the shack and vertical? Thanks for your help. |
In article ,
Rob Collis wrote: Hi Joe, IMHO it is best to isolate the ground used in the shack from the household ground. This should reduce noise from any mains supplied appliances. You could use a third rod for the antenna no problem. In the United States, most localities incorporate the National Electric Code into their own local building codes. It is my understanding that the NEC requires that each building structure have precisely one "ground system", and that this requires that all ground rods be reliably "bonded" together (typically via 6-gauge-or-heavier wire). The ground-system bonding is required in order to reduce the degree to which ground-voltage differentials can occur in the case of an electrical fault or nearby lighting strike. The bonding reduces the current that can flow through appliances that are connected to two or more independent "ground" systems (e.g. a building's main electrical ground, and a separate ground stake near an antenna). Putting in a second ground rod near the hamshack can be a good idea, as it reduces the length of the ground wire from rig to ground rod and can improve the quality of the RF ground (depends a lot on wire length and frequency). However, in order to comply with the NEC, this ground rod must be bonded to the main building ground. I don't know what the rules are in other countries. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
"Dave Platt" wrote in message
... In article , Rob Collis wrote: Hi Joe, IMHO it is best to isolate the ground used in the shack from the household ground. This should reduce noise from any mains supplied appliances. You could use a third rod for the antenna no problem. In the United States, most localities incorporate the National Electric Code into their own local building codes. It is my understanding that the NEC requires that each building structure have precisely one "ground system", and that this requires that all ground rods be reliably "bonded" together (typically via 6-gauge-or-heavier wire). The ground-system bonding is required in order to reduce the degree to which ground-voltage differentials can occur in the case of an electrical fault or nearby lighting strike. The bonding reduces the current that can flow through appliances that are connected to two or more independent "ground" systems (e.g. a building's main electrical ground, and a separate ground stake near an antenna). Putting in a second ground rod near the hamshack can be a good idea, as it reduces the length of the ground wire from rig to ground rod and can improve the quality of the RF ground (depends a lot on wire length and frequency). However, in order to comply with the NEC, this ground rod must be bonded to the main building ground. I don't know what the rules are in other countries. -- Dave Platt, AE6EO Dave is correct about NEC requires, HOWEVER please check with you local municipal (or country/parish) building department (or code enforcement) - there are variations that are more restrictive than NEC in SOME U.S. localities. That said, IF you are going to have a tower or large antenna array - RF grounding needs to be addressed separately from electrical service grounding. This area also has different requirements in SOME areas (for example - parts of Florida have the highest lightning hits per year). Glen Zook, K9STH has given talks and presentations on this subject - this information can be found he http://home.comcast.net/~k9sth/ w9gb |
Rob,
I see that you are in the UK so the concept of a US National Electric Code does not apply to you so you may regard this as good engineering practice instead. Joe, The National Electric Code specifies in section 250 that all grounds must be bonded together at the safety ground for the service entrance. Your insurance will take a dim view of non-compliant installations. Russ On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:14:57 +0100, "Rob Collis" wrote: Hi Joe, IMHO it is best to isolate the ground used in the shack from the household ground. This should reduce noise from any mains supplied appliances. You could use a third rod for the antenna no problem. Good luck, Rob (M0LET) "Joe" wrote in message news:5Xaae.9574$NU4.2639@attbi_s22... Just moved into my new home and I am in the process of building my shack in my basement. I would like to use my house ground rod and run a heavy copper wire from it to a ground strip on my table in my shack for my rig and amp. I would also like to use this ground rod to ground my Butternut H9V vertical antenna. Do you folks think it would be OK to do this or should I buy another ground rod to install it for the shack and vertical? Thanks for your help. |
