Re: why ground an alarm panel.

[G. Morgan <alarmprosnail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:52:06 -0500, w_tom <w_tom1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  What is legally required verses what is technically superior
>or recommended are two different things.

Absolutely.  In this case the two are the same.  In my opinion,  NOT
grounding a panel is "technically superior",  it's also not required
by law.

>It is also not
>required to brake long before the red traffic light.  Does
>that mean you routinely race up to every red light, then apply
>brakes at the last minute?  Its not illegal to do so.  But
>better drivers brake long before they are "required" to brake.

That saves the brake system wear and tear, yes, grounding a burg.
panel actually detracts from the system's performance and longevity.
I've seen way more blown-up panels that were "grounded" than not.




>  No required building code demands lightning protection.  UL,
>NEC, etc all make no consideration for transistor safety.
>Those codes only address human safety issues.  An earthing
>connection, as described by Robert Bass, is for transistor
>safety. Something installed beyond what is required.  We still
>build homes as if the transistor did not exist; still have no
>codes for transistor safety.

What RLB described works great on paper and in theory, however,
actually putting that scenario into practice is not feasable in 99% of
installations.


>
>
>  Meanwhile, cold water pipe is no longer acceptable for
>grounding.  That is a post 1990 code change.  Furthermore, it
>would not make a good earthing connection for other electrical
>reasons.

Cold water pipe grounds were a stupid idea in the first place.   I've
never attempted that.  I once saw an installation where some idiot
grounded a system to a natural gas pipe!


>  AC electric receptacle provides a safety ground; but is not
>an earth ground.

True.

> This for electrical reasons such as wire
>impedance and what that safety ground wire is bundled with.

Huh?