Ground Rod For House ?

Page 2 of 2  
Water pipe makes a good low resistance ground. Human safety demands a low resistance ground for reasons that include, for example, neutral wire failure.
Transistor safety uses grounding components for a different purpose. Transistor safety requires a low impedance ground. If connecting a bonding wire to a water pipe 50 feet away, the house has a low resistance ground and a high impedance ground. High impedance means ineffective transistor protection. Take this fax machine protection as an example: http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html
Unfortunately AC electric and phone service enter on two sides of the house - bad construction practice. If 'pictured' water pipe is a significantly lower impedance connection, then a destructive transient will find the building's single point earth ground via NID (surge protector) and cold water pipe. But in reality, cold water pipes are typically too long, too many solder joints, too many sharp bends, etc. To connect to a common point, an additional wire that is not shown. All increase impedance so much that a transient will also seek a destructive path to earth via the fax machine. Incoming on phone line. Outgoing on AC electric wire. Fax machine damaged because NID was not earthing via a low impedance earth ground connection.
This demonstrates but one example of how portable phone base stations, fax machines, and modems are so easily damaged. Essential to transistor protection is a connection from each incoming utility, either through a protector or by direct hardwire, to a common earth ground connection. Single point earthing most easily accomplished with a ground rod wired short (ie. less than 10 feet) to AC electric box. For transistor safety, all incoming utilities (telephone, cable TV, satellite disk) must make a less than 10 foot connection to this common earthing point.
Another problem with using a cold water pipe as an earth ground connection - code wants each utility to be earthed less than 20 feet to the common point. Pipes (ie outside faucet) often are just too far - more than 20 feet - to the common earth ground point.
Labeled 'arrestor' in that picture, same rules apply to that a 'whole house' protector. Arrestor must make a short connection to the single point earthing. 30 feet across the basement to where cold water pipe enters the building is all but no earth ground to that 'arrestor' - too much impedance. An earth ground rod adjacent to a breaker box is also for transistor safety - a low impedance earthing connection.
A most common source of transistor destructive transients to things such as computer modems is incoming on AC electric. Wires highest on poles - AC electric - are more often struck; not lower cable and phone line. If that 'arrestor' does not connect AC electric wire to earth ground, then a transient (again in that picture) goes into fax machine (modem) on L connection, then destructively out on phone wires to NID and to earth ground. Above demonstrates why fax machines, modems, and portable phone bases stations are so often damaged by AC electric wire transients.
Above is pre-WWII technology now made necessary in dwellings due to something new - transistors. Transistor protection is often little understood by some electricians who only understand NEC requirements. NEC does not require transistor protection. NEC is for human protection. Transistor protection is defined by the most critical component in a protection system: earth ground.
Gfretwell has posted how homes are now being built so as to provide superior transistor safety in pictures at:
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
Another also demonstrates better earthing. None of this would be required if city water pipe was sufficient as earth ground for transistor safety: http://www.knology.net/~res0958z /
Above was earthing for secondary protection. Also necessary is earthing for primary protection: http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
Oscar_Lives wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

adjacent to the panel so all wiring is clamped to the same ground reference. You don't explain how a ground rod would help in this instance. Adding a ground rod near the FAX is not going to provide a low impedance to keep the ground reference for the FAX the same as the incoming neutral.

panel to get a common grounding reference.
How does a 10 foot wire to a high resistance ground rod provide a lower ground impedance than a grounding electrode conductor and water pipe? This is cental to your arguments. Perhaps you could explain and also provide some citations that support your view.
For a 500A service the conductor to a ground rod has to be #6. The conductor to a water pipe has to be 2/0 - 3.5 x the area. How come? Surges include high frequency components for which impedance is important. Grounding electrode conductor and water pipe has one function of limiting surges.

best way I know to protect electronics. That requires the protector blocks to be near the electrical panel. (More properly thay have to be near each other.) That is likely a lot more important than resistance or impedance to ground. If all wiring was clamped to the same reference with no ground connection could electronics see a difference.