"gb" wrote in message ... "Dave Platt" wrote in message ... In article , Rob Collis wrote: Hi Joe, IMHO it is best to isolate the ground used in the shack from the household ground. This should reduce noise from any mains supplied appliances. You could use a third rod for the antenna no problem. In the United States, most localities incorporate the National Electric Code into their own local building codes. It is my understanding that the NEC requires that each building structure have precisely one "ground system", and that this requires that all ground rods be reliably "bonded" together (typically via 6-gauge-or-heavier wire). The ground-system bonding is required in order to reduce the degree to which ground-voltage differentials can occur in the case of an electrical fault or nearby lighting strike. The bonding reduces the current that can flow through appliances that are connected to two or more independent "ground" systems (e.g. a building's main electrical ground, and a separate ground stake near an antenna). Putting in a second ground rod near the hamshack can be a good idea, as it reduces the length of the ground wire from rig to ground rod and can improve the quality of the RF ground (depends a lot on wire length and frequency). However, in order to comply with the NEC, this ground rod must be bonded to the main building ground. I don't know what the rules are in other countries. -- Dave Platt, AE6EO Dave is correct about NEC requires, HOWEVER please check with you local municipal (or country/parish) building department (or code enforcement) - there are variations that are more restrictive than NEC in SOME U.S. localities. That said, IF you are going to have a tower or large antenna array - RF grounding needs to be addressed separately from electrical service grounding. This area also has different requirements in SOME areas (for example - parts of Florida have the highest lightning hits per year). Glen Zook, K9STH has given talks and presentations on this subject - this information can be found he http://home.comcast.net/~k9sth/ w9gb Please, PLEASE, disregard every bit of that RUBBISH about "dissipation" (prevention) of lightning strikes in K9STH's website. There is not one single piece of scientific evidence to any of that bullcrap. The theories of Charge-transfer-systems (CTS), Early Steamer Emissions (ESE) or ANY kind of lightning prevention are total malarkey. The cost of gathering international review and wide publication of DIScrediting these phony's is incredible, but the IEEE has done so over and over again. There was good advice in this thread (and one bad one, advising isolation of house and radio grounds), until "gb" dragged that old nuttiness about dissipators out of the closet. Best regards, Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
Joe wrote:
"I would like to use this ground rod to ground my Butternut H9V vertical antenna." USA National Electrical Code requires all site ground connections be connected together. Lacking such interconnections, high transient voltages of vastly differing magnitudes might momentarily appear at different ground rods and at circuit points connected to them. This could lead to injury or damage. It`s a good idea to provide an antenna ground rod, or rods, directly beneath the the antenna, and to provide a short stout electrical connection between the antenna ground system and the electrical service entry grounding system. The interconnection intends to keep the potential between grounding systems low. Additional lightning protection will often be needed. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
If I understand correctly the just of these replies, -- I would be better
off if I installed a so-called "stand-alone" ground rod that was several feet a way from the ground rod that my home was on and use this "stand-alone" ground rod solely for my shack equipment, and then driving another ground rod by my Butternut vertical and connecting it to the antenna ground rod. Am I correct in this? What is confusing to me is what one of the replies suggested that the rods be bonded or connected together. If that is a correct thing to do I don't see what the difference would be to using a single ground rod. After-all a ground rod is a ground rod. Thanks again for all your help. 73's " wrote in message news:zHhae.4351$lz1.2472@lakeread01... "gb" wrote in message ... "Dave Platt" wrote in message ... In article , Rob Collis wrote: Hi Joe, IMHO it is best to isolate the ground used in the shack from the household ground. This should reduce noise from any mains supplied appliances. You could use a third rod for the antenna no problem. In the United States, most localities incorporate the National Electric Code into their own local building codes. It is my understanding that the NEC requires that each building structure have precisely one "ground system", and that this requires that all ground rods be reliably "bonded" together (typically via 6-gauge-or-heavier wire). The ground-system bonding is required in order to reduce the degree to which ground-voltage differentials can occur in the case of an electrical fault or nearby lighting strike. The bonding reduces the current that can flow through appliances that are connected to two or more independent "ground" systems (e.g. a building's main electrical ground, and a separate ground stake near an antenna). Putting