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