> Gfretwell has posted how homes are now being built so as to

best electrode (after water pipes). It is one of 3 electrodes that must be included in a ground system, if present. (The other 2 are water pipe and building steel, which a home doesn't have.) Not included: ground rod.

particualrly relevant.
------------- With regard to: Bud-- does not even quote code to justify his post. You do not understand why water pipes are required to have a SUPPLEMENTAL electrode and don't listen to people who do understand. Since arguing the code is pointles, I tried Physics - ground resistance. That doesn't seem to work either.
bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
An example demonstrates the earthing problem. A 12 AWG wire from wall receptacle maybe 50 feet back to mains box has less than 0.2 ohms resistance. That same wire would have something like 120 ohms impedance. Lets say a tiny 100 amp transient seeks earth ground via that 50 foot wire. Therefore a wall receptacle - and adjacent electronics - will be at something less than 12,000 volts. Will that transient seek earth via that safety ground wire? Of course not. It will also seek other and destructive paths via adjacent electronics.
Wire length is but one reason why a wall receptacle safety ground is not sufficient as earth ground. Also explains why plug-in protectors are so ineffective.
Essential to minimizing wire impedance are wire length, no sharp bends, and other characteristics cited previously. Also important is a concept cited by Bud--

effective as its earth ground which is why distance to that earthing is so critical and why single point earthing is essential. That means the 6 AWG wire does not go up over a foundation and then down to an earth ground rod. That wire goes through foundation somewhere just above the ground rod so that wire distance is shorter with sharp bends eliminated. Also important is that earthing wire remain separated from other non-earthing wires to avoid induced transients.
Yes, lower resistance does help which is why high reliability facilities such as electric substations expand their earth ground to also lower resistance. It is also why earthing should be planned when the footing are poured. Equipotential being another aspect of superior earthing.
Unfortunately we still don't build as if the transistor exists. We still do earthing as an afterthought. Effective earthing addresses concepts in excess of that performed by conventional household earthing. Equipotential being a concept of transistor protection that is not as essential to human protection. If we built buildings for effective transistor protection, then Ufer grounds would be routine; and not some afterthought to supplement water pipe ground such as ground rods. Even water pipe would enter a building adjacent to all other utilities to contribute to transistor safety.
Even NEC requires all incoming electrical utilities be earthed to a common point for human safety - a problem still found even in some new homes.
That 20 foot requirement from NEC is article 800.40(A)(4):

Same paragraphs is also found in Article 820.
Cinergy demonstrates how to solve earthing problems created when utilities arrive at wrong locations. A problem often created by service installers or builders who still have not learned about proper earthing: http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm
Concrete encased grounding (Ufer grounds) were so well proven even before WWII as to even protect munitions from direct lightning strikes. If water pipe earthing was so effective, then why do they implement Ufer grounding even in buildings with water pipe grounds? Halo grounds are but another way of improved earthing.
Again, to answer the original poster's question - water pipe earthing alone is no longer sufficient to meet code. Upgrade to accomplish more than just meet code. Transistor protection is only as effective as a building's earth ground.
Bud-- wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

would want a citation for 120 ohms. Impedance of ground rod and water pipe would be relevant.

Perhaps because a supplementary ground is required for a water pipe because it may be replaced by plastic and ground rods are way worse than either. Not obvious who "they" are. If it is gfretwell, in a current thread he says the gound conductivity near him is very bad. Sounds like the Ufer is a foundation ring. An unrelated video tape shows driving a 10' rod in Florida with a water table about 3' down, connecting 120V and getting a current of about 1.5A (implies 80 ohms ground resistance).
Halo grounds are but

isn't what you want.
----------- I actually only planned to respond to your citations in response to me and pop: > > Cinergy demonstrates how to solve earthing problems created > when utilities arrive at wrong locations. A problem often > created by service installers or builders who still have not > learned about proper earthing: > http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm > Cinergy in effect talks about a common ground reference which I have emphasized several times. We probably substantialy, but not entirely agree on this. Nothing on water pipes and ground rods which we don't agree on.
