TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes

Supplemental Grounding Electrodes

Ten years ago I happened to discover a potential of 0.25 VAC between
the grounding electrode under my electrical entrance and the one under
my telephone entrance. To protect my computer from lightning, I
bonded them with twenty feet of wire. It paid off in 1998 when
lightning struck a tree thirty feet from my electrical entrance. I
was online and suffered no damage.

A telco man restored service by replacing a fuse on the utility pole.
When I asked the company's policy on bonding, he beat around the bush
twenty minutes before saying the electrical code required it but the
telco didn't like it because they would have to replace more fuses.

Neighbors went online five years ago. Each time they've lost a modem
or surge protector, they have asked me for an explanation and I've
told them ground surges will keep getting them until they clamp a wire
between their phone and power electrodes. They have always ignored my
advice.

I was online Monday during a quiet rain when lightning hit my chimney,
blowing masonry and shingles sixty feet in all directions. My screen
froze with a weird tint, but things were fine when I restarted.

My neighbors weren't so lucky. Their phone electrode is 40 yards from
my chimney. Their power electrode is 10 yards farther. They lost a
modem, a satellite dish, and two telephones. Instead of demanding
that I explain it again, they asked the telco to send a rep. He told
them their ground is fine. My neighbors are pleased because this
proves I have always been wrong.

Article 250.54 of the NEC says local supplemental grounding electrodes
(such as the one for phone service) must be bonded to the primary
electrode. Where does the NEC apply? According to what the telco man
admitted seven years ago, I assume our county code says the same thing.

Is this a recent addition to the NEC? How is a citizen supposed to find
out local code requirements? How is a citizen supposed to know his
electrodes are not bonded or that it's necessary? If the telco assures
a customer that there is nothing wrong with grounding which in fact is a
code violation, does the telco have any liability?

Post Followup Article	Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Lisa Minter: "AT&T Shareholders OK Acquistion by SBC"
Go to Previous message: Xxjessi77xx@aol.com: "Question About Annoying Phone Calls - Please, any Info"
Next in thread: Tony P.: "Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes"
May be reply: Tony P.: "Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes"
May be reply: Paul Coxwell: "Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes"
May be reply: John Hines: "Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes"
May be reply: Bob Vaughan: "Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes"
May be reply: Don_Shoemaker@HotMail.com: "Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes"
May be reply: John Hines: "Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes"
May be reply: Neal McLain: "Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes"
May be reply: Joe Morris: "Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes"
May be reply: Paul Coxwell: "Re: Supplemental Grounding Electrodes"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page