in a second ground rod near the hamshack can be a good idea, as it reduces the length of the ground wire from rig to ground rod and can improve the quality of the RF ground (depends a lot on wire length and frequency). However, in order to comply with the NEC, this ground rod must be bonded to the main building ground. I don't know what the rules are in other countries. -- Dave Platt, AE6EO Dave is correct about NEC requires, HOWEVER please check with you local municipal (or country/parish) building department (or code enforcement) - there are variations that are more restrictive than NEC in SOME U.S. localities. That said, IF you are going to have a tower or large antenna array - RF grounding needs to be addressed separately from electrical service grounding. This area also has different requirements in SOME areas (for example - parts of Florida have the highest lightning hits per year). Glen Zook, K9STH has given talks and presentations on this subject - this information can be found he http://home.comcast.net/~k9sth/ w9gb Please, PLEASE, disregard every bit of that RUBBISH about "dissipation" (prevention) of lightning strikes in K9STH's website. There is not one single piece of scientific evidence to any of that bullcrap. The theories of Charge-transfer-systems (CTS), Early Steamer Emissions (ESE) or ANY kind of lightning prevention are total malarkey. The cost of gathering international review and wide publication of DIScrediting these phony's is incredible, but the IEEE has done so over and over again. There was good advice in this thread (and one bad one, advising isolation of house and radio grounds), until "gb" dragged that old nuttiness about dissipators out of the closet. Best regards, Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:zHhae.4351$lz1.2472@lakeread01... "gb" wrote in message ... "Dave Platt" wrote in message ... In article , Rob Collis wrote: Hi Joe, IMHO it is best to isolate the ground used in the shack from the household ground. This should reduce noise from any mains supplied appliances. You could use a third rod for the antenna no problem. In the United States, most localities incorporate the National Electric Code into their own local building codes. It is my understanding that the NEC requires that each building structure have precisely one "ground system", and that this requires that all ground rods be reliably "bonded" together (typically via 6-gauge-or-heavier wire). The ground-system bonding is required in order to reduce the degree to which ground-voltage differentials can occur in the case of an electrical fault or nearby lighting strike. The bonding reduces the current that can flow through appliances that are connected to two or more independent "ground" systems (e.g. a building's main electrical ground, and a separate ground stake near an antenna). Putting in a second ground rod near the hamshack can be a good idea, as it reduces the length of the ground wire from rig to ground rod and can improve the quality of the RF ground (depends a lot on wire length and frequency). However, in order to comply with the NEC, this ground rod must be bonded to the main building ground. I don't know what the rules are in other countries. -- Dave Platt, AE6EO Dave is correct about NEC requires, HOWEVER please check with you local municipal (or country/parish) building department (or code enforcement) - there are variations that are more restrictive than NEC in SOME U.S. localities. That said, IF you are going to have a tower or large antenna array - RF grounding needs to be addressed separately from electrical service grounding. This area also has different requirements in SOME areas (for example - parts of Florida have the highest lightning hits per year). Glen Zook, K9STH has given talks and presentations on this subject - this information can be found he http://home.comcast.net/~k9sth/ w9gb Please, PLEASE, disregard every bit of that RUBBISH about "dissipation" (prevention) of lightning strikes in K9STH's website. There is not one single piece of scientific evidence to any of that bullcrap. The theories of Charge-transfer-systems (CTS), Early Steamer Emissions (ESE) or ANY kind of lightning prevention are total malarkey. The cost of gathering international review and wide publication of DIScrediting these phony's is incredible, but the IEEE has done so over and over again. There was good advice in this thread (and one bad one, advising isolation of house and radio grounds), until "gb" dragged that old nuttiness about dissipators out of the closet. Best regards, Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia " but the IEEE has done so over and over again". ------- As a member of IEEE, ... my esteemed association strongly supported BPL .. which I consider a rubbish, politically motivated usage of network technology. Their creditability is suspect moving forward. As for NEC -- Chicago area standards which are stricter - and will not permit some lower requirements under the NEC. As for what is important at the end of the day - I have found that unless the insurer for the property and equipment agrees with the installation (and design) -- they won't pay for damage - no matter what was followed ! Although single point grounding should be used (as Jack points out) - over the past 30 years I have seen so many "in the field" violations of that principal (telephone, power, cable, broadcasting companies) -- and I am not the policeman for these installations or their engineering arguments - why they were installed that way. |