> Where does the human start to > eliminate transistor damage? Earth ground as even > demonstrated in that previous www.tvtower.com citation.
I have no idea what at that site is relevant
> Polyphaser > discusses THE most critical component in protection - earth > ground: > http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_ptd_home.aspx
The most consistent protection in the papers is having a common ground reference for power and signal. They talk about using ground rods only to ground towers - which constitute large lightning rods. No one protects their house from direct lightning strikes unless they install lightning rods/air terminals. Most of the info is specific to lightning, towers and antenna coax - not particularly relevant to grounding elsewhere. If you are going to cite it you should pick out the relevant papers, if any.
bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Provided was an example of wire impedance (it was not a discussion of branch circuits); which explains WHY each earth ground connection must be short, no splices, no sharp bends, not inside metallic conduit, etc. Wire has impedance which is why short wire length is critical to earthing for transistor protection.
To repeat what was posted: Cinergy also demonstrates solutions to bad construction - where the utilities don't enter at a common location. The need for single point earthing is good for human safety but essential to transistor safety.
Above is about earthing for the secondary protection 'system'. www.tvtower.com demonstrates earthing of the primary protection 'system'. Layered protection 'systems'. Each layer of protection is defined by its single point earth ground. http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html also demonstrates another earth ground that contributes to transistor protection.
Polyphaser discusses protecting incoming wires from lightning. If your house is not adjacent to a 50 foot radio tower, then a 'tower' that lightning seeks is your house or those utility poles that connect directly to household transistors. Earthing that applies to protecting radio towers also applies to home protection. To lightning, that tower and those incoming house wires are same.
But then Polyphaser - an industry benchmark - discusses more that just radio towers. What does Polyphaser discuss? Their products? Of course not. Polyphaser discusses earthing - the most critical component also in a home protection system. What is discussed here? Earthing the house - for same reasons that Polyphaser describes in: http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_ptd_home.aspx
Same principle that were once standard in places that had electronics - radio stations and telephone switching stations - are now necessary in other buildings that also have electronics - the home.
Why extensive earthing of those FL homes?
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
Again, water pipe earth ground alone just is not sufficient. Not sufficient to meet code AND not sufficient to protect household transistors.
Bud-- wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: An example demonstrates the earthing problem. A 12 AWG wire : from wall receptacle maybe 50 feet back to mains box has less : than 0.2 ohms resistance.
That same wire would have something : like 120 ohms impedance. At what frequency, and what are the approx reactive components? See, this is the kind of non-information I'm talking about.
Lets say a tiny 100 amp transient : seeks earth ground via that 50 foot wire. Therefore a wall : receptacle - and adjacent electronics - will be at something : less than 12,000 volts. Time? Duration? Energy? What is the power in each component? Think about it.
Will that transient seek earth via : that safety ground wire? Of course not. It will also seek : other and destructive paths via adjacent electronics. No, ALL freqs/rise/falls will not seek the same path. Think about it. : : Wire length is but one reason why a wall receptacle safety : ground is not sufficient as earth ground. Also explains why : plug-in protectors are so ineffective. I don't recall anyone saying that was the case. Did they? : : Essential to minimizing wire impedance are wire length, no : sharp bends, My gosh, what are you doing, applying field theory and waveguides? This is exactly what makes your possibly well intentioned information so useless. I'm surprised you left out the skin effect and a few other nice nouns you could have dropped in there.
and other characteristics cited previously. Also : important is a concept cited by Bud-- : > Clamping all incoming wires to the same the same ground : > reference is the best way I know to protect electronics. ... Where did anyone claim it wasn't? The "best" wasn't the question; sufficient or acceptable were the words, IIRC.
: The quality of a service entrance protector is only as : effective as its earth ground which is why distance to that : earthing is so critical and why single point earthing is : essential. That means the 6 AWG wire does not go up over a : foundation and then down to an earth ground rod. That wire : goes through foundation somewhere just above the ground rod so : that wire distance is shorter with sharp bends eliminated.
Uhh, the sharp bends problem isn't for impedance or electrical considerations; it's physical properties related. Think about what you're saying.
