Re: Acceptable Lightning Ground?
- From: Owen Duffy <none@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:35:54 GMT
Jim Lux <james.p.lux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:euuda4$6sv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
....
As a practical matter, a properly constructed Ufer ground is probably
lower impedance and more reliable than rods, wires, and pipes.
In this part of the world (Australia) an LV transformer usually serves
many more premises (commonly 50 to 100), and the neutral wire (centre of
the 3 phase 240/415 wye) is bonded to the premises earth electrode at
each main switchboard (known as Multiple Earth Neutral or MEN), so
premises earth systems are effectively paralleled using the neutral wire.
The transformer neutral is connected to an earth electrode at the
substation. The regulatory requirement for a MEN premises ground
electrode here is just a 1.2m copper clad driven electrode, with no real
performance requirement. Of course the earth system must be equipotential
bonded to the metallic water service, and plumbers are at risk when they
open up a metallic water pipe (they are supposed to jumper the gap to
prevent electric shock).
This approach is probably less suited to 110VAC distribution.
Owen
.
- References:
- Re: Acceptable Lightning Ground?
- From: Thomas Horne
- Re: Acceptable Lightning Ground?
- From: Roger
- Re: Acceptable Lightning Ground?
- From: Thomas Horne
- Re: Acceptable Lightning Ground?
- From: Jim Lux
- Re: Acceptable Lightning Ground?
- Prev by Date: Re: Revisiting the Power Explanation
- Next by Date: Non technical antenna question
- Previous by thread: Re: Acceptable Lightning Ground?
- Next by thread: Re: Acceptable Lightning Ground?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
