Redmond
Well-Known Member
To improve SSB transmissions I am thinking of linking up 2 or more ground plates, does anyone have any view on the elctrolysis effects of this
Ground plates
- Thread starter Redmond
- Start date
steve_cronin
N/A
Since they are made of sinterted copper there isn't any more effect than you already get from your antifouling paint.
Steve Cronin
Steve Cronin
Swagman
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Since they are made of sinterted copper there isn't any more effect than you already get from your antifouling paint.
Steve Cronin
[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Steve,
We're interested as considering installation of a SSB. Our yahct already has a small grounding plate (maybe 8 inch oval) and also has cuprocoat antifouling.
I had assumed I'd need to increase the size of the ground plate - are you suggesting this is not neccessary?
Advice much appreciated.
JOHN
Since they are made of sinterted copper there isn't any more effect than you already get from your antifouling paint.
Steve Cronin
[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Steve,
We're interested as considering installation of a SSB. Our yahct already has a small grounding plate (maybe 8 inch oval) and also has cuprocoat antifouling.
I had assumed I'd need to increase the size of the ground plate - are you suggesting this is not neccessary?
Advice much appreciated.
JOHN
steve_cronin
N/A
No. The sintered BRONZE plates of around 4" by 6" have a total exposed area of around 0.5 sq m. They are a sort of honeycomb you see. Ours is slightly smaller than this and the SSB and Navtex reception is vastly improved. It also works as the ground for the inverter. It shouldn't be used as a grounding for a lightening protection system for although it has a large "effective" surface area which is what is required for a good Rf or mains earth, it just isn't spread out or robust enough to handle the enormous current in lightening.
Steve Cronin
Steve Cronin
William_H
Well-Known Member
hello Steve. i appreciate the described grounding plate may not be robust enough for lightning protection ie grounding the mast but I suspect it would be better than nothing. What do you think? olewill
steve_cronin
N/A
"Better than nothing" ? Well maybe just but it is more likely to pre-determine which part of your hull gets the hole burned in it as the charge rushes to earth.
Recent research in the states has shown that to be "significantly safe" we need to sail around with a metal umbrella frame secured at the top of the mast and the outer ends of the ribs connected to earth individually. Hardly practical but to dissipate the secondary continuing energy - the bit which does the damage after the initial strike several solid 1sq ft ground plates would be necessary., This would mean lots of holes in the hull for mounting screws, lots of heavy cabling and an acceleration in the errosion of your anodes.
Steve Cronin
Recent research in the states has shown that to be "significantly safe" we need to sail around with a metal umbrella frame secured at the top of the mast and the outer ends of the ribs connected to earth individually. Hardly practical but to dissipate the secondary continuing energy - the bit which does the damage after the initial strike several solid 1sq ft ground plates would be necessary., This would mean lots of holes in the hull for mounting screws, lots of heavy cabling and an acceleration in the errosion of your anodes.
Steve Cronin
William_H
Well-Known Member
Thanks Steve I will just stay away friom Lightning then....olewill (hoping to get older)