: Also important is that earthing wire remain separated from : other non-earthing wires to avoid induced transients. I don't think that was any part of the subject; true but not directly relevant. : : Yes, lower resistance does help which is why high : reliability facilities such as electric substations expand : their earth ground to also lower resistance. It is also why : earthing should be planned when the footing are poured. : Equipotential being another aspect of superior earthing. Superior earthing: What's that go to do with anything? Completely irrelevant to the subject matter. : : Unfortunately we still don't build as if the transistor : exists. We still do earthing as an afterthought. Effective : earthing addresses concepts in excess of that performed by : conventional household earthing. Equipotential being a : concept of transistor protection that is not as essential to : human protection. If we built buildings for effective : transistor protection, then Ufer grounds would be routine; and : not some afterthought to supplement water pipe ground such as : ground rods. Even water pipe would enter a building adjacent : to all other utilities to contribute to transistor safety. More irrelevance; no point to the entire para. : : Even NEC requires all incoming electrical utilities be : earthed to a common point for human safety - a problem still : found even in some new homes. "Even NEC"?
... More attempts at double-speak and name dropping clipped. : : Again, to answer the original poster's question - water pipe : earthing alone is no longer sufficient to meet code. Upgrade : to accomplish more than just meet code. Transistor protection : is only as effective as a building's earth ground.
To take your bent for a moment, a "transistor" is defined as an e-b-c junction with physical leads attached. Semiconductor technology does indeed use the concept of transistors within chips et al for analogic discussion, but they are not transistors unless, like you, a person wished to take the word apart into its components, and work from there. It's also possible, still in your realm of fuzziness, to build a computer system with NO earth reference, but with controlled references, which will operate perfectly. I used to use such a system daily in my routine daily work for many years. And BTW, resistance IS a component of Impedance. If you wish to use the terms interchangeably, you need to add the words pure and reactance to your talk.
Don't be a blatherskite. : : Bud-- wrote: : > As I said protector blocks for cable and TV should be immediately : > adjacent to the panel so all wiring is clamped to the same ground : > reference. You don't explain how a ground rod would help in this : > instance. Adding a ground rod near the FAX is not going to provide : > a low impedance to keep the ground reference for the FAX the same : > as the incoming neutral. : > ... : > : > Incoming utilities listed have to have protector blocks near the power : > panel to get a common grounding reference. : > : > How does a 10 foot wire to a high resistance ground rod provide a lower : > ground impedance than a grounding electrode conductor and water pipe? : > This is cental to your arguments. Perhaps you could explain and also : > provide some citations that support your view. : > : > For a 500A service the conductor to a ground rod has to be #6. The : > conductor to a water pipe has to be 2/0 - 3.5 x the area. How come? : > Surges include high frequency components for which impedance is : > important. Grounding electrode conductor and water pipe has one : > function of limiting surges. : > : >> Another problem with using a cold water pipe as an earth : >> ground connection - code wants each utility to be earthed less : >> than 20 feet to the common point. : > : > Cite the code. : > ... : > : > Clamping all incoming wires to the same the same ground reference : > is the best way I know to protect electronics. That requires the : > protector blocks to be near the electrical panel. (More properly : > thay have to be near each other.) That is likely a lot more : > important than resistance or impedance to ground. If all wiring : > was clamped to the same reference with no ground connection could : > electronics see a difference. : > : > > Gfretwell has posted how homes are now being built so as to : > > provide superior transistor safety in pictures at: : > >
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
: > > : > This is a concrete encased electrode which I said is probably the second : > best electrode (after water pipes). It is one of 3 electrodes that must : > be included in a ground system, if present. (The other 2 are water pipe : > and building steel, which a home doesn't have.) Not included: ground rod. : > : > > Another also demonstrates better earthing. None of this : > > would be required if city water pipe was sufficient as earth : > > ground for transistor safety: : > > http://www.knology.net/~res0958z / : > > : > Most of us don't put 55 foot high lightning rods in our back yard. Not : > particualrly relevant. : > : > ------------- : > With regard to: Bud-- does not even quote code to justify his post. You : > do not understand why water pipes are required to have a SUPPLEMENTAL : > electrode and don't listen to people who do understand. Since arguing : > the code is pointles, I tried Physics - ground resistance. That doesn't : > seem to work either. : > : > bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mercy! I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, or what the point of some of the irrelevant URLs/comments might be, but ... either you need to step back and put your heard around this again, or seek further education and experience. You'll probably object to my post here, but it's so typical of many on this group lately that I just can't hold it in any longer. Those who have nothing to say, should say exactly that. Those who do have something to say, should be clear and concise about it. Rationalization and guessing have no place in the realm of safety.
: Water pipe makes a good low resistance ground. Human safety : demands a low resistance ground for reasons that include, for : example, neutral wire failure.
===> Water pipe does not make a "low resistance" ground. It makes a "ground", period. The word "low" must have a contextual reference to be meaningful and there is none there. Besides, it's not resistive; it also contains a reactive component, sometimes surprisingly large. : : Transistor safety uses grounding components for a different : purpose. ===> What is "transistor safety"? That makes no sense. You apparently mean protection, as in protecting semi-conductor devices from overvoltages. Further, you will find nearly no transistors used anywhere these days in current designs. Semiconductor, yes; transistor type semiconductors; pretty scarce these days.
... Transistor safety requires a low impedance ground. ===> No, it requires a stable reference w/r to the rest of the ckt.
: If connecting a bonding wire to a water pipe 50 feet away, the : house has a low resistance ground and a high impedance : ground. ===> Resistance or impedance? Are you using these interchangably? They are two entirely different things. Impedance would be the term you need here as the reactive components are substantial.
High impedance means ineffective transistor : protection. ===> Now you've switched from safety to protection. Which is it? What high impedance are you talking about?
Take this fax machine protection as an example: : http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html : : Unfortunately AC electric and phone service enter on two : sides of the house - bad construction practice. ===> Bad assumption: that's a schematic representation, not a bad construction practice, and the only thing you can discern from it is the marked distances indicated for wiring.
If 'pictured' : water pipe is a significantly lower impedance connection, then : a destructive transient will find the building's single point : earth ground via NID (surge protector) ===> NID is NOT a surge protector. NID is the Network Interface Device, and PART of it is surge suppression, NOT for any purpose other than protecting the demarcation point connections at a 600V clamping voltage. YOu've mis-assumed some things there.
and cold water pipe. : But in reality, cold water pipes are typically too long, too : many solder joints, too many sharp bends, etc. ===> Sharp BENDS matter to resistance/impedance? I don't THINK so! What are you worried about, the kinetic energy of the moving electrons going around a corner where centifugal force slows them down? I hope not! You don't understand conductivity, I'm afraid. You're just parroting and trying to justify something with rationalization. It doesn't work.
To connect to : a common point, an additional wire that is not shown.
All : increase impedance so much that a transient will also seek a : destructive path to earth via the fax machine. ===> A "transient" will NOT seek a "destructive" path to earth. It will seek the path of least resistance to current flow whether that consist of pure resistance (it doesn't) or either of the reactive elements. Another way to state it is, it will seek any potential lower than itself in magnitude. That includes ac characteristics, by the way.
Incoming on : phone line. Outgoing on AC electric wire. Fax machine : damaged because NID was not earthing via a low impedance earth : ground connection. ===> NO ELECTRONICS are protected, nor are they intended to be protected by, the telco surge suppression components, which are often arc-over devices or gas tubes or carbon stacks. : : This demonstrates but one example of how portable phone base : stations, fax machines, and modems are so easily damaged. ===> It does indeed, but it does so because there is no protection afforded to, nor intended to be afforded to, electronic equipment by the telco protectors. You've completely lost track of what a ground reference means in these contexts. Or, don't know what it means.
: Essential to transistor protection is a connection from each : incoming utility, either through a protector or by direct : hardwire, to a common earth ground connection. Single point : earthing most easily accomplished with a ground rod wired : short (ie. less than 10 feet) to AC electric box. For : transistor safety, all incoming utilities (telephone, cable : TV, satellite disk) must make a less than 10 foot connection : to this common earthing point. ===> It's obvious you've been reading, but ... you're not putting things together correctly. : ... : A most common source of transistor destructive transients to : things such as computer modems is incoming on AC electric. : Wires highest on poles - AC electric - are more often struck; : not lower cable and phone line. If that 'arrestor' does not : connect AC electric wire to earth ground, then a transient : (again in that picture) goes into fax machine (modem) on L : connection, then destructively out on phone wires to NID and : to earth ground. Above demonstrates why fax machines, modems, : and portable phone bases stations are so often damaged by AC : electric wire transients. ===> Wow, those are some huge assumptions and incorrect at that. That come nowhere close to explaining why fax machines etx. are so often damaged by electric wire transients. In reality, if you research for facts just a little bit, you'll find that most telephone appliances are damaged by transients because they have NO protection, or under rated protection. Lightning is NOT the overwhelming reason for damage to those components. Lightning is one of the least controllable damage elements in existance. You can only partially protect against small, almost tiny lightning hits. Most transients are generated from other sources, the majority of them being inductive loads, grid controlling elements in the ac plants, transformer problems, and even the loads and motors within a building itself.
I don't object to someone trying to help things out; I do object to obvious rationalizations and attempts to justify things to one's own "feelings" of how something should be. The world just isn't'' like that. : : Above is pre-WWII technology now made necessary in dwellings : due to something new - transistors. Transistor protection is : often little understood by some electricians who only : understand NEC requirements. ===> NEC requirements have NO, nada, zero, consideration for the protection of semiconductor devices and thus is of no concern to "some electricians". I do think though that you're on shaky ground by saying they have no understanding - many actually do.
NEC does not require transistor : protection. NEC is for human protection. Transistor : protection is defined by the most critical component in a : protection system: earth ground. ===> Oh, gosh, no. Earth ground has almost nothing to do with the actual protection. It's the RELATIVE electrical position of the references, whether it be a dc voltage, 0 volts, or even a high voltage, that matters. I can run a 3 Volt microprocessor on a 100V DC line if the other side of the line stays within 97 volts (or 103 as the case may be) of whichever is determined (chosen) to be the reference. Yes, 100V DC CAN be considered GROUND to a ckt and everything will work fine, including component protection against transients. Actually, you could look at some TV schematics to get an idea of how some of that works.
: : Gfretwell has posted how homes are now being built so as to : provide superior transistor safety in pictures at: :
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
: : Another also demonstrates better earthing. None of this : would be required if city water pipe was sufficient as earth : ground for transistor safety: : http://www.knology.net/~res0958z / ===> Noo, that's NOT the reason water pipes aren't allowed as ground any longer. Actually, transistors being as old as they are, they were quite well protected by cold water pipes and the same standard surge protection used by many people today. That changed when it was no longer allowable to use water pipes for a safety earth, and as I've tried to indicate, it is almost a moot point to anything. You will still find many thousands of homes with water pipe grounds, with modern electonic equipment that works very well and just as well as any other system you can imagine.
: : Above was earthing for secondary protection. Also necessary : is earthing for primary protection: : http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html ===> I don't think you have any idea what primary and secondary mean here, do you?
Enough soap boxing, I guess. I don't have anything else to say on the matter, so that is what I'm going to say.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The simple answer: Water pipe is no longer sufficient as a building's earth ground. Post 1990 code requires other earthing electrode selected from the list in paragraphs (A)(2) through (A)(7) so that building earthing is sufficient and minimally acceptable.
To reply to 'mixed within' inline replies: Yes, many homes have only water pipes for earthing. Eventually, all that will be corrected as we slowly upgrade to minimally acceptable ground standards. Many homes also have two prong wall receptacles. Is that acceptable today? Of course not. That also is slowly being corrected.
Meanwhile for both human safety and for something new to homes (transistor safety), water pipe earthing is no long sufficient. Homeowner is encouraged to upgrade building earthing for more than human safety reasons.