Joe,
I didn't just suggest that the grounds be bonded (connected electrically), the NEC requires it. Placing a ground near your antenna base and near your shack will provide a path from your equipment to the ground that is less than a quarter-wave at 30 mHz. This will help keep the ground wire from radiating. If you do not comply with the NEC sec. 250 requirement, your insurance carrier has a case for not paying your claim. Multiple ground rods lower the impedence to earth in case of a lightning strike. Lightning is largely RF and will "prefer" a low impedence to earth. Bond the grounds together with #6 or larger wire. Don't take my word for it, ask your insurace company. I am a former Telco employee and grounding there is a religion, and not a minor one. See the BSPs ("Bell System Practices", now "Best Suggested Practices") and the web site of the Erico corporation. A. J. Surtees is one of THE authorities on grounding. Russ On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 02:04:29 GMT, "Joe" wrote: If I understand correctly the just of these replies, -- I would be better off if I installed a so-called "stand-alone" ground rod that was several feet a way from the ground rod that my home was on and use this "stand-alone" ground rod solely for my shack equipment, and then driving another ground rod by my Butternut vertical and connecting it to the antenna ground rod. Am I correct in this? What is confusing to me is what one of the replies suggested that the rods be bonded or connected together. If that is a correct thing to do I don't see what the difference would be to using a single ground rod. After-all a ground rod is a ground rod. Thanks again for all your help. 73's " wrote in message news:zHhae.4351$lz1.2472@lakeread01... "gb" wrote in message ... "Dave Platt" wrote in message ... In article , Rob Collis wrote: Hi Joe, IMHO it is best to isolate the ground used in the shack from the household ground. This should reduce noise from any mains supplied appliances. You could use a third rod for the antenna no problem. In the United States, most localities incorporate the National Electric Code into their own local building codes. It is my understanding that the NEC requires that each building structure have precisely one "ground system", and that this requires that all ground rods be reliably "bonded" together (typically via 6-gauge-or-heavier wire). The ground-system bonding is required in order to reduce the degree to which ground-voltage differentials can occur in the case of an electrical fault or nearby lighting strike. The bonding reduces the current that can flow through appliances that are connected to two or more independent "ground" systems (e.g. a building's main electrical ground, and a separate ground stake near an antenna). Putting in a second ground rod near the hamshack can be a good idea, as it reduces the length of the ground wire from rig to ground rod and can improve the quality of the RF ground (depends a lot on wire length and frequency). However, in order to comply with the NEC, this ground rod must be bonded to the main building ground. I don't know what the rules are in other countries. -- Dave Platt, AE6EO Dave is correct about NEC requires, HOWEVER please check with you local municipal (or country/parish) building department (or code enforcement) - there are variations that are more restrictive than NEC in SOME U.S. localities. That said, IF you are going to have a tower or large antenna array - RF grounding needs to be addressed separately from electrical service grounding. This area also has different requirements in SOME areas (for example - parts of Florida have the highest lightning hits per year). Glen Zook, K9STH has given talks and presentations on this subject - this information can be found he http://home.comcast.net/~k9sth/ w9gb Please, PLEASE, disregard every bit of that RUBBISH about "dissipation" (prevention) of lightning strikes in K9STH's website. There is not one single piece of scientific evidence to any of that bullcrap. The theories of Charge-transfer-systems (CTS), Early Steamer Emissions (ESE) or ANY kind of lightning prevention are total malarkey. The cost of gathering international review and wide publication of DIScrediting these phony's is incredible, but the IEEE has done so over and over again. There was good advice in this thread (and one bad one, advising isolation of house and radio grounds), until "gb" dragged that old nuttiness about dissipators out of the closet. Best regards, Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com