That's what R56 is. RUS has their own for telco CO's On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:25 PM David Milholen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 10-4 > > Now were gettin there. > > There has to be a standard or set of standards to follow so that the rest > will follow. > > > > On 8/16/2017 10:01 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote: > > Your last line is why PIM testing and prevention is such a fast growing > business. We have standards to meet and are held accountable at SCADA > sites. We have inspectors check everything and final payment can be held > up until everything passes. Always try to do it right first time...pays > off in the future... > > Jaime Solorza > > On Aug 16, 2017 5:59 PM, "David Milholen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > These are all good answers but there is more. >> >> Definitely points to be made on other geographic areas and soil content. >> >> I do not believe for one second there isnt a tower that will NOT get >> struck. >> >> Thing about the energy that strikes is to channel that energy or disperse >> it somewhere it >> >> dissolves. >> >> I have 3 sites that are all on mt tops and all are on the last run for >> power. Not good combos for any tower. >> >> As far as just giving up on a site because you lost a few $$ in gear and >> saying there is nothing that can be done is the point to be made here >> >> how far would you go before condemning a Site unfit for service? >> >> I have been put into position for our company to "FIX IT" per say. So, >> for all practical purposes there is more than one site I have definitely >> wanted >> >> to throw in the towel. For some reason for me there is a fix or an answer >> for the fix. >> >> I always look to R56 for the standard of grounding and protection and as >> tech changes so does the protection standards. >> >> Now that I have taken that stance a majority of my issues for >> sustainability and reliability have practically diminished. I also follow >> the lead of other >> >> telcos that we share the same tower and what they are doing for grounding >> and prevention. >> >> This only one phase of how for I would go. Field testing and using the >> right tools and starting with the basics is just a small part of finding >> the problem. >> >> The very first and most important to me is looking at power coming into >> the facility the source. The second is the tower itself. Metal fatigue and >> rust can cause >> >> some weirdo issues on a tower. >> >> Contractors need to understand the importance of any project that >> requires grounds and the standards that we want on those methods of >> grounding. >> >> I have seen poor irreversible crimp jobs on ground rings and cable tray >> grounds. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8/16/2017 12:44 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: >> >> Nice. Sounds like a PANI type of system. >> >> *From:* Paul Stewart >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 10:10 AM >> *To:* Animal Farm >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] how far and much >> >> Great questions … and something I should have elaborated on for sure… >> >> Yes - each portion of the tower had it’s own isolated grounds besides the >> tower itself. These went into a grounding grid built around the base of >> the site. The guy wires were of course all grounded out into their own >> grids as well. >> >> The top of the tower was grounded and the bottom portion of the tower was >> grounded - both on separate isolated runs. >> >> The point of entry including the raceway to hold the cables were grounded >> - the cabling (Heliax, LMR, and ethernet) all had grounded surge >> suppression in that section on the building exterior. On the building >> interior, there was an exact replication of the outside (everything surge >> surpressed and grounded away from building itself). >> >> The building itself was elevated on concrete posts and two grounds for >> the building itself were tied to the grid as I recall. The concrete was >> made from a special mixture - wish I could remember the name of this stuff >> but it’s supposed to provide for additional protection going out to the >> grounding grids around the building… >> >> Each raceway, and portion of the lineups were tied into an interior >> grounding block which was then ran outside. >> >> This is all by memory …. It was literally at $2mil site with equipment >> and tower. There was a company brought in for the engineering aspects and >> another company specific to the grounding portions. >> >> Thanks, >> Paul >> >> >> >> On Aug 16, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> So, was the tower mounted equipment isolated with its own ground wire? >> Curious about the improper isolation at the entry point. >> What was the proper way and what did the improper installation do to >> violate that? >> >> *From:* Paul Stewart >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 8:05 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] how far and much >> >> I’ve only ever encountered one tower (at former job) that was pretty >> “bulletproof” … >> >> The tower was 350ft and located on the highest elevation for about 100 >> square KM area … so it was a prime target for lightning strikes. I don’t >> know exactly how many times a year it took a hit but would guess at 8-10 >> times per year it would have a direct hit. There was only one time where >> any damage occurred and it was because of some shoddy updates by a 3rd >> party contractor whom didn’t do proper isolation at an entry point >> (effectively bypassing some layers of protection). >> >> That site had a full cellular deployment along with several PTP600’s for >> backhaul and PMP320/PMP100 - with the cellular being at the very top and >> the Cambium gear further down. >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> On Aug 16, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Eric Muehleisen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> No such thing as a bullet proof tower. At least not in my area. All the >> over-engineering in the world can't stop a direct strike. Some days you get >> lucky, some days not. It's a roll of the dice. >> >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:29 AM, David Milholen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I am asking for pure simple curiosity. >>> How far would you go and how much would you spend to have a bullet proof >>> Tower site? >>> I am looking for answers in small class tower to super duty types or >>> leases. >>> What I mean by bullet proof is How many time a year are you replacing >>> gear due to weather complications >>> or how many times are you going to back to the site to reboot something >>> . How many times are you remoting into a >>> site to adj power or channels to avoid interference. How many times are >>> you having to make adjustments to ethernet ports. >>> All these tasks add up in time. >>> Our team this year has only had to visit 2 sites unexpectedly due to >>> weather and take the next step in making it bullet proof. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> <Davidmvcf.jpg> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> > > -- >