Transistor? Show me any IC that does not have transistors? Furthermore, transistors - discrete parts - are widely used in most every electronic device. I am responding here to something that Pop should have obviously known by looking at the PC board even on a disk drive. He also ignores unnecessary transistor damage from decades previous. A solution that begins with sufficient earthing.
No, I have not used resistance and impedance interchangeably. Mercy! Read what was posted carefully to appreciate specific references to each. Comprehending impedance is necessary appreciate electrical concepts in that fax machine example; why so much unnecessary transistor damage has occurred for so many decades.
NID contains protection that was once only an arc over device - gas discharge tube or GDT. Appreciate why earthing is essential for phone circuits - why GDTs work. If one thinks any protector blocks or absorbs destructive transients, then one never learned what effective protection does. NID does provide effective transistor protection - but only as good as its earth ground. Where does the human start to eliminate transistor damage? Earth ground as even demonstrated in that previous www.tvtower.com citation.
BTW your 600 volt number is an obsolete 1950s standard that was once 400 to 600 volts. Times and protectors have changed.
I make no assumptions or rationalizations having learned this stuff decades ago as an engineer and from experience. It is routine to protect from direct lightning strikes as even addressed by Bodle and Gresh in their Mar 1961 paper in the Bell System Technical Journal. And yes, they are discussing 'transistor' protection back then. Their paper even demonstrates why underground utility wires require properly earthed service entrance protection.
There was no rationalization. You are apparently having difficulty even with concepts of impedance verses resistance. Those who are not familiar also might post:

building protection system requires. Pop: Read highly regarded application notes from Polyphaser. Does Polyphaser discuss their product line? Of course not. Polyphaser discusses THE most critical component in protection - earth ground: http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_ptd_home.aspx
Many science papers dating back even to the 1930s define effective protection as based upon techniques pioneered by Ben Franklin in 1752. Was Franklin also rationalizing? Were GE and Westinghouse researchers rationalizing when their equipment atop the Empire State Building could suffer about 25 direct strikes annually without damage? What was posted is well proven science. But many today still remain in denial. In denial even about what the NEC now demands for earthing a building only for human safety.
Water pipe earth ground is no longer sufficient as a building's only earth ground. This also for so many reasons provided in previous posts. This proven by literally quoting NEC text. And yet still many will deny what the NEC itself demands. Water pipe earth ground is no longer sufficient to earth a building. Above is about transistor safety. Different from what the Original Poster asks and what NEC addresses with demands for supplemental earthing. A water pipe earth ground is no longer sufficient. Pop, looking forward to questions once you have learned from Polyphaser's app notes. Yes, those wires atop telephone poles are little different from radio station antenna. As the Polyphaser app notes will demonstrate, underground wires are also at risk. All three connect directly to transistors inside a building. Transistor protection is only as effective as its earth ground.
Pop wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That's a grand collection of misquotes and minsinformation and hooey references that are irrelevant to most anything here. Like I said before, I'm not inclined to continue to debate these OT side trips of useless misinformation. If you'd like to have a sensible, detailed debate, start a new thread where it belongs. People are beginning to complain about responses that have nothing to do with the OP's questions, and I have to agree it does make it hard to find a meaningful response if there is one.
: The simple answer: Water pipe is no longer sufficient as a : building's earth ground. Post 1990 code requires other : earthing electrode selected from the list in paragraphs : (A)(2) through (A)(7) so that building earthing is sufficient : and minimally acceptable. : : To reply to 'mixed within' inline replies: Yes, many homes : have only water pipes for earthing. Eventually, all that will : be corrected as we slowly upgrade to minimally acceptable : ground standards. Many homes also have two prong wall : receptacles. Is that acceptable today? Of course not. That : also is slowly being corrected. : : Meanwhile for both human safety and for something new to : homes (transistor safety), water pipe earthing is no long : sufficient. Homeowner is encouraged to upgrade building : earthing for more than human safety reasons. : : Transistor? Show me any IC that does not have transistors? : Furthermore, transistors - discrete parts - are widely used in : most every electronic device. I am responding here to : something that Pop should have obviously known by looking at : the PC board even on a disk drive. He also ignores : unnecessary transistor damage from decades previous. A : solution that begins with sufficient earthing. : : No, I have not used resistance and impedance : interchangeably. Mercy! Read what was posted carefully to : appreciate specific references to each. Comprehending : impedance is necessary appreciate electrical concepts in that : fax machine example; why so much unnecessary transistor damage : has occurred for so many decades. : : NID contains protection that was once only an arc over : device - gas discharge tube or GDT. Appreciate why earthing : is essential for phone circuits - why GDTs work. If one : thinks any protector blocks or absorbs destructive transients, : then one never learned what effective protection does. NID : does provide effective transistor protection - but only as : good as its earth ground. Where does the human start to : eliminate transistor damage? Earth ground as even : demonstrated in that previous www.tvtower.com citation. : : BTW your 600 volt number is an obsolete 1950s standard that : was once 400 to 600 volts. Times and protectors have changed. : : I make no assumptions or rationalizations having learned : this stuff decades ago as an engineer and from experience. It : is routine to protect from direct lightning strikes as even : addressed by Bodle and Gresh in their Mar 1961 paper in the : Bell System Technical Journal. And yes, they are discussing : 'transistor' protection back then. Their paper even : demonstrates why underground utility wires require properly : earthed service entrance protection. : : There was no rationalization. You are apparently having : difficulty even with concepts of impedance verses resistance. : Those who are not familiar also might post: : > Oh, gosh, no. Earth ground has almost nothing to do with : > the actual protection. : Earthing is THE one essential component that literally every : building protection system requires. Pop: Read highly : regarded application notes from Polyphaser. Does Polyphaser : discuss their product line? Of course not. Polyphaser : discusses THE most critical component in protection - earth : ground: : http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_ptd_home.aspx : : Many science papers dating back even to the 1930s define : effective protection as based upon techniques pioneered by Ben : Franklin in 1752. Was Franklin also rationalizing? Were GE : and Westinghouse researchers rationalizing when their : equipment atop the Empire State Building could suffer about 25 : direct strikes annually without damage? What was posted is : well proven science. But many today still remain in denial. : In denial even about what the NEC now demands for earthing a : building only for human safety. : : Water pipe earth ground is no longer sufficient as a : building's only earth ground. This also for so many reasons : provided in previous posts. This proven by literally quoting : NEC text. And yet still many will deny what the NEC itself : demands. Water pipe earth ground is no longer sufficient to : earth a building. : : Above is about transistor safety. Different from what the : Original Poster asks and what NEC addresses with demands for : supplemental earthing. A water pipe earth ground is no longer : sufficient. Pop, looking forward to questions once you have : learned from Polyphaser's app notes. Yes, those wires atop : telephone poles are little different from radio station : antenna. As the Polyphaser app notes will demonstrate, : underground wires are also at risk. All three connect : directly to transistors inside a building. Transistor : protection is only as effective as its earth ground. : : Pop wrote: : > Mercy! I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, or : > what the point of some of the irrelevant URLs/comments might be, : > but ... either you need to step back and put your heard around : > this again, or seek further education and experience. : > You'll probably object to my post here, but it's so typical of : > many on this group lately that I just can't hold it in any : > longer. Those who have nothing to say, should say exactly that. : > Those who do have something to say, should be clear and concise : > about it. Rationalization and guessing have no place in the : > realm of safety.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hey Pop. You remember what transistors are? They are things you said are not inside electronics today. Transistors - those things found inside integrated circuits no longer exist? That is my point. You argue without a technical grasp of reality - including a claim that transistors are no longer used. The code is quite specific. That water pipe earth ground is not longer sufficient to earth a building.
The only misinformation is the 'missing information' posted by Pop. He does not comprehend quoted that he then insults. One day Pop will make a claim supported by facts and numbers. Not today. He still insists there are no transistor inside integrated circuits.
Pop wